An editorial in the Toronto Globe & Mail on July 3rd captured the root cause of the immigration crisis on our southern border and what to do about it. It was brought to light by the words of Nayib Bukele, the President of El Salvador, one of the three Central American countries from which the immigrants are fleeing.
Earlier in the week, President Bukele was asked about the reason for the tragedy.
“People don’t flee their homes because they want to,” he said in English. “People flee their homes because they feel they have to. Why? Because they don’t have a job, because they are being threatened by gangs, because they don’t have basic things like water, education, health.
"We can spit blame to any other country but what about our blame? I mean, what country did they flee? Did they flee the United States? They fled El Salvador. They fled our country. It is our fault.”
And also: “If people have an opportunity of a decent job, a decent education, a decent health-care system and security, I know forced migration will be reduced to zero.”
That’s the issue, in a nutshell. Problem and solution.
If President Donald Trump was serious about fixing the crisis on his country’s southern border, instead of playing it for political advantage, he’d be listening to Mr. Bukele.
The people of El Salvador are hardly to blame for what has happened to their homeland. The Central American country and neighbouring Honduras and Guatemala are corrupt, economically depressed and violent. In 2016, El Salvador had the world’s highest murder rate. Honduras was second. It’s why so many feel they have no choice but to leave.
The flow of migrants entering the United States in May was roughly three times as high as it was during the Obama administration. The surge is driven by people from the so-called Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. As Mr. Bukele correctly described it, misery spurs migration.
But El Salvador is not doomed to forever be a land of misery. Consider that nearby Costa Rica has long been peaceful, democratic and relatively prosperous. And Panama, a dictatorship just a generation ago, has made big strides and is now level with Costa Rica. The United Nations Human Development Index ranks both countries ahead of Brazil, Mexico, China and nearly all of Latin America and the Caribbean. El Salvador is far behind. But change is always possible.
In 2018, Mr. Trump famously said he wanted fewer immigrants from “shithole countries.” To put it in words Mr. Trump can understand, the way to stop people from fleeing crappy countries is to make them less, you know, crappy.
Mr. Bukele, the son of Palestinian immigrants, has a dream of turning El Salvador into a place that draws investment and people, rather than chasing them away. It’s part of the reason why he said what he said about his country’s responsibility for migration. He wants and needs Washington’s help.
If the United States were serious about stemming the flow of migrants, it would be crafting a Marshall Plan for Central America. It would be helping the Northern Triangle achieve better government and more development and investment.
Instead, Mr. Trump earlier this year announced that, as punishment for sending so many migrants, he would cut aid to the Northern Triangle. His administration quietly backed away from the pledge, but the message has been sent. Enlightened self-interest is not on this President’s menu, the Editorial concluded--and I agree.
Thinking what a "Marshall Plan for Central America" might require in terms of resources, I examined how much aid El Salvador is getting today from the United States compared to other countries. It is some, but far less than other countries and far less than the solution to the immigrant challenge appears to call for and justify.
For perspective, annual aid to El Salvador is a little more than $100 million per year. The aid to Honduras and Guatamala is in the same range. That compares to aid of almost $6 billion to Afghanistan and almost $4 billion to Iraq and over $3 billion to Israel. It is less than a third of the aid for Egypt, half of the aid for Mali, and a seventh of that for Nigeria.
Obviously a successful "Marshall Plan" requires more than U.S. money; it requires commitment, investment and strategic planning anchored in the host countries. And it will require patience and collaboration. But there is no doubt that dealing with the root cause of the immigration challenge does not rest with walls, or more guards. It deals with improving conditions in other countries and overhauling our own immigration policy which has been far too long deferred by political gridlock.
No comments:
Post a Comment