Don’t cut off aid to Central American nations
With a caravan from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador making its way north through Mexico, President Donald Trump is in an agitated state. The caravan reflects not only the limitations of his immigration policies but also an opportunity to whip up his base before next week’s midterm elections.
To that end, Trump announced the deployment of at least 5,200 activeduty troops to the border — roughly one for each person in the caravan — and plans a speech on immigration today.
The president has also vented his anger toward the three countries by threatening to terminate the roughly
$500 million in annual aid they receive from the United States.
Without doubt, some things need to be done to discourage people from coming here, but cutting off aid to struggling Central American nations is not one of them. Let’s run through a few reasons why:
❚ It would be fruitless. People are leaving these three countries because large portions of them are under the control of gangs and narcotraffickers, with law enforcement either nonexistent or corrupted. That grim reality encourages people to flee and gives government little leverage in stopping them.
❚ It would look contradictory. For decades, the United States fought a Cold War against nations that sealed their borders and prevented people from leaving. Forcing Central American countries to keep their own people trapped at home like prisoners would be the height of hypocrisy.
❚ It would punish America. Ending aid to Central American countries would drive them into the arms of China or other countries whose interests don’t necessarily align with those of the United States. This would be an ominous development in a region so close to our own border.
Contrary to popular sentiment, foreign aid is not given for reasons of altruism. It is given in an effort to obtain and retain allies.
Rather than cutting off aid to impoverished and dysfunctional nations, the United States should look at other approaches to discourage caravans of desperate refugees. No. 1 would be enlisting Mexico to insist that Central Americans apply for U.S. asylum as soon as they arrive in Mexico, rather than when they arrive at the U.S. border. Those rejected would have less incentive to continue north and could be more easily deported by Mexican authorities.
That, of course, would involve developing closer ties with Mexico, not demonizing it. And that wouldn’t fire up the partisans on the campaign trail.
If we are looking for solutions to the migrant crisis, cutting off aid to the source countries would be counterproductive. In fact, a case could be made for increasing assistance as a way to improve conditions in those nations so fewer people would want to leave.