Thousands of Central American migrants have been massed at the United States-Mexico border for over a month now. More are on the way in a caravan numbering another several thousand.
The migrants claim they are fleeing poverty, government corruption, gang violence, and crime.
President Trump has said that many of the migrants are criminals, drug dealers, and other dangerous people that should not be allowed into the US. This is part of Trump’s recent claim that there is a “crisis” at the border.
But is there? The numbers say that apprehensions for illegal entry into the US via the southern border peaked at 1.6 million in 2000, then began a steady decline, so that by 2018 total illegal entry apprehensions at the southern border were under 400,000.
The trend is clear. Less and less people are illegally entering the United States than ever before. So get your facts straight Mr. President.
Alas, as we all know by now, Donald Trump is running a fact-free presidency.
The question we must really ask is, should America admit a few thousand Central American migrants fleeing difficult circumstances, or should we only admit recognized refugees fleeing war and political persecution?
This is where it gets interesting. The United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) explicitly states that all human beings have a right to work, to adequate health care, to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and housing, to education, including primary, secondary and higher education, and to participation in cultural life.
The ICESCR was a bold and progressive undertaking adopted by the United Nations in 1966. Because of its radical nature, only 169 of roughly 200 nation states ratified it. But the more important point is, among those who did indeed ratify the covenant, very few have actually lived up to its ideals.
This includes not only poor countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar, but also wealthy countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Simply put, most nations are failing their peoples when it comes to providing economic, social and cultural rights.
Back to the Central American migrants. It’s clear they have a legitimate case for entry into the United States. This is based on the fact that their home governments, primarily Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, have failed to adequately provide them with their guaranteed rights under the United Nations’ ICESCR.
But this raises an interesting dilemma. Because if the US admits 5,000 or 10,000 migrants from Central America, who’s to say we shouldn’t then admit 50,000 migrants from Mozambique, where most citizens are direly poor and where the government is extremely corrupt?
Or what about people from poor nations such as Bolivia, Bangladesh, or Bhutan? What about from anywhere where people are poor, or where governments are corrupt, or where crime is out of control?
It’s a thorny question. Obviously the US cannot become the haven of all the world’s downtrodden people. But in my opinion we can certainly do more. Admitting 5,000 or 10,000 Central American migrants will make virtually zero impact on the cultural, economic and social fabric of the United States, a country of 325 million people.
At the same time, there are roughly 40 million people in Central America, stretching from the southern tip of Mexico to the northern border of Colombia. Should we admit them all?
And what precedent does it set if we admit all the migrants now? Are we sending a message to anyone and everyone in a poor country that the US welcomes you, no questions asked?
Personally, I think that would be a great thing, and it would be a humane, socially just policy to adopt.
But practically, I just don’t think we can take everyone in. The earth has a population of 7.5 billion. 5.8 billion of those people live in the developing world.
By contrast, the US population is 325 million. Do we really want to take in another, what, billion people, and fundamentally alter the nature of our Republic?
I say let’s do the right thing and admit the current Central American migrants. It’s the humane, just, and righteous thing to do.
Then let’s have an international conference under UN auspices to create a new framework for how to handle migrant and refugee flows.
The UN has actually been working on this issue for decades. But now that it’s hit America head on at its southern border, maybe there will finally be the attention and political will needed to solve the problem once and for all.
In the meantime, let’s at least stop separating children from their parents at the border.
Because regardless of UN covenants, family separation is a fundamental human rights issue.
And Lord knows, the US doesn’t need to be on the wrong side of another human rights issue.
