This story gave the first impression on ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning research newsroom. Subscribe to The Big Story newsletter to get stories like this in your inbox.
In early October, many migrants to Honduras set off in a “caravan” with the aim of traveling from Mexico to the United States.
The moment similar to that of a caravan two years ago, reaching thousands of people, overcame the Guatemalan and Mexican border government and has become the biggest challenge for President Donald Trump and Republicans in the run-up to the 2018 mid-election.
The last caravan stopped many miles from the U. S. border, making little noise in the news cycle. Shortly after entering Guatemala, police and the migration government set up barricades and arrested the organization for deportation to Honduras.
It’s so regimen that Trump, in poor health by COVID, didn’t even bother to post a celebratory tweet, let alone communicate about the army’s deployment to prevent an invasion like he did in 2018.
The fate of the caravan is the symbol of greater success. For more than a year and a half, Trump and his relentlessly targeted assistant, Stephen Miller, have largely achieved their purpose of suppressing unauthorized immigrants in the United States, especially in Central. American families, many of whom come with the goal of applying for asylum. They did so with a mix of policies that Tom Jawetz, a former Democratic assistant on the House Judiciary Committee, described as a “waterproof cloth” to repel migrants.
New regulations and U. S. legal precedents make it more difficult for a user to unload asylum once they arrive, but few of those days even have the chance to apply. As far as possible, the Trump administration has just deported asylum seekers.
The apprehensive figures, with which officials say Trump is obsessed, tell the story: since deportation policies have been blocked, arrests of families entering the United States have fallen from nearly 85,000 in May 2019 to less than 5,000 in February 2020.
The COVID-19 pandemic then ended the job, further cutting border crossings and giving the Trump administration the ability to use the hard-to-understand public fitness law to deport people crossing the border directly without the possibility of seeking asylum.
Critics, adding Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, say the effects were achieved on a hard scale that disagrees with America’s core values. Biden pledged to cancel Trump’s oldest deportation policies: the migrant coverage protocols, or the “Stay in Mexico” program that tens of thousands of migrants were sent to Mexico to wait, in refugee subfield conditions, for U. S. court dates.
“Donald Trump has closed the door to families fleeing persecution and violence,” Biden tweeted in January on the first anniversary of the program’s implementation. “On the first day, I will make President Trump’s resolution to restrict asylum and end the MPP program. • RestoreAsylumNOW. “
But the MPP is just one of the policies that make up the “waterproof cloth” of deterrence through expulsion. How far Biden would go to get to the bottom of this cloth remains completely unclear, even to crusader advisers who helped expand policies who can just do it.
Interviews with Democrats, advocates, and policy experts in recent weeks have revealed that the excesses of Trump’s management have masked, but have not healed, an intra-democratic division over how to care for Central American asylum seekers. Barack Obama’s administration faced the 2014 border crisis, it is necessarily an argument about the use of deterrence as a strategy: while it is appropriate to deter others from making a harmful vacation to the United States, where they might in the end not get legal redress by or punish those who have already come.
A Democratic camp sees immigration as a matter of national security and deterrence as a mandatory border control strategy. From this point of view, border policy deserves to be a balance: The United States deserves not to exclude those who are persecuted, nor to create “attraction factors. “”That inspires many other people who may not be eligible for full asylum.
The other side, made up of those who see immigration as a humanitarian issue, believes that it is neither legal nor morally justifiable to punish others fleeing desperate cases to send a message to others.
Biden’s campaign, like the Obama administration, sought to mitigate the divide by focusing on long-term responses in Central America, but no one is sure what it will mean if Biden will take the oath, especially if the increase in migration creates “borders. “crisis. “
Deportation policies that have prevented others from seeking asylum have their own accidental consequences, leading others to seek new routes to the United States. And as COVID-19-related travel restrictions disappear, the economic crisis created through the pandemic can push more and more migrants north. “When this pandemic stops,” the US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner told reporters. U. S. , Mark Morgan, in October, “expect it to be worse” than in 2019, when Trump’s wrath and tweeted threats nevertheless paved the way for dispersal policies.
The United States would possibly have reached the limit of deterrence, no one knows what will follow.
Until the early 2010s, unauthorized migration to the United States was dictated through single adults looking for work. Deterrence was an undisputed strategy. Border had intensified with sanctions for the apprehended, a strategy that the government euphemistically called “consequence delivery. “Once unofficially rejected, migrants were increasingly subject to criminal fees and officially deported, making it difficult for them to legally immigrate to the United States in the future.
After the Great Recession, the population of undocumented people coming to the United States fundamentally replaced. It included many more young people traveling with or without their parents (or other members of the family circle); many more migrants from Central American countries in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador (collectively known as the “Northern Triangle”); and many more seeking humanitarian protection.
The replacement is not explained without problems. As much as collectively, the resolution to migrate is motivated by a set of desires and opportunities.
The opportunity comes from adjustments in smuggling operations, and the increase in the number of families arriving in the United States by the end of 2018 is regularly attributed to the emergence in Mexico of relatively reasonable long-haul bus routes that would take travelers across the country within days.
Moreover, the desires that have led others to migrate from Central America in recent years do not fit perfectly with the difference that U. S. law makes between “economic migrants,” who are not allowed to come to the United States without papers, and asylum seekers. , who are persecuted for their ethnicity or political opinions.
Famine after repeated poor harvests, gang revenge, domestic violence: all this can make fleeing to the United States the only viable option. None of them have been categorically classified as “persecution” under U. S. law, in some cases, in some circumstances. , are admissible.
The United States is committed, morally and through external treaty, not to reject those persecuted in its home country. Policies that discourage migration are a brutal tool; is to conceive of one who only discourages potential migrants who are not entitled to asylum while welcoming those who do.
Potential migrants themselves may simply not know if they will in the end be eligible for asylum; the definition of “persecution” is legally complex and obscure. What they knew was what they had heard from relatives or former neighbors, who had recently made the trip: that after a short time they had been released from detention and allowed to live in the United States awaiting a court hearing. years in the future.
The new style of migration has created a new cycle of action and reaction that began with Trump’s predecessor, Obama.
The cycle began in the spring of 2014, when the number of uncompanied Central American youth arriving at the border began to overwhelm the U. S. government’s ability to accommodate them. The law requires border agents to temporarily send youth who have arrived in the United States without papers or parents to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is guilty of locating and caring about the right sponsors for them (usually a parent) in the meantime. As thousands of young people began arriving each month, the formula crashed and the youth became trapped at the border for days or weeks.
Management has established transient “holding facilities” (cage-shaped dormitories) to space young people until they can be sent to HHS. The media policy of the resulting “border crisis” temporarily piqued the interest of Americans. Immigration, rarely a primary problem, has reached the most sensitive of Gallup’s polls and caused alarm within Obama’s management.
The administration had recently begun responding to the left-wing complaint of its immigration history, namely its deportations of undocumented immigrants living in the United States (a program created in 2012) that would use executive force to temporarily protect unauthorized immigrants from deportation. The crisis, which was perceived as a reinforcement of a discourse of democratic weakness, put the administration back on the defensive, which caused it to wait until after the 2014 mid-term elections to announce new implementation policies.
Obama’s reaction to the crisis was twofold: a promise to address its “root causes” through economic progression and security with Central American governments and a short-term effort to temporarily return to migrants who have already arrived home.
As Obama’s vice president, Biden has become the tactile user of this “regional” approach, which involved many difficult discussions. “Those who plan to threaten their lives to succeed in the United States should be aware of what awaits them,” he said. reporters at a regional summit in Guatemala in June 2014. “It probably wouldn’t be with open arms. “
Obama’s leadership has presented deterrence as an effort for potential migrants, especially young people traveling alone, of criminal traffickers. “Putting young people in the hands of drug dealers and those thugs and drug dealers is a reckless and harmful company for any parent,” Biden said.
Internally, however, the plot was presented in terms that would later be in the midst of the Trump administration’s deliberations. Front line: “The fact is, 70,000 young people can be absorbed if it ends at 70,000. “The question is: is this the end? The population of Central America is millions . . . We didn’t think it was feasible, or consistent with what the American public would tolerate, to just say, “Okay, come here, you’re in. “»
It was not the consensus within the administration, nor the Democratic Party. After Congressional Democrats refused, Obama’s White House withdrew its request to Congress to amend the law to allow Central American asylum seekers to be eliminated without a hearing. Management has continually asked Congress to make the same changes. )
The fate of families traveling with young people has become another point of war of words within management, in this case security-conscious lawyers prevailed. Obama’s management temporarily built a circle of family detention centers in New Mexico and Texas, where families were forced to appear before a trial without access to a lawyer or the ability to prepare their cases. (Biden asked lawyers to help migrant families, but his argument in Congress about the emergency budget did not come with cash for legal services. )
Arguably, the family circle’s detention policy was cancelled because the administration was too honest. By identifying deterrence as his target, he admitted that he punished asylum seekers for sending a message. A federal ruling explicitly rebuked the Department of Homeland Security, saying that “deterring long-term migration “is not an adequate explanation of why to stop a circle of family members already seeking asylum. In the spring of 2015, a federal ruling on Dolly Gee amended a long-standing court rule limiting the length of detention of juveniles in immigration detention, so it applies to both young people detained with their parents and those travelling alone.
The cycle of repression continued.
Since global border arrests make up only a fraction of their pre-2008 levels, relatively small increases in numbers result in giant percentage variations. prevented children, families and asylum seekers from being simply deported.
These relative increases in arrests have caused panic on the U. S. side, which would drive further efforts to detain and deport asylum seekers upon arrival in the United States and after they arrive in the United States. They meant, through word of mouth, of those who had already come. Numbers would fall for a few months and then increase slowly, until the U. S. government imposed some other crackdown.
After the reflux of the first crackdown in late 2015, panic returned. Obama’s leadership sought to deter asylum seekers by detaining those who had already been deported but had not left, sweeping immigrant neighborhoods in the first week of the end of 2016. – The plaintiffs had not had a fair chance of filing their case. Trump’s election was a deterrent in itself, bringing in its early months the quietest era the U. S. -Mexico border has ever known. It didn’t last.
Trump’s leadership has followed an undeniable solution to the tension between deterrence and humanitarianism: it maximizes deterrence (in Trump’s rhetoric, this has a fixation on “tenacity” at the border). sure that anyone arriving in the United States would have the opportunity to apply for asylum and be examined for possible persecution: the administration sought and discovered places where the law did not apply.
Trump’s public rhetoric has taken time to adapt to the new border reality, after a crusade in which he accused Mexico of “sending” murderers and rapists. The extremists of management understood early on that the maximum of those who came here were now young. family members and other asylum seekers; they were well aware of the additional protections provided to these teams in U. S. law and the mismatch between the wishes of youth and families and a border infrastructure built to detain and deport single adults. back in 2017 and in early 2018, the Miller-led White House went into crisis.
In the spring of 2018, while Congress weighed the law to legalize the deportation of unauthorized immigrants through the DACA program, which Trump had attempted to end, a “senior management official” briefed the press on the sharp build-up of gaps that allowed them to stay. In particular, management has lit the fire of the amended court settlement that required families to be released from detention after a few weeks, creating the option of them simply “fleeing” to the United States and skipping their hearings.
Management has consistently exaggerated the number of circles of family disappearances; Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, examining a separate immigration court case created under Trump for families seeking asylum, found that more than 85% of families had given the impression at their first hearing after their release. (In addition, there is evidence that when families miss court appointments, it’s because they don’t know them. )But the objections of Trump advisers like Miller to what they called “catching and releasing” were fundamental: an unbearable threat that the United States did not have a legal responsibility to take on.
“These gaps pose a serious risk to American sovereignty,” the official said, “and a risk to actually the foundations of American society itself. “
There are benefits of denying asylum seekers before they can cross the border, but people who don’t officially enter the United States don’t count on the apprehensive statistics, which Trump sought to keep them low.
By simply refusing to allow asylum seekers to set foot on U. S. soil, the administration can simply avoid transparent legal liability under the Immigration Act that requires governments to evaluate asylum applications from anyone entering the country (the Trump administration attempted to repeal the law through an agreement in the fall of 2018 , however, he temporarily stopped through the court).
