UAC Migration 2014: Attention and Responses

By Jeremy Daley

While President Donald Trump prepares to address United States southwest border migration issues through the establishment of a larger border wall, other organizations prioritize investigating root causes of migration from Central America. In fact, this government call for a wall bordering Mexico does not consider current migration trends. Since 2008, Mexican migration has been negative despite this rhetoric (Pew Research 2015). Another aspect of immigration the United States misinterprets is the diversity of migrant push and pull factors. For example, adult economic migration warrants a separate category of understanding and response than does child or family unit migration, despite both occurring at the same border.

Read the Pew Research Center’s current Mexican immigration analysis here.

The Northern Triangle, made up of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, accounts for over ¾ of all irregular migrants crossing the United States southwest border. The three countries are generalizable in that similar at-home conditions cause children and family units in particular, to make the risky journey through Mexico for a better life in the United States. Beginning in 2014, the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) migration attracted significant attention from government agencies and international organizations. However, the media initiated the attention on the issue and called for a response.

The unprecedented number of children apprehended at the United States’ southwest border brought the topic of immigration affairs to the forefront of media reports. Regardless of physical vs. digital, liberal vs. conservative, national vs. international, or policy-advocating vs. personal story reporting, the media prioritized the migration consistently throughout Summer 2014. CNN reported on the issue abundantly, yet the most comprehensive piece CNN released was Halimah Abdullah’s “5 things you need to know about the immigration crisis” (July 7, 2014) outlining what happened, how the United States was responding, and future steps.

Read the CNN article here.

Moving right on the spectrum, Fox News also chose to prioritize the UAC migration in Catherine Herridge’s “Misperceptions about US immigration policy behind surge of illegal children, report says” (July 16, 2014). Focusing mainly on supposed misunderstandings surrounding the child migrants, Herridge offered a contrasting perspective claiming the necessity to return the children home since the primary reason for migration was economic. Nationally, the UAC migration remained atop headlines for the duration of the Summer and into the Fall. Herridge, along with her Fox News colleagues, have framed the UAC migration as a United States national security concern instead of reporting on the causes and contributors to it. If not a national security threat, Herridge and Fox News inaccurately frame UAC’s as economically motivated. This framing groups all UAC migrants as “others” threatening United States’ society and economy.

Read the Fox News article here.

The topic, however, was not contained within United States borders. International publications, like the Economist’s “Migration to the United States: Under-age and on the move” (June 28, 2014), incorporated a more global perspective than American media outlets. Attempting to provide a briefing on the migration, the Economist suggests despite increased border security since the early 2000s, children will continue to travel from the Northern Triangle as refugees fleeing violence. Similarly, the Latin America Working Group (LAWG) finds that the push factors for these children are far more complex and compound than the United States admits. Children leave because they have no security at home. This lack of security is created by gang territorial control, political corruption, and ineffective law enforcement. For a more secure life, children target the United States where their family members already reside.

Read the Economist’s briefing here.

Read the LAWG report here.

Drawing from media reporting and understanding the critical implications surrounding the 2014 UAC migration, the United States Government has recently prioritized irregular child migration from Central America when considering immigration policy, including research funded by Congress. Intending to uncover insights on causes of UAC migration from the Northern Triangle, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has been tasked to report annually on the migration and what strategies should target based on its research.

Read the CRS Reports here.

Separately, the White House has become involved in addressing this issue as it becomes internationally-known. President Barack Obama’s administration chose to provide a safer way of child migration to the United States through the Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee program. President Obama also defined the issue as a humanitarian one, calling for an immediate interagency response to the migration. President Trump, on the other hand has grouped the UAC migration into the larger problem of illegal immigration and the economic/social issues he claims are consequently occurring within United States’ borders. The Trump administration interprets UAC arrival as a gang threat without considering the origins of these gangs that were exported from the United States (MS-13 originated in Southern California and thrived in El Salvador after members faced deportation from the United States). Deportations to violent contexts where social marginality is high supplements insecurity, leading to youth emigration once again. While President Obama considered the children as refugees responding to at-home conditions albeit in a limited fashion, President Trump considers the child crossing at the border a significant national security threat.

Both administrations, however, have struggled to effectively and legally integrate these children. The consistent flow of undocumented immigrants since the early 2000s proves that the Obama Administration’s efforts have been largely underwhelming in their execution. The treatment of these migrants as ‘illegal aliens’ rather than refugees contributes to the consistent level of undocumented settlers regardless of presidential administration. By considering children from the Northern Triangle similarly, both Obama and Trump have often distinguished these children from refugees seeking asylum, consequently keeping the level of undocumented immigrants high. While detention facilities are constructed to deter these migrants, the United States government ignores the fact that these migrants are refugees fleeing unlivable conditions.

Read the New York Times article on detention centers and deterrence here.

With partisan disagreement on problems and definitions associated with the UAC migration within the United States, international organizations have made the most progress in effectively addressing the root causes of the UAC migration. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has adapted their Northern Triangle policies based on how the United States chooses to react to the migration. The IOM (in collaboration with USAID) has focused their research and efforts on reintegrating and incentivizing children to stay within their home countries unless conditions are unlivable as determined by the IOM and Central American Commission of Migration Directors (OCAM).

Read more about IOM’s Northern Triangle Strategy here.

Smaller international organizations have also significantly impacted the UAC migration on a local level in the Northern Triangle. Cristosal, a Central American-based organization, has combatted the UAC emigration problem by reforming violent environments in El Salvador and providing sanctuaries for children struggling to evade the violence without emigrating. Many of the children under Cristosal’s programs are reintegrated after already having attempted to migrate to Mexico or the United States. Cristosal’s small organizational effect on the child migrant migration, though, is widespread throughout the Northern Triangle. Much is being done on a local level within the major cities of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Read more about Cristosal here.

Though numbers have not risen to the initially expected levels during 2017, migration remains substantial. Since apprehension numbers are the main measurement of UAC’s migrating to the United States, the decreasing reports may be inaccurate. Smuggling networks could simply have become more sophisticated and increased evasion from border agents. Perhaps what is more likely is that children and family units are deciding to remain in Southern Mexico as President Trump heightens the crackdown on unauthorized immigrants in the United States. While children and family units are not currently crossing the United States border at a high level, they now stay within Mexico’s borders. Though it remains likely these migrants remain in Mexico temporarily (since their family members reside in the more economically stable United States), the reluctance to enter the United States demonstrates the current security concern of crossing the United States border.

Read the Guardian’s report on migrants staying in Mexico here.

President Trump’s wall rhetoric has shifted the migration destination to Mexico and other Eastern Central American countries. Mexico has now taken action against these undocumented migrants by increasing deportations and patrol of its southern border. Increased security on Mexico’s southern border has not prevented UAC’s and family units from migrating, and both asylum requests and deportations have increased substantially in Mexico since 2016. Though detentions and deportations have increased, the Mexican government has yet to address the widespread human rights abuses being perpetrated against these refugees.

Read more on WOLA’s analysis on Mexico’s Southern Border Plan here.

Moving forward, the United States must learn from its recent mistakes. From the undocumented migrant vs. refugee distinction to deportation and forced reintegration, the United States has shown unilateral incompetency regarding the UAC predicament. As the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) suggests, a multilateral approach combined with organizational cooperation will best address the UAC migration in a wholesome way. All parties must operate jointly to best tackle the emergency. A joint strategy, however, will likely lag as the United States views migration as a national security threat while Central American governments struggle through corruption and internal fragmentation.

Read more on COHA’s analysis and suggestions here.