Policy Proposal: The US-Mexico Border Crisis
Introduction
The Trump administration has introduced numerous changes with regard to policy and law in many areas. Immigration policy is one area that has experienced serious changes in terms of ideology and implementation. Since Trump assumed office, his administration has introduced new regulations in a bid to limit the number of immigrants from Mexico and Central America entering the United States. These regulations have led to the supposed harsh treatment of immigrants and those seeking asylum at the southern border. Specifically, a Supreme Court ruling in 2019 exacerbated this problem as it would enforce even harsher measures to reduce immigrant numbers in the United States. While this move serves to fulfill Trump’s promise to his voters, it has created a serious humanitarian crisis that has polarized the political climate of the country, while subjecting many people into inhumane conditions. For instance, the detention camps at the border have been reported to be overcrowded and unhygienic, making the living conditions of migrants inhumanely dangerous. Also, immigrants have been forced to resort to dangerous and life-threatening alternatives as they try to gain entrance into the United States. This crisis has fueled the pre-existing political divide, with leaders becoming more polarized on the issue. Domestically, this crisis has caused public unrest, with celebrities, public figures, lawmakers, and even ordinary Americans joining protests against the new laws. From a political psychology point of view, this crisis could lead to a political catastrophe in the United States, both locally and internationally, if it’s not resolved quickly. In the wake of this crisis, there is a need for intervention and introduction of an approach that protects the political future of the country, while providing a lasting solution to the crisis. This paper explores various aspects of the crisis using political psychology theory, course readings, and external sources to identify the factors and causes of the various issues involved in this case. Thereafter, the author will present policy recommendations that will help to resolve the specific issues in the crisis.
Background and History of Events
The origins of the current political crisis can be traced when the United States declared a crisis at the border as a result of a large number of women and unaccompanied children who began making their way through unguarded entry points and border checkpoints, especially in the Texas region. From this perspective, the crisis has somewhat eased as a result of judicial and judicial changes that are focused on discouraging migrants seeking asylum. However, this has created bigger problems for the United States government because of the humanitarian crisis that has risen, mostly influenced by the new policies and laws.
Historically, the United States’ southern border has been a longtime point of crossing for migrants from Mexico, or from other countries via Mexico. Border crossing and asylum-seeking have, for a long time, existed as an issue associated with Mexican immigrants. However, the years between 2000 and 2016 saw a huge drop in the number of illegal immigrants. During this period, most of the immigrants came from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. It is important to note that these countries are all characterized by violence and civil distress that have proved hard to control for many years. Ironically, the United States, in many ways, played a major role in the creation of these climates of violence and socio-political crises, after their foreign policy investing in brutal regimes failed to succeed during the Cold War.
According to reports by the Southern Border Communities Coalition, between May 2018 and January 2020, at least fourteen people lost their lives while in the custody of the United States Customs and Border Protection. Numerous media outlets have covered the humanitarian issues at the border, highlighting the plight of immigrants being held in detention camps on the U.S. side of the border. There was consistency in the reporting, where it was made clear that there was serious overcrowding, poor hygiene conditions, and lack of healthcare and medical facilities. Besides, it has been since revealed that the detained migrants are not given enough to eat, with food shortage remaining an unresolved problem.
In January 2019, the Trump administration announced the implementation of Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in California, which were expanded to accommodate Texas as well later in March. The initiative has since come to be known as the “Remain in Mexico” program and has been extended to cover the entire border. Instead of being allowed into the U.S. as they await the determination of their application, those seeking asylum are sent to the Mexico side of the border. A recent study estimates that over 42,000 asylum seekers are being held in various Mexican cities along the border as they await their trials. However, reports indicate that most of these people have been sent back to the Mexico-Guatemala border, south of Mexico. This move by Mexico to move the asylum seekers further back is ongoing, even though there is no plan that has been put in place to ensure their cases are heard by the relevant authorities in the United States.
The increased pressure on asylum seekers from both Mexico and the United States has caused the number of migrants to decline significantly (Aljazeera, 2019). For instance, the enforcement of control measures includes metering the number of people crossing through each border city. A good example of the enforcement of this measure is Tijuana asylum seekers, who are about 10,000 in number, but only 34 are allowed to cross each day. This means that the waiting list of asylum seekers is almost ten months (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). These measures have succeeded in reducing the number of people being held in detention camps and other facilities along the border. However, it is important to note that they have failed to address the underlying issues that force people to leave their countries in the first place (Aljazeera, 2019).
Human rights activists and politicians in America and beyond have criticized and expressed their opposition against the “Remain in Mexico” program. These parties have cited extreme violence in border towns and cities and other safety issues that asylum seekers face, including rape and kidnapping, as the primary reasons why the United States is the best place for refugees who are awaiting determination of cases. Those opposed to the program have also noted that it is very difficult to find a competent attorney outside the United States. This is supported by a recent study that revealed only 1.3 percent of asylum seekers in MPP were able to get a lawyer (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020).
The ruling by the Supreme court in September 2019 stated that anyone seeking asylum in the United States after 16th July would be rejected if they had tried to seek asylum in another country they had passed through before arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. As mentioned earlier in this paper, most asylum seekers from Central America. However, this ruling was going to affect migrants from Venezuela, Africa, India, and Cuba, whose journey to the United States might take theme through several other countries. That said, migrants whose asylum applications in other countries had been rejected, those that go through countries with no support for universal human rights, and human trafficking victims are eligible to apply for asylum in the United States. A complication arises where the ruling notes that most applications for asylum, except those from Mexico, will be rejected almost automatically regardless of the basis of the claim. The underlying issues in Central and South American countries are further highlighted by the fact that even before this ruling came into effect. The number of asylum claims in other countries had increased at a dramatic rate.
In July 2019, Trump made an announcement stating that the United States and Guatemala had agreed to a deal dubbed “safe third country” (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). According to Trump, this deal included an arrangement that would prevent asylum seekers who had traveled through Guatemala from entering the United States (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). This agreement appeared to target migrants from El Salvador and Honduras. However, the claim by Trump was refuted by the government of Guatemala and was followed by a statement that denied there was finality in the agreement or that it was, in truth, a “safe third country deal (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). As of the time of writing this paper, details of the deal were still being worked out, with officials from both countries engaging in negotiations and planning to finalize the deal before it can be implemented.
The controversial deal was faced with criticism from migrant and refugee specialists across the world, who stated that the deal had no potential of success because Guatemala has its own problems, and does not have the capacity and or resources to support the increased number of refugees and asylum seekers (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). According to a report by the New York Times, “In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, 116,808 migrants apprehended at the southwest border were from Guatemala, 77,128 were from Honduras, and 31,636 were from El Salvador.” Between late 2018 and mid-2019, the number of refugees from Guatemala seeking asylum in the United States was almost 250,000 (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). The fact that Guatemala’s own citizens are escaping the violence and poverty in the country demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the “deal” promoted by the Trump administration.
The current crisis involves the huge number of refugees trying to enter the United States and the needs of those being detained as they await the determination of their asylum applications. It is worth mentioning that many people have lost their lives while trying to make it to the United States border or trying to cross the border through illegal means after their asylum applications had been denied (Dickerson, 2019). Also, the conditions of detention camps at the border have been described as deploring, especially those housing unaccompanied children. Here, these camps lack the most basic amenities, such as food, WASH, health care, and other basic services. A number of children have lost their lives or become severely sick because of the conditions they are forced to live in a while detained in the camps (Dockery, 2019). A good example of this is one case in May 2019 involving unaccompanied minors, who were forced to spend over 40 days in the custody of United States officials (Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020). According to a media study, the number of stranded refugees in a Texas Mexico community had increased significantly in the aftermath of the implementation of the Supreme Court ruling. A number of reports have also revealed that the number of people stranded along the Rio Grande River. Worries have arisen over the fate of asylum seekers awaiting their applications to be processed, especially because of the lack of support in seeking employment, healthcare, housing, and other essential services (Mindock, 2019).
Analysis
Based on the account above, the current situation poses a serious problem to the United States political climate, which has been polarized for the last few years. Cottam et al. (2015) discuss Johnson’s Typology of formalistic, competitive, and collegial styles of leadership, which can be used to analyze the presidential management of political crises. In this case, the southern border crisis has escalated the political tension and divisions in the United States and beyond. Here, democrats and other leftists have objected to the measures being used by the Trump administration. Also, human rights activists, organizations, and movements have criticized Trump administration because of its clear disregard for human rights. The actions of President Trump leading to the current crisis at the southern border shows the formalistic side of his leadership, which is a style characterized by an emphasis on strict hierarchical structures, technical considerations, and direct solutions instead of considering compromise in cases that have conflicting views (Cottam et al., 2015).
The personality, background, and beliefs can also influence a leader’s decision-making and their approach towards policy and leadership in general (Cottam et al. 2015). The personality of Donald Trump comes into play here, influencing his decision-making and policy-making. For instance, the President bypassed the legislative process that would have taken the policy through congress. Instead of involving legislators in formulating a balanced law on refugees and immigration, the President went through the judiciary, where most Judges were placed by the Republican party in controversial fashion. The actions of the President, in this case, gives us a glimpse into his personality and how much it influences decision-making and leadership style. As demonstrated in earlier personality analysis of Trump, he is authoritative and controlling, which can be traced to his background as a ruthless businessman who has always got what he wanted regardless of the collateral damage. The fact that the Trump administration has implemented the new immigration laws with little consideration of human rights violations goes to prove that he is narcissistic, as demonstrated in the personality analysis.
According to Cottam et a. (2015), there are two basic types of leadership; transactional or transformational. “Leadership over humans is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in completion or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers” (Cottam et al. 2015). Based on this school of thought, the current situation points towards Trump’s leadership style being transactional than transformational. The transactional leadership style is defined as a form of leadership where a politician approaches voters with an offer in exchange for their support. In the case of Trump, the transaction aspect of his leadership can be traced back to his campaign, when he promised the white middle-class to vote for him, and he would “bring back American jobs” (Amadeo, 2019). The current crisis was consistent with one of Trump’s primary points during his presidential campaign in 2016; the promise of a wall that would stop the Mexicans and other migrants from entering the United States to take their jobs. Therefore, Trump’s move to stop migrants from entering into the United States acts in conflict with the idea of universal human rights and the views of other Americans because of his intention to satisfy the expectations of his voters and consequently advance his chances for re-election.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The southern border immigration crisis is both a political and humanitarian issue that could damage the socio-political relations within the United States, especially because of the pre-existing climate that has been highly polarized for the past several years. Apart from the local backlash, there is a high potential for worsened relations between the United States and its neighbors. Here, the United States comes out as bullish and oppressive, since countries like Mexico and Guatemala are forced to accommodate asylum seekers trying to gain entry into the United States. The United States has, therefore, imposed the burden of refugees on countries with very limited capacity. Internationally, the state of detention camps portrays the United States in a bad light, especially with it being the top advocate for human rights in the world. If this trend is allowed to persist, the relations between the United States and other countries will deteriorate, limiting the advancement of America’s foreign policy, and the historical status of the country as the global beacon of hope and freedom. The current crisis can be resolved through a bipartisan approach to political conflicts and a collegial style of leadership. Here, Trump should consider the collegial approach, which emphasizes shared responsibility, teamwork, and collective problem-solving. This means being open and aware of political conflict, so as to forge advisory systems and deliberative forums that encompass divergent views on various issues (Cottam et a. 2015). Also, Trump and his administration need to consider the welfare of the political future of the United States, both locally and internationally. In the specific context of this issue, the President can utilize both the directive and collegial approaches towards constraints. The directive approach will guide the President in maintaining the acceptance of the United States Government through fair engagement of other nations. The collegial approach can help in nurturing reconciliation and consensus, where the United States will gain prestige through sharing accountability and empowering other countries (Cottam et a. 2015). Through the utilization and application of these approaches, Trump and his administration can avoid escalation of the political polarity in the country, while promoting healthy political climates, locally and internationally.
Bibliography
Aljazeera, 2019. US-Mexico Border Apprehensions Fall In September But Remain High. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/mexico-border-apprehensions-fall-september-remain-high-191008192525939.html> [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Amadeo, K., 2019. Can Donald Trump Bring Back American Jobs?. [online] The Balance. Available at: <https://www.thebalance.com/trump-and-jobs-4114173> [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Balasubramani, S., 2019. U.S. Mexico Border Crisis — What Is (And Is Not) A Solution. [online] Medium. Available at: <https://medium.com/@poojabalasubramani/u-s-mexico-border-crisis-what-is-and-is-not-a-solution-47c8a6b07d19> [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Center for Disaster Philanthropy, 2020. Southern Border Humanitarian Crisis. [online] Disasterphilanthropy.org. Available at: <https://disasterphilanthropy.org/disaster/southern-border-humanitarian-crisis/> [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Cottam, M.L., Mastors, E., Preston, T., and Dietz, B., 2015. Introduction to political psychology. Routledge.
Dickerson, C., 2019. Desperate Migrants On The Border: ‘I Should Just Swim Across.’ [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/asylum-migrants-mexican-border.html> [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Dockery, W., 2019. US-Mexico Border Crisis: Young Migrants Living In Squalor, Attorneys Say. [online] International Business Times. Available at: <https://www.ibtimes.com/us-mexico-border-crisis-young-migrants-living-squalor-attorneys-say-2802485> [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Mindock, C., 2019. Trump Visits US-Mexico Border Wall Amid Protests. [online] The Independent. Available at: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-border-wall-california-san-diego-immigrants-us-mexico-a9111306.html> [Accessed 22 April 2020].