If the administration may not save your initial entry, you can at least remove them from the United States temporarily and outside the success of U. S. courts. Where asylum seekers ended up and in what less vital situations than where they ended up were not: in American communities.
Managing other countries to cooperate to prevent migrants in the direction or to agree to take them into the hands of the United States.
This is not a new idea. Getting Mexico to prohibit migrants from addressing the U. S. component of the 2014 crackdown. In mid-2014, according to ProPublica’s investigation of U. S. and Mexican government data, the United States arrested six other people at its southern border for each user apprehended in Mexico; Until the end of that year, Mexico had reached almost parity, but when diplomatic tension subsided, Mexico’s implementation relaxed.
The Trump administration’s strategy is never to give in: to treat migration as the central challenge, if not the only one, that mattered in America’s relations with Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
Plan A consisted of the signing of an official agreement, known as the “safe third country” agreement, with Mexico, demanding that migrants seek asylum in the country they first reached. The Mexican government, whose own refugee and asylum firm no longer had enough staff for the growing number of applications, first rejected the deal.
But the election of the populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador as president of Mexico, after campaigning on the promise of taking on Trump, Mexico’s position as the number of families arriving in the United States reached unprecedented levels.
A few days after Lopez Obrador took office, the United States announced that it would send some asylum seekers back to Mexico to await hearings in U. S. courts, a legal provision that is difficult to understand. Officially, it was a unilateral decision, which allowed López Obrador to say that he had not given in to U. S. demands, but Mexico announced that morning that it would settle for other deportees across the United States with asylum applications.
While the two countries signed an agreement describing their respective responsibilities, the United States would give others quick trials and due process; Mexico would ensure its protection – it soon became transparent that none of the aspects required compliance with what it had promised.
Initially, the program was limited to certain areas of the border that Mexico considered sufficient for migrants to remain there, but the arrests continued to increase. Trump’s patience has run out.
In May 2019, Trump threatened to impose large price lists if Mexico did no more to fix immigration The threat, issued through a tweet, was realized through other management officials: they demanded more bans on migrants on Mexico’s southern border, more repression against smuggler migrants, and renewed calls for a formal “safe third country” agreement. In the end, the two countries agreed on a border extension of the agreement they already had: non-Mexicans would be sent to wait indefinitely in Mexico, even in border areas such as the Rio Grande Valley, asylum hearings in the United States.
Mexico acted temporarily to show that it was doing what Trump wanted. Its newly formed National Guard has been deployed at its southern and northern borders, and bans on migrants are higher on Mexico’s southern border, while U. S. immigration officials reported a drop in arrivals.
The United States has provided cash to the International Organization for Migration for sending buses to migrants if they leave their asylum programs; it did not provide such assistance for housing or coverage of migrants seeking asylum in the United States, nor to strengthen Mexico’s ability to process programs for those who saw remain an imaginable alternative. In theory, the Mexican government had secured the facilities and defense of the migrants, but Trump’s management officials did nothing to enforce that commitment.
But during the time the governments met in September, Trump was so pleased with Mexico’s functionality that he boasted about it at his rallies. Mexico had reached Trump in the most effective way: with “the numbers. “
The Mexican government, at the September meeting, showed Trump a chart with a transparent downward trend since May, reflecting, in part, the very genuine fall of summer and fall, the 50% drop that had been promised, but nevertheless a sharp decline.
But the Mexican government had manipulated the numbers: it subtracted asylum seekers who had traveled to the United States and were forced to wait in Mexico under the MPP program. The graph necessarily reflected migrants who were still America’s duty.
The drop in unit numbers was enough to satisfy Trump; this helped those in his management who were still seeking to pressure Mexico to do more; and this weakened DHS’s internal considerations that the MPP program was being implemented recklessly and that the migrants waiting in Mexico were declining. through the cracks.
A manual, personal negotiations interspersed with tariff threats, persuaded Guatemala’s outgoing President Jimmy Morales to accept in August 2019 to allow the United States to send asylum seekers from other nationalities to Guatemala with the theory that they could simply seek asylum there. Agreements were signed with Honduras and El Salvador this fall.
Guatemala’s agreement alone was implemented before it hit the coronavirus pandemic, with another 939 people returned (only 20 of whom they implemented for asylum). Trump’s leadership plans to launch the others after the pandemic. And Miller hopes to expand the deal to countries on other continents that fuel U. S. immigration.
But coronavirus has given the United States its ultimate physically powerful tool to date to defend itself against asylum seekers. An order signed through the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and PreventionBut it’s not the first time In March (at the insistence of the White House and despite vehement objections from the CDC). career officials) banned unauthorized immigrants from Mexico from the public health call; the order gave border agents the force to simply deport them; in the following months, 200,000 migrants were deported to either Mexico or their home countries. None of them had the opportunity to apply for asylum or why they think they would be persecuted if they returned to their home country.
The mix of foreign agreements, physical fitness disorders and new tactics has closed the border well. So far, none of the elements of the administration’s new “waterproof fabric” have been overturned by the courts or been the subject of public protest, as did separation from the family circle in 2018.
Biden’s crusade made no express commitments on Trump’s policies that he would cancel and not need to cancel. Some adjustments (such as those completed in the regulations) will take years to reverse; some (such as the full reinstatement of the DACA program, lately in limbo after Trump’s first attempt to finish it was overturned through the Supreme Court) can be completed by an executive order on the first day.
Border policies raise a more confusing question. Biden has promised to reverse the “Wait for Mexico” program for asylum seekers within the first hundred days of his term. However, he made no such promise about the CDC’s order, which also asks asylum seekers in Mexico and does not promise them hearing dates in the United States.
The Trump administration’s internal asylum adjustments can be dismantled over time through a sufficiently motivated Department of Justice and DHS, this cannot happen instantly. Even something as undeniable as reversing Trump’s adjustments to the education of asylum seekers would take months.
Whether the replacement will be a more sensible precedent for Biden-designated persons will depend on whether the humanitarian field or deterrence field prevails in the administration.
Pre-Biden transition planners seem to keep the functions open, drafting plans to oppose Trump’s policies, but pleding to use them.
The consensus is that if migration increases again, deterrence advocates would have their hand and leave Trump’s framework in place.
And the most important forces in the region (climate change, economic instability, the spread of the pandemic) make this possible.
Border arrests have already increased significantly since March, they are still quite low in the old context. Agents made more than 54,000 arrests in September, more than any September since 2006, but well below September in the early 2000s, when arrests averaged. 80. 000.
These figures are inflated by the build-up of what the government calls “recidivism”: migrants captured at the border, deported and then captured while re-eding. Before the pandemic, only 7% of migrants tried to return after being arrested; now, more than a third.
Recidivism rates were also high in the mid-2000s, which makes sense, as the CDC’s deportation policy necessarily replicates the old border policy of casual returns than formal deportations. As Cristóbal Ramón of the Bipartisan Policy Center said, “When you eliminate the consequences” of the eviction process, you eliminate deterrence.
Of specific fear for analysts is the option for the 2000s to resurface in some other way: large-scale emigration from Mexico. For many years, Mexico has been the largest country of origin in the world, however, the movement of production jobs encouraged through the NAFTA treaty and the emergence of average elegance have reduced incentives to come and paintings in the North. In recent years, the deterioration of Mexico’s security scenario and the slowdown in the economy have made migration more attractive. the pandemic than almost any other country in the hemisphere, which brought more people to the United States as an option.
Reducing the circle of family migration to Central America may also have been temporary, there is evidence that smuggling networks stopped working intentionally when COVID-19 became a crisis in the spring, which would have eliminated the number of lers. Now. Restrictions on domestic consumption due to the virus are temporary, but the long-term effects of the economic crisis it has caused will last much longer; other people who want to migrate more than before the pandemic will end this possibility.
Chances are this will also happen if Trump wins a term for now. A risk assessment through DHS analysts published in October warns that “the number of border arrests will increase dramatically after the pandemic,” with the possibility of returning to “unprecedented numbers of families and children. “
At the same time, however, senior Trump administration officials have preemptively accused the promise of relaxed policies under a Democrat for any flow of migrants at the border.
At one point, the Trump administration would likely respond to further migration by renewing pressure on other countries to ban migrants, especially Mexico. A Biden administration could do something similar, returning to the 2014 style put in position through Obama.
Whether they are leaning towards national security or humanitarian concerns, Biden’s closest immigration neighbors agree on the need for a regional solution: for long-term progression in Central America and a commitment to give asylum seekers a fair chance to present their case. , they argue, it may be compatible with restricting undocumented migration in the short term by maintaining the methods of implementation deployed during the Obama years.
One of Biden’s staunch supporters of the 2014 Biden technique was Kevin McAleenan, who, as interim national security secretary under Trump, defended Guatemala’s asylum agreement. In 2018, McAleenan described law enforcement as a pillar of Biden’s previous initiative: “We talk to leaders, and they don’t need to lose their youth and power because of this migration and they don’t need to put their young people in the hands of traffickers. “
This way of thinking can trigger Biden’s management to leave Trump’s agreements in place. The reaction of the governments of Mexico and Central America is unclear. Against all odds, the relationship between Trump and López Obrador “is going pretty well,” Roberto Suro said. an immigration expert who now teaches journalism at the University of Southern California. “What (Biden) is going to give AMLO that Trump didn’t do?”It’s a way of doing things. “
One lawyer who spoke to Biden’s team said: “In the long run, the goal will have to be the status quo of a refugee program for the Western Hemisphere. And I think that’s where they’re going, which is great. “
“In the short term, ” continued the lawyer, “I’m going to like the things they do. “
Critics describe the Trump administration’s immigration technique with a line invented through Adam Serwer of the Atlantic: “Cruelty is the point. “
This is the logic of deterrence: what is suffered through example is justified if it prevents even worse.
Obama’s leadership saw this damage as harm to the United States and the encouragement of additional migration, while Trump’s leadership sees it as a danger to U. S. sovereignty and public protection if asylum seekers are allowed to enter and remain in the United States. opposed to domestic supporters of a more humanitarian approach; the latter, for all purposes, did not.
To say that deterrence has worked is to say that it has fulfilled its objective; is independent of whether the damage inflicted was worth it.
The Trump administration is likely to be remembered for the suffering it inflicted in the spring of 2018 when it pursued a “zero tolerance” policy that led to the separation of thousands of families who had entered the United States in the final weeks of the presidency. campaign, reports that 545 young people who have not yet met with their parents have provoked renewed attention to politics and Trump’s request to report on it the final debate.
But the fate of the “waterproof fabric” strategy means that your misdeeds are so visible. There is a silent depression of the burdens of asylum seekers remaining in the Matamoros tent camp, who have no idea when their asylum application will be heard in États-Unis. Il migrants in Tijuana have chosen to make their adventure further. And harmful paths. ” Prevention via deterrence works,” Paulina Olvera Canez, director of a migrant shelter in Tijuana, said this fall, “because they drop their case in Tijuana, but they cross the Sonoran desert. “
The oldest effort to document deaths along the U. S. -Mexico border, founded around Nogales, Arizona, has already recorded more in the first nine months of 2020 than in any full year since 2013, in the months following the CDC order. Migrants detained in Arizona’s Yuma domain died in the Nogales Desert. In fiscal year 2020, CBP officials discovered more than three hundred cases, nearly a third more than in 2019, in which migrants were illegally introduced into semi-trailers, an approach that can lead to mass suffocation.
With all this, the Trump administration has been reluctant to claim victory at the border. Officials recognize that 2020 has provided the most productive deterrence imaginable, and even this year’s combination of the CDC’s ordinance, US unemployment, and unemployment. But it’s not the first time And few asylum clients have failed to suffocate. the flow of migrants.
What would be otherwise, and if it can be more effective, is no clearer than it was six years ago. The possible options remain the same as in 2014, and the consequences are no less heartbreaking.
Archived in:
Trump’s young adults would give his father, the relentless president who continues to unfoundedly demand a widespread electorate.
Representative Don Young (R-AK), a congressman re-elected by 24 terms and the oldest member of Congress at 87, . . .
As President Donald Trump continues to refuse to settle for the effects of the 2020 election, several previous Array leaders.