Unambiguous Condemnation

Restricting migration of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States has been one of Donald Trump’s recurring goals. Not for nothing has he maintained his obsession with building a wall to keep them out. This issue plays an important role in his relationship with his supporters who, as you may remember, were seduced by the chant of “Build the wall!”

However, faced with resistance on the part of the U.S. Congress to approving funding for the wall, as well as with Democrats not at all inclined to approve a comprehensive immigration package as highly restrictive as the one Trump presented to them, he decided to go one step further. His political call for “zero tolerance” envisaged a measure that had never before been seen in the efforts to curb migration to the United States: separating children from their parents.

The measure was implemented with no consideration of humanitarian principles. While the parents were taken to various detention facilities, the children – some of them in early childhood and literally torn from the arms of their parents – were taken to shelters in deplorable conditions, some tents or cages erected in abandoned warehouses. Communication between parents and children was cut off. Strict monitoring of where one or the other was sent was not carried out. Consequently, reuniting them will be complicated; some are questioning if it is possible this may not occur.

This action, so cruel and contrary to the basic principles of human rights, produced an angry reaction, mostly within the United States. Criticism from Congress – from the Democratic but also from the Republican ranks – made itself felt. The powerful speeches of Elijah Cummings, representative from Maryland, have been widely circulated; he has demanded that policies that do not reflect the opinion of the U.S. population should be suspended.

Trump’s spokespeople responded with completely outrageous statements, such as saying that the administration, with these measures, was seeking to “deter future immigrants who try to enter the United States in violation of the law.”* Indignation about such statements strengthened so much that Trump was compelled to modify the executive order, eliminating the separation of families but keeping the uncertainty about the length of time for which families can be detained.

In relation to that, the position of the Mexican government was being awaited with interest. It has to do with a problem that is occurring on Mexico’s border, with huge potential to harm Mexican citizens, and which gives a clear message about the great hostility with which Trump views problems arriving from the southern border. For this reason, it was surprising how much time it took Luis Videgaray, secretary of foreign affairs, to express a position and – when he did – how ambivalent some of his statements were.

It was not until Tuesday, June 19 – at a time when the problem was already on the front pages of the U.S. papers and increased anger about this issue was dominating radio and television programs – that the secretary gave a long press conference. Several of the points expressed that day caught our attention.

The first point came out of a meeting with Pope Francis, precisely to talk about the issue of migration. The final document from the meeting referred primarily to the efforts being made under the auspices of the United Nations to achieve a world agreement on migration, for which Mexico is a facilitator. In the conclusions of the meeting, the drama of the migrant children in the United States was not mentioned. It is difficult to know if either of the parties resisted mentioning it.

The second point is Videgaray’s interest in making clear that Mexico “fully respect[s] the sovereignty and rule of law of the United States.” Referring to sovereignty at this particular moment leads inexorably to remembering that, when flagrant violations of human rights are at stake, the new international law imposes limitations on the exercise of sovereignty.

The third point was the attempt to make people aware that only 1 percent of the children detained are Mexicans; the others are Central Americans. The Mexican consular network acted very quickly, the secretary said. Most of the Mexican minor children have already been transferred back to our country. Only a few cases are still pending, among them a very dramatic one involving a disabled girl, separated from her mother, and whose father is looking for her in the United States.

The Mexican consular corps should no doubt be congratulated for its efficiency. But the attention they have gotten for their work has obscured the fact that nationality does not matter when what is being discussed is condemning actions as cruel as separating children and parents. In these cases, the Central Americans and their fate are as important as the Mexicans.

Finally, this may have been a slip, or it may have been on purpose: The secretary mentioned that Mexico does not promote “illegal immigration”; but it should be recalled that in Mexican diplomatic tradition, care has been taken in the use of language, always speaking of “undocumented immigration.” This issue is not just a formality. The implications are fundamental. Most certainly, there was a clear call to the government of the United States to reconsider a cruel and inhumane policy. Those were the phrases used in the newspaper headlines.

The issue of the migrant children is a perfect example of the extreme caution with which Videgaray conducts the relationship with the United States. The circumstances, the narrative and the language make this evident. However, the end of an era in Mexican political life is approaching. The person who takes power as of Dec. 1 will have to decide what is going to continue and what will be reviewed or modified in the relationship with the United States. Hardly anyone would recommend moving toward confrontation. Many would wait for a better balance between the search for a common understanding and strong and unequivocal condemnation when it is deemed necessary; the drama of the migrant children was one of those cases.

*Editor’s note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be independently verified. It seems to be a rephrasing of a number of statements given by different Trump administration officials.