Connect with us

Americas

Ending a Political Bermuda Triangle: The US Approach to Salvadoran Immigration and the Northern Triangle

Luke Revell

Published

on

There has been a surge in immigration in 2019, with more than 75,000 migrants apprehended or turned away during the month of March alone.   The Border Patrol is overwhelmed and the numbers are only increasing.  The White House has committed to alleviating the “root causes” of these issues by focusing on securing the border.  President Trump has emphasized his desire to successfully solve these issues internally through greater pressure on Congress to update asylum laws and by completing his campaign promise to build a physical wall along the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border. Externally, President Trump is targeting the nations from where most of the migrants are coming.  On 30 March 2019, United States President Donald Trump cut off funding to Central America.  He claimed this was in response to the Northern Triangle nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador not doing their part to stop irregular migration or to stop the widely-reported migrant caravans. Unfortunately, this approach is unlikely to resolve the issues, which are causing irregular migration.  Instead, it will very likely make them far worse in the long-term, threatening stability in North America, U.S. hegemony in the region, and negatively affecting the American image abroad.

Between 1980 and 1992, El Salvador experienced a Civil War which killed more than 75,000 and internally displaced a half million civilians. Upwards of 25% of the entire population fled the country and half of those went to the U.S. to find refuge. Only two percent were granted asylum. During the civil war, the U.S. was backing the Salvadoran government and felt taking in fleeing citizens would contradict its efforts. For those who were turned back to El Salvador, tens of thousands faced retribution and execution from that very same U.S.-backed Salvadoran military.   Fear of retaliation significantly increased the migrants’ desire to stay, so many of the Salvadorans who were denied asylum fled inward, remaining in the U.S. illegally.  During the same period, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, and 146,000 Salvadorans received legal resident status.   This substantial base of legally residing Salvadorans formed the foundation for immigration numbers to increase further a generation later.

The number of Salvadorans within the U.S. has grown to an estimated one-fifth of the Central American nation’s 6.5 million population. This has been through policies which allowed immigration to unite families, temporary protected status (TPS)notices due to natural disasters, and illegal migration.  Of those, the majority reside in California and Texas, although pockets of Salvadorans live in major cities throughout the entire U.S. TPS extensions are valid for less than two years at a time and have been signed by both sides of the political divide since the 2001 decision to continue the status. The last TPS approval for Salvadorans was signed in 2016. However, in 2018, President Trump denied a further extension to TPS, putting 200,000 Salvadorans living legally within the U.S. at risk of deportation.  An injunction was set into place, putting a temporary stay on ending the TPS and so the issue still sits, currently unresolved.   The impact for those individuals is multifaceted.  For Salvadorans, as well as the Sudanese, Nicaraguans, and Haitians also affected by TPS, those being deported have to choose whether they should take their families –specifically their children, who are U.S. citizens and were born legally in the States.   Many of those protected by TPS have lived the majority of their lives in the U.S. and some do not even speak the language of the countries in which they were born.  They are, by and large, working, tax-paying, law-abiding civilians who have had to register every 12-18 months to maintain their legal status and ability to work.

Salvadorans and policymakers in El Salvador know and understand that changes are required to stem irregular migration.  The causes are many but can be summarized as a lack of economic prosperity, decreasing safety due to ever-growing gang populations, and political corruption.  The U.S. Embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador’s capital city, has been almost exclusively focused on irregular migration since 2016.  This is not to say that El Salvador is happy with the current system or that the nation has given up on resolving matters.  Throughout El Salvador, there are well-established U.S.-Salvadoran partnerships with every embassy organization.  Salvadorans have even established their own organizations to improve education, quality of life, and other essentials required to obtain future growth.

  Further, on 3 February 2019, an outsider to the old regime of Salvadoran politics – Nayib Bukele – swept the first round of presidential elections, earning more than 53% of the total votes cast. The election was significant for three reasons. First, Bukele ran with a third party, one not representative of the traditional political groups from which Salvadorans typically choose a President.  Second, presidential elections typically go through an initial round of voting in February and then have a second round in March. This year’s vote favored Bukele so much so that he was able to claim victory before the end of the first round of voting.  The national consensus, which had a very low number of voters compared to previous elections, was still so severely in favor that he didn’t have to wait for official counts or final tallies to know he had won.   Third, Bukele, one of the youngest democratically elected officials in the world, represents the millennial generation. 

