While US leaders on both sides of the aisle focus on securing the country’s southern border, strategies tackling the root causes of immigration – from violence to inequality – remain nowhere to be found. Unless that changes, immigration pressures will remain a divisive political issue.
SAN JOSÉ – In a highly divisive presidential-election year, there is at least one point on which more than half of American voters agree: immigration is a top priority. Yet the discourse in the US Congress and on the presidential-campaign trail has so far ignored critical elements of the issue. With both Democratic and Republican leaders focusing primarily – if not exclusively – on how to improve management of the southern border of the United States, solutions targeting the drivers of immigration are nowhere to be found.
The American public does seem to understand that immigration does not start at the US border. In a February 2024 survey, both Democrats and Republicans ranked poor economic conditions (75%), violence in home countries (65%), and the promise of greater political freedoms in the US (44%) among the leading factors driving people to flee their homes and attempt to make it to the US. But this recognition has not made its way into political agendas.
Latin America is a leading source of migration to the US, with over 40% of the 1.5 million migrants who entered the country in 2021 having come from the region (primarily Mexico). As Costa Rica’s former president, I have experience dealing with current and former US administrations on this issue, and I can recognize well-intentioned efforts when I see them. It is clear to me that the border obsession is impeding the development of effective strategies to address the drivers of migration; it is about optics and political theatrics, rather than substantive solutions.
These skewed priorities are apparent in the striking difference between the scale of the resources dedicated to border security and those used to support the implementation, in collaboration with Latin American countries, of long-term structural solutions. In October 2023, US President Joe Biden’s administration requested $13.6 billion in emergency supplemental funds from Congress for southern-border and migration-related outlays. Though that request was rejected, the budget for US Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was subsequently increased by 7% ($1.9 billion). While that is technically less than the $2.5 billion the Biden administration requested earlier this year for foreign assistance for Latin America and the Caribbean, these funds must be split among 27 countries.
Even when leaders deviate from the border theme, they fail to get to the heart of the matter: the circumstances that lead people to view migration as their best hope for a better future. This has been true for Biden; his vice president, Kamala Harris, whom Biden has now endorsed to be the Democratic nominee for president; and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump, who will face Harris in this year’s election.
To be sure, in 2022, the Biden administration seemed to be moving in the right direction. The Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection – agreed with the leaders of 19 Latin American countries and Canada – acknowledged the need for a regional approach to migration that improves “conditions and opportunities in countries of origin.” But, so far, the results have come nowhere near meeting the scale of the challenge.
Don’t go back to school without Project Syndicate! For a limited time, we’re offering PS Digital subscriptions for just $50.
Access every new PS commentary, our suite of subscriber-exclusive content, and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Unfortunately, that is still a better record than Trump’s. During his presidency, he cut aid to Central American countries – a move that was considered counterproductive by politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle. The damage caused by Trump’s failure to recognize the true nature of immigration has been compounded by his disturbing rhetoric about migrants, whom he has accused of “poisoning the blood of our country.” The truth, however, is that refugees and recipients of asylum bring far-reaching benefits to the US; in 2005-19, they contributed an estimated $123.8 billion to the economy.
The US used to place a high priority on Latin America, and this was not always for the best. Consider, for example, its troubling interventions in Central America in the 1980s. But there are also examples of positive engagement, such as President John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress, which remains America’s largest cooperative economic effort with the region to date.
Similarly ambitious cooperation is now needed to tackle the drivers of immigration. As a 2023 United Nations report shows, the region suffers from an alarmingly high – and rising – overall homicide rate, and the world’s highest rate of homicides related to organized crime. Inequality levels are also among the world’s highest. Political instability, economic stagnation, and corruption have contributed to democratic backsliding, as they have boosted the appeal of authoritarian rule. Just 48% of Latin Americans now endorse democracy – a 15-percentage-point decrease since 2010.
All this has serious implications for the US – and not only in terms of immigration. Autocratic countries are more likely to “trigger conflicts, spread disinformation, and engage in cross-border cyberattacks.” In the context of global competition, a politically and economically weakened Western Hemisphere puts the US at a strategic disadvantage. This helps explain why General Laura Richardson, commander of US Southern Command, recently called for a Marshall Plan for Latin America, though her vision – focused on countering Chinese influence – is too narrow.
What is needed is an ambitious plan that tackles the challenges the region faces, bolsters well-being, peace, and democracy, and meets the energy-transition imperative. This will require long-term cooperation among Latin America’s governments and their counterparts across the Western hemisphere. The diversification of production and exports in the region, together with increased financing for development, are crucial. Only by taking concrete action to make people’s lives better in their home countries – by providing viable livelihoods, upholding social and political rights, and ensuring freedom from violence – can immigration pressures be sustainably eased.
The US could and should lead the charge, but only if it is willing to form a new type of alliance, which supports consistent action that advances mutually beneficial social and economic outcomes. Until then – and no matter who sits in the White House – migration pressure on the southern US border will continue to highlight the failure of policies that do not look beyond it.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Increasingly severe water shortages represent a human-made crisis that can be resolved through human interventions. The situation demands new thinking about the economics of this critical resource and how to manage it through mission-oriented strategies that span all levels of governance.
call attention to a global problem that demands far more attention from policymakers at all levels.
Although Kamala Harris is largely aligned with Joe Biden on many global and strategic issues, her unique worldview promises a distinct form of leadership on the international stage. Not only would US foreign policy shift under a Harris administration; it could change in highly consequential ways.
considers how the Democratic presidential nominees' views compare to Joe Biden's.
SAN JOSÉ – In a highly divisive presidential-election year, there is at least one point on which more than half of American voters agree: immigration is a top priority. Yet the discourse in the US Congress and on the presidential-campaign trail has so far ignored critical elements of the issue. With both Democratic and Republican leaders focusing primarily – if not exclusively – on how to improve management of the southern border of the United States, solutions targeting the drivers of immigration are nowhere to be found.
The American public does seem to understand that immigration does not start at the US border. In a February 2024 survey, both Democrats and Republicans ranked poor economic conditions (75%), violence in home countries (65%), and the promise of greater political freedoms in the US (44%) among the leading factors driving people to flee their homes and attempt to make it to the US. But this recognition has not made its way into political agendas.
Latin America is a leading source of migration to the US, with over 40% of the 1.5 million migrants who entered the country in 2021 having come from the region (primarily Mexico). As Costa Rica’s former president, I have experience dealing with current and former US administrations on this issue, and I can recognize well-intentioned efforts when I see them. It is clear to me that the border obsession is impeding the development of effective strategies to address the drivers of migration; it is about optics and political theatrics, rather than substantive solutions.
These skewed priorities are apparent in the striking difference between the scale of the resources dedicated to border security and those used to support the implementation, in collaboration with Latin American countries, of long-term structural solutions. In October 2023, US President Joe Biden’s administration requested $13.6 billion in emergency supplemental funds from Congress for southern-border and migration-related outlays. Though that request was rejected, the budget for US Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was subsequently increased by 7% ($1.9 billion). While that is technically less than the $2.5 billion the Biden administration requested earlier this year for foreign assistance for Latin America and the Caribbean, these funds must be split among 27 countries.
Even when leaders deviate from the border theme, they fail to get to the heart of the matter: the circumstances that lead people to view migration as their best hope for a better future. This has been true for Biden; his vice president, Kamala Harris, whom Biden has now endorsed to be the Democratic nominee for president; and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump, who will face Harris in this year’s election.
To be sure, in 2022, the Biden administration seemed to be moving in the right direction. The Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection – agreed with the leaders of 19 Latin American countries and Canada – acknowledged the need for a regional approach to migration that improves “conditions and opportunities in countries of origin.” But, so far, the results have come nowhere near meeting the scale of the challenge.
Don’t go back to school without Project Syndicate! For a limited time, we’re offering PS Digital subscriptions for just $50.
Access every new PS commentary, our suite of subscriber-exclusive content, and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Unfortunately, that is still a better record than Trump’s. During his presidency, he cut aid to Central American countries – a move that was considered counterproductive by politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle. The damage caused by Trump’s failure to recognize the true nature of immigration has been compounded by his disturbing rhetoric about migrants, whom he has accused of “poisoning the blood of our country.” The truth, however, is that refugees and recipients of asylum bring far-reaching benefits to the US; in 2005-19, they contributed an estimated $123.8 billion to the economy.
The US used to place a high priority on Latin America, and this was not always for the best. Consider, for example, its troubling interventions in Central America in the 1980s. But there are also examples of positive engagement, such as President John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress, which remains America’s largest cooperative economic effort with the region to date.
Similarly ambitious cooperation is now needed to tackle the drivers of immigration. As a 2023 United Nations report shows, the region suffers from an alarmingly high – and rising – overall homicide rate, and the world’s highest rate of homicides related to organized crime. Inequality levels are also among the world’s highest. Political instability, economic stagnation, and corruption have contributed to democratic backsliding, as they have boosted the appeal of authoritarian rule. Just 48% of Latin Americans now endorse democracy – a 15-percentage-point decrease since 2010.
All this has serious implications for the US – and not only in terms of immigration. Autocratic countries are more likely to “trigger conflicts, spread disinformation, and engage in cross-border cyberattacks.” In the context of global competition, a politically and economically weakened Western Hemisphere puts the US at a strategic disadvantage. This helps explain why General Laura Richardson, commander of US Southern Command, recently called for a Marshall Plan for Latin America, though her vision – focused on countering Chinese influence – is too narrow.
What is needed is an ambitious plan that tackles the challenges the region faces, bolsters well-being, peace, and democracy, and meets the energy-transition imperative. This will require long-term cooperation among Latin America’s governments and their counterparts across the Western hemisphere. The diversification of production and exports in the region, together with increased financing for development, are crucial. Only by taking concrete action to make people’s lives better in their home countries – by providing viable livelihoods, upholding social and political rights, and ensuring freedom from violence – can immigration pressures be sustainably eased.
The US could and should lead the charge, but only if it is willing to form a new type of alliance, which supports consistent action that advances mutually beneficial social and economic outcomes. Until then – and no matter who sits in the White House – migration pressure on the southern US border will continue to highlight the failure of policies that do not look beyond it.