Category Archives: US-LA Relations

Central American migrants lead US labor reforms

Elizabeth Oglesby has some fascinating stories on the leadership of Central American migrants in several labor initiatives in the United States in a recent Conversation article with How Central American migrants helped revive the US labor movement.
In the United States’ heated national debate about immigration, two views predominate about Central American migrants: President Donald Trump portrays them as a national security threat, while others respond that they are refugees from violence.
Little is said about the substantial contributions that Central Americans have made to U.S. society over the past 30 years.
For one, Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants have helped expand the U.S. labor movement, organizing far-reaching workers rights’ campaigns in migrant-dominated industries that mainstream unions had thought to be untouchable.
Check it out.

Central American migrants lead US labor reforms

Elizabeth Oglesby has some fascinating stories on the leadership of Central American migrants in several labor initiatives in the United States in a recent Conversation article with How Central American migrants helped revive the US labor movement.
In the United States’ heated national debate about immigration, two views predominate about Central American migrants: President Donald Trump portrays them as a national security threat, while others respond that they are refugees from violence.
Little is said about the substantial contributions that Central Americans have made to U.S. society over the past 30 years.
For one, Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants have helped expand the U.S. labor movement, organizing far-reaching workers rights’ campaigns in migrant-dominated industries that mainstream unions had thought to be untouchable.
Check it out.

Guatemalan deaths met with relative silence by their government

While two young Guatemalans have recently died in US Border Patrol custody, the Guatemalan government has remained mostly quiet. The question is why? Elisabeth Malkin at the New York Times tries to get at the answer in Guatemala Cautious on Young Migrants’ Deaths, Wary of Angering U.S. There's really a two-part answer.

First, the Morales government does not want to further antagonize the United States. In words and deeds, it has successfully lobbied the Trump administration to withdraw its support for the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Day after day, the Morales administration has attacked one of the region's most successful initiatives to battle corruption and impunity. The Guatemalan government recently sought to remove eleven CICIG officials and two of their relatives from the country. The US has remained silent.

Similarly, the Guatemalan government might not want to jeopardize the lives of one million plus of their compatriots in the US. The Guatemalan people and government rely upon the billions of dollars they return to the country in remittances each year.
“We have a de facto apartheid society,” said Anita Isaacs, a Guatemala scholar at Haverford College. “This country continues to be almost as racist as it has been historically.”
The result is that the death of an indigenous child barely registers, she said: “These lives are worth less, and these people are fundamentally invisible.”
Second, the Guatemalan government's weak response to the deaths of two of their citizens in the US is a reflection of the state's discrimination against the country's indigenous people. Anita's quote captures that sentiment. Felipe was from a Chuj-speaking family while Jakelin was from a Q’eqchi’-speaking family.

Whatever the reason, President Trump has not held back against Guatemala in his criticism of the region's leaders. It's unclear how much longer the US government will be able to hold out against the president's Twitter threats.

Guatemalan deaths met with relative silence by their government

While two young Guatemalans have recently died in US Border Patrol custody, the Guatemalan government has remained mostly quiet. The question is why? Elisabeth Malkin at the New York Times tries to get at the answer in Guatemala Cautious on Young Migrants’ Deaths, Wary of Angering U.S. There's really a two-part answer.

First, the Morales government does not want to further antagonize the United States. In words and deeds, it has successfully lobbied the Trump administration to withdraw its support for the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Day after day, the Morales administration has attacked one of the region's most successful initiatives to battle corruption and impunity. The Guatemalan government recently sought to remove eleven CICIG officials and two of their relatives from the country. The US has remained silent.

Similarly, the Guatemalan government might not want to jeopardize the lives of one million plus of their compatriots in the US. The Guatemalan people and government rely upon the billions of dollars they return to the country in remittances each year.
“We have a de facto apartheid society,” said Anita Isaacs, a Guatemala scholar at Haverford College. “This country continues to be almost as racist as it has been historically.”
The result is that the death of an indigenous child barely registers, she said: “These lives are worth less, and these people are fundamentally invisible.”
Second, the Guatemalan government's weak response to the deaths of two of their citizens in the US is a reflection of the state's discrimination against the country's indigenous people. Anita's quote captures that sentiment. Felipe was from a Chuj-speaking family while Jakelin was from a Q’eqchi’-speaking family.

Whatever the reason, President Trump has not held back against Guatemala in his criticism of the region's leaders. It's unclear how much longer the US government will be able to hold out against the president's Twitter threats.

I would rather pursue policies that brings the US and region closer together.



Initially, I thought that President Trump's call for a border wall could simply be interpreted as a call for greater border security. However, it doesn't really look like that is the case. Sure, he wants more border patrol agents but it is hard to link them to security either because, in terms of apprehensions, the ones we have are not very busy.
Even with apprehensions at low levels, the President wants to increase the number of agents. For several years now, however, the US has had a very difficult time maintaining current staffing levels, let alone increasing them. After winning a $297 million contract, Accenture has been able to fill two of 5,000 border patrol positions they were hired for. Fortunately, they have only received a few million dollars so far. CBP seems to have already lowered its standards and still can't hire what the president wants.
  
And then there is the comic that started this post. President Trump wants a wall or fence or something he can call a wall. He might or might not want it to cross the entire 2,000 mile border. However, it's not as simple as building a wall. For the wall to be effective, the US would need to extend roads for the length of the wall. That way agents would be able to patrol the wall in order to apprehend those going over, or under, it. Such an initiative would probably require a great deal more agents than we already have. You would probably need to establish outposts as well, perhaps where agents could stay for a few days. Plus, it's not as if you just build the wall and walk away. The wall and roads would require significant resources each year to maintain.

Much of the border land is owned by US citizens and tribes. Either it'll be very expensive to purchase the land or those who own it have no interest in selling it. Some of the ranchers I've met with outside Nogales moved out to the border area decades ago to get away from the federal government. They are not really interested in more government now.

When reporters looked at this issue around the 2016 election, the company best positioned to provide supplies for the wall would be CEMEX, which probably wouldn't go over too well with President Trump or the Mexican people.

Then there are the environmental costs related to the material used to build and maintain the wall. Migratory patterns would be disrupted and wildlife would suffer. In general, people living along the border don't want additional walls. 

I honestly don't get why President Trump wants to make enemies of our neighbors and allies. His misunderstanding of the causes and consequences of migration are really powerful. For me, I would rather pursue policies that bring the US and region closer together. That, however, will have to wait until another administration takes office in the White House.