During his campaign, Nayib Bukele shunned the media, refusing to debate with his competitors on their national platforms.  Instead, he campaigned via social media, speaking directly to his voter base.  Bukele himself previously left the dominant two political parties after briefly working within each of them. He spurned their political corruption, recent disaffection with the U.S., closeness with China, and lack of support to the population amidst the immigration crisis.   In fact, he worked as an anti-party candidate, very similar to recent presidential elections in nations who were attempting to change the status quo, like the U.S., the Philippines, Slovakia, and increasingly throughout Europe.

In a sense, President Trump is focusing on giving his border guards a better bullet-proof vest instead of working to stop them from being shot in the first place.  El Salvador is a North American nation which ranks among the poorest on the continent.  The Northern Triangle -Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras – are within the lowest 50 for GDP in the world.   The root causes for the migration flow from El Salvador are bound to require support in the form of long-term nation-building, policy changes, and financial aid.  This support needs to outlast presidents and take on a long-term investment viewpoint for the continent as a whole across generations. 

The outgoing Salvadoran presidential administration was willing to look to China for support, going so far as recognizing Beijing over Taiwan last year. The U.S. response to this action was baffling.  It recalled its senior diplomat to El Salvador and publicly weighed levying penalties against a nation who needed more support than it was getting. Actions like this cede maneuverability space for other great powers to step in, which China seems anxious to do.  The U.S. should instead redouble its efforts in Central America to increase influence and show a commitment to the region.  Generationally this will foster continued support for U.S. values and help to ensure that the U.S. remains a partner-of-choice for Central American nations concerning future national decisions.

President Trump would do well to increase the longevity of TPS Salvadorans – even granting permanent residency.  Since their arrival, the TPS applicants have maintained and renewed their residency applications with the government, showing a significant adherence to the law.  88% of them are working legally, paying federal taxes to support both Social Security and Medicare. Those Salvadorans who are in the U.S. illegally earn less than their TPS counterparts and do not pay taxes.   That means the remittances they send home are less and none of what they are paying is taxed, so the U.S. federal government sees no benefit.  However, if these workers were residing in the U.S. legally using work visas, they could obtain better-paying jobs, pay income tax, and lessen the burden on the Border Patrol and related immigration agencies. President Trump should seek to loosen work-visa requirements and allow more Central American migrants to positively participate in the labor and tax structure of the U.S. His ‘tough stance’ at present is in fact operating at cross-purposes to his supposed long-term goals.

Instead of investing money on a physical barrier with no impact on the issues causing immigrants to flee, the White House should invest in programs that promote education, reduce violence, and fund the infrastructure required to build social capability.  This will buoy the nations around the U.S., causing all of the countries to prosper.  President-elect Bukele is coming into office having decreased the crime rates of a small town and large city when he was mayor, so he knows successful change. Bukele wants to prevent brain-drain and retain capable Salvadoran talent for the long term. Bukele is also vigorously seeking to end the gangs who threaten Salvadoran stability and impede long-term approaches that could lead to a resurgence. His landslide election was proof that the people of El Salvador are looking for that same change.  The U.S., the world’s most powerful democratic nation, should work to applaud and support these policies. President Trump should encourage the agenda Bukele has set.  Conditions like this would not simply cause people to stay in El Salvador: it could potentially cause them to return, thus positively ending the illegal migration ‘crisis.’ Attacking the issues in a neighborly way would reduce generational emigration, improve the security of North America’s southern nations, and promote U.S. policy on Salvadoran home turf.  Providing for the region supports a positive image of the U.S. and prevents Central American countries from crumbling due to inequality or looking to other powerful nations, like China, for stability. For real success, the United States must stop viewing the Northern Triangle as a political Bermuda Triangle.

Luke Revell is an active duty military service member and a student with American Military University’s Doctor of Strategic Intelligence program. A career analyst, he has conducted political and military intelligence operations ranging from the tactical to strategic levels, supporting United States policy in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. He currently lives in El Salvador with his wife and children.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.

This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.

So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.

The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.

It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.

This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.

The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”

Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.

“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.

Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”

The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift:  the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.

China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.

By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.

Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.

Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s effects on diplomacy

Irfan Khan

Published

on

No longer has Trump’s haphazard behaviour persisted, more will be easy for his administration to enact actions against China, Iran and Taliban. The state department is in a quandary because of it, on each front. Trump’s entrenched eagerness to remain “great” and “first” on the chessboard of International power, could damage the world more ahead than before.

Following the Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia’s oil infrastructure, US wanted to deploy troops to the Kingdom. It is primarily a justification for why the US has been imposing sanctions over Iran. Is troops deployment a solution? Or will it provide safe horizon to Kingdom oil’s installation? Or will it be revolutionary in oil diplomacy? Or is it the only target retaliated on, by Iran. However, such kind of engagement has short term beneficiary spots, while in broader perspective it has consequential effects for all stakeholders. The episode of nuclear deal has, as a factor of quid-pro-quo, been further dramatised by the state department, withdrawing from. Notwithstanding, the deal has advantageous prospects for the Middle East, and an exemplary for rest of nations, has been further dramatised by the US, in order to seek its diplomatic wins. What significant at this point, is an agreement to reback to the deal.

Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies, is a source of chaos for US administration. The current trade war is an antidoting tool for the whole scenario. The US should, I assume, eye China’s hegemony a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional. Is it?

Trump, according to many native writers, is psychologically unfit, unstable and fickle, however have had strong narrative to prevent America’s engagement into “useless wars” and end “endless” wars. Following this token, Trump announcement of troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan put the world politics and even his administration into chaos. This divided strategists and Washington security officials, which was underpinned by the resignation of James Mattis and recently John Bolton. The ten months of peace process which followed the US’s announcement of troop withdrawal, precipitously ended, putting once again the international and national politics into chaos. Trump, grandiloquently fired a tweet that talks with Taliban are dead and futile. The argument he contended was the Attack in Kabil, where one American soldier with 12 other people were lost. The policymakers and high officials in Washington who already negated the policy of troop withdrawal and then after peace deal. They, of course are winner in this policy discourse, have staunch beliefs in their opinion, who may make Trump’s change of heart. The Kabil attack was given, probably, an agent of resurgent for Obama’s approach. However, Trump’s administration had already scripted their policy framework for the region, and pretending Kabul attack was perhaps a way of redemption from the peace talk.

Trump’s factor in US foreign policy was chaotic to his subordinates for which, he attempted to compensate by cancelling peace deal with Taliban. However , on the domestic front, it is likely to be more pluses than on diplomatic front given to Trump in next year’s presidential election. Let’s see which side the wind blow. 

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump Cannot Be Impeached Over Ukrainegate, But Pelosi and Schiff Can Be Charged Criminally

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Pursuant to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unmistakable clear edict concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.

The Court reasoned that these powers are implicit in the President’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President’s plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.

In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers independent of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that “the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature…the broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”

While the Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, the Court concluded that such power is nonetheless given implicitly, since the executive of a sovereign nation is, by its very nature, empowered to conduct foreign affairs.

The Court found “sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.”

In other words, the President was better suited for determining which actions and policies best serve the nation’s interests abroad.

Period.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Separation of Powers Doctrine

In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.S. Senate can say or do very much of anything to prevent or interfere with this power, and if they do, they can in fact be held responsible for violating the Separation of Powers doctrine pursuant to the U.S. Constitution wherein the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate.

This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.

The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review.

National Security and Foreign Affairs

The Curtiss-Wright case established the broader principle of executive Presidential supremacy in national security and foreign affairs, one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the near success of the attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have placed a “check” on said Presidential power by Congress, but that never passed, or became law.

If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats really wanted to interfere with or prevent President Donald Trump from engaging in the activity that they are trying to prevent vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Joseph Biden’s alleged corruption and its effect on National Security, they would have to first draft, propose, enact, and pass sweeping legislation, and this could take years and would most probably never pass.

Even so, it could not affect President Donald Trump’s actions already occurred, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Turning This All Against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff

To that end if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff persist in pushing said “impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump, it is actually they who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with formal and actual charges of Treason, Sedition or Coup D’ Etat being levied upon them by the U.S. Government.

The consequences of that occurring, are truly horrific indeed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Reports2 hours ago

Reforms in Latvia must result in stronger enforcement to tackle foreign bribery

Latvia has continued to improve its framework against bribery of foreign public officials and subsequent money laundering but the reforms...

South Asia4 hours ago

Kashmir Issue at the UNGA and the Nuclear Discourse

The Kashmir issue has more significance in view of the nuclearization of South Asia as many security experts around the...

Urban Development6 hours ago

Cities Around the World Want to Be Resilient and Sustainable. But What Does This Mean?

Cities around the world, large and small, face common challenges, especially due to rapid urbanization and climate change. According to...

Middle East8 hours ago

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the...

East Asia10 hours ago

Future Trends of China’s Diplomacy

This year 2019 marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and China’s diplomacy...

Newsdesk11 hours ago

Live Simulation Exercise to Prepare Public and Private Leaders for Pandemic Response

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates...

EU Politics13 hours ago

European Agenda on Migration four years on

Ahead of the October European Council, the Commission is today reporting on key progress under the European Agenda on Migration...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy