Trump-Era Immigration Deals: Shifting Migrant Flows and International Relations
The Trump administration implemented a series of agreements across Latin America aimed at bolstering U.S. efforts to deport migrants who had entered the country unlawfully. These deals involved the transfer and temporary holding of migrants in several Central American nations, sparking both praise from immigration hardliners and condemnation from human rights advocates.
Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, lauded the Trump administration’s approach, contrasting it with what she perceived as a more lenient stance under President Biden. Ries argued that the U.S. was no longer being "treated like a doormat" and that the agreements demonstrated a willingness to assert American sovereignty and leverage in international relations.
Reports detailed that the Trump administration had secured deals with Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela. These agreements facilitated the movement of migrants away from the U.S.’s southern border, effectively shifting the responsibility for managing these populations to other countries in the region.
Critics of the policy asserted that it turned Central America into a "dumping ground" for migrants. A report in The Guardian highlighted the case of Panama and Costa Rica, which had received migrants from the Middle East and Asia. Concerns were raised about the capacity of these nations to adequately provide for the migrants’ needs and ensure their well-being.
The Guardian’s report further alleged that the Trump administration had engaged in "strong-arming" tactics, pressuring Central American nations to comply with its demands. These tactics reportedly included threats of withