A War on Children

The humanitarian crisis caused by the new migratory tide from Central America and Mexico to the United States has provoked a welcome reflection and greater redefinition of policies in all of the countries involved. No one has stayed on the sidelines of the turbulence arising out of a number of factors. That includes the perpetrators of violence in the originating countries, among others, and the war on drugs in these small Central American nations; it includes Mexico, both a transit and an originating country, which has for years held a flagrantly reproachable track record of abusing immigrants from the south (including the years during which I was Secretary of Foreign Affairs); and it includes the United States and its unbelievable ambiguity and moral, political and legal confusion on the topic.

It is not known exactly what set off the current massive flow of undocumented and unaccompanied minors coming from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico to the United States. The number of children detained at Mexico’s border to the north has doubled in the last few months; it is estimated that in the current U.S. fiscal year — from October 2013 to September 2014 — that number will reach 100,000. Three-fourths of these minors come from Central America and 25 percent from Mexico, although it is assumed that the children are being truthful when they are asked where they are from. It makes sense to hide one’s Mexican nationality because it is much more difficult to deport minors to Central America than to Mexico.

The legal explanation for the influx is simple. Since 2002, any minor detained in the United States without papers coming from a non-contiguous country (Mexico or Canada) must be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours, at the latest, of being taken into custody by the authorities. After a little less than a month, on average, due to the scarcity of resources and personnel available for processing and detention, they are freed and handed over to family members in the United States, and begin their wait for a decree from a court exclusively dedicated to immigration cases. In other words, for all practical purposes, any non-Mexican minor that enters the United States without papers has a high chance of staying in said country for years before being deported, and of doing this legally. Last fiscal year, of the over 50,000 minor immigrants detained by the U.S. Border Patrol, only 2,000 were returned to their countries of origin.

Therefore, when the governments of the United States, Mexico and Central America denounce the polleros, coyotes or smugglers for deceiving people and spreading the rumor that children sent to the United States will be able to stay there legally, they too are deceiving people. If the children reach the Mexico-U.S. border and are handed over to U.S. authorities, they will have achieved what millions of undocumented adults have still not attained: a legal status in the United States. In the long run, perhaps, they will be deported. But what does “in the long run” mean to a 15-year-old youth who is fleeing the Salvadoran gangs, or an eight-year-old Honduran girl searching for her parents in New York? It is true that in recent weeks, a growing number of minors accompanied by their mothers or other female family members have crowded the courts and ad hoc detention centers set up by the federal and state governments for that purpose. The adult women accompanying the children will be promptly expelled; the minors will not.

A second factor is, without a doubt, the role of human traffickers, who are acting in a rational manner at this point. It is logical for a coyote, especially if he works in what is called organized crime, to spread the good news that, by paying less than $1,000, a Honduran or Salvadoran mother can send her children to the United States with a good chance of them arriving safe and sound. Or perhaps not so safe and sound, since on the way, especially in Mexico, all sorts of atrocities happen to them. But somehow, with a cynical resignation to the hardships that prevail in their countries, the parents overlook that cost and incorporate it into the price that is paid to the smuggler — especially in the way that they verify that what the traffickers are saying is truthful.

The third factor, which is of course very important, is the lack of security and the crime wave that exists in these countries. It is not a new wave. It dates back to the civil wars of the ‘80s and the sequels in the following decades, but the intensity and cumulative effect are obviously starting to take a toll. What is not clearly distinguishable is the tipping point that detonated such a mass exodus in recent months.

It is understandable that Barack Obama’s government is not able to find a solution to the problem within the borders of the U.S. The only possibilities would necessitate a repeal of the law, signed in 2002 by George W. Bush, that requires that minors be transferred to health authorities, or a change to the process in use so that the deportation hearing at the beginning of their stay is much more expeditious. The versions and announcements of intentions along these lines have already spurred criticism and rejection, from the New York Times to the Catholic Church. Plus, it would imply increasing the number of judges and public defenders for the children, and quickly finding who to deliver the children to in their countries of origin.

In light of these difficulties, it is understandable that Washington would want these problems to be handled in Central America or in the transit country: Mexico. Since the circumstances in Central America — violence, lack of security, unemployment, gangs — are not likely to change, it is probable that Washington, through Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Guatemala, urged the Central American leaders to forcefully stop minors from leaving or entering their respective countries. And perhaps Obama himself requested the same from the Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, through a telephone call a few days ago. All of these are very bad solutions.

None of them are possible or desirable. None of these countries has the capacity to secure its borders against entry or exit. The only thing that would happen if we agreed to the Americans’ dirty work in Mexico and Central America is more corruption, extortion, abuse, rape, human rights violations, prostitution, etc., through repressive state apparatuses that are poorly suited for these purposes. The solution can be nothing short of regional, and must start with the comprehensive immigration reform that is so often talked about and so overdue in the United States. Only in exchange for this will the other countries be able to exert the enormous effort to control their borders and respect their laws. The worst way out of the crisis would be for Washington to extend its failed and agonizing war on drugs into a tragic war on children.

Jorge G. Castañeda is a political analyst and a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.