[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ast month was one of big contrasts for all nations throughout the New World. The awarding of the 2026 World Cup to the US, Canada and Mexico was not only celebrated by its host nations, but throughout the Caribbean and the Americas.
The hosting of the World Cup was awarded after a personal assurance by US President Donald Trump that he would not block visas to visitors in 2026. The US celebrated this victory, and the good will that follows it. Then the most harrowing immigration scandal of recent times broke out in the US, and much of the goodwill generated by the Cup award was undone.
The scandal arose after outcry at US policy that separated suspected illegal adult immigrants from their children when detained on US soil. Criticism was so pronounced and widespread that even First Lady Melania Trump—herself an immigrant and occupying a role usually seen as apolitical—said she “hates to see children separated” and that the US should “govern with heart”.
The Trump Administration has since revised the policy, and children won’t be separated in future (although reuniting those previously separated from parents won’t happen immediately). Though the White House would now wish to put this behind it, the matter has renewed attention on Trump’s immigration policy, and especially as it relates to security and humanity in Latin America.
THE GLOBAL IMMIGRATION DEBATE
It’s commonly said that a week is a long time in politics. So it can be no surprise that the world looks very different in 2018 than it did in 2008 or earlier. Yet compared to just five years ago, the world has been truly up-ended. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the revisionist Xi has ascended in China, the UK wants out of Europe, and President Donald Trump is often seen not as the leader of the free world, but as a mix of warmonger and disinterested bystander globally. Events are individual but trends are collective, and two are central to these global events. The return of assertive undemocratic power in the East, and the fatigue among western nations tasked to do the work required to maintain the post-war liberal order.
The democratic tradition of readily giving shelter to refugees in need is being tested like never before. Anti-immigration sentiment was a key element in the Trump election, the Brexit vote, and recent German election. Whether one agrees with this sentiment or not, it’s been a key part of many significant global elections.
The pro-immigration argument is compelling but also relatively straightforward. Advocates say a compassionate society has a duty to welcome others in need and, even if it strains resources, there is always ‘enough food to go around the dinner table’. The anti-immigration argument is more complex. It typically cites security risks, population growth and jobs, and foreign relations.
Trump’s brand of foreign policy Trump has declared immigration a national security issue, that immigrants take jobs from Americans, and that ‘closing the borders’ sends a message to everyone that America is strong. Security and immigration have a complex relationship, especially in an era of global terrorism.
Yet when it comes to immigrants’ impact on a national economy, the data has long been clear. As opposed to diminishing economic growth, immigrants boost it. Yes, there are qualifiers here—whether the immigrants are skilled professionals and where they resettle can impact—but overall, a US president intent on growing an economy shouldn’t decry immigration, he should champion it. Were he to do so, he’d find in the Caribbean many leaders ready to partner with him on our key challenge.
In March up to 3,000 Venezuelans a day were seeking to cross the border into Colombia, joining over 250,000 held to have done so since August 2017. Colombia’s recent dispatch of troops to the border mirrors the presence of the United States Border Patrol along the Mexican border. An active force seeking to keep back anyone who would attempt passage for any reason. Then there’s been the flare-up in Trinidad and Tobago with the UN accusing the nation of forcibly deporting 82 asylum-seekers.
For Trump and the US this distinction is vital. The White House can restrict immigrants who seek jobs or a greater lifestyle in the US. Yet asylum-seekers fleeing due to political reasons that give them a “credible fear” for their life, have a much lower bar of entry. So much so that out of 8,757 Venezuelans who applied as immigrants between 2006 and 2015, 77% were approved. Trump’s efforts to decrease immigration and close the border will be undone if he continues on his way with Latin America.
REGIONAL RELATIONS
The Caribbean and Latin America have long felt that Washington doesn’t give it enough attention. Especially in the post-Cold War era, when relationships have shifted from ones of security challenges to those of economic growth. True, greater understanding from both sides would be beneficial, as Washington may be local but its size demands diplomatic pursuits that are truly global.
Yet, even with this understanding, Trump’s era has brought relations to a new low. Alongside his bruising campaign and inflammatory rhetoric that reminds many in the Caribbean family of the combustible days of the Cold War, his ‘no-show’ at regional summits and (alleged) scandalous description of some regional nations as “shithole” countries have raised the ire of many locals.
Leaders may find it unpalatable to work with such a figure but ultimately there can be common ground found here. If Trump’s White House is motivated by border security at home to help address the crisis in Venezuela, that can be seen as a win-win that meets the present US foreign policy goals and sets out the path for Venezuelans to one day return home again.
STRONG PARTNERSHIPS, STRONG BORDERS
If Latin American leadership is unable to win Trump’s attention to the region at present, it may find its greatest success in engaging with its future leaders right now. Those who say ‘wait him out’ and that there’s no way Trump will win in 2020 forget that the same was said about his win in 2016.
Trump is theoretically a one-man band but in practice his role as US chief diplomat is pursued with many other figures. Florida senator Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban emigrants to America—is considered a key architect in the Trump Administration’s Cuba and Venezuela policy and a potential future presidential candidate. One who joins fellow Republican, the son of a Cuban emigrant, and potential presidential candidate Ted Cruz, in a Congress more active than ever in the formulation of US policy domestically and globally, given the unprecedented behaviour of the White House.
It is in Latin America’s interest to do so, and in the United States’ interest to do so. Both sides can rely on their self-interest right to drive momentum. Recognising, too, that the failure to build a strong working relationship here will only strain both in the future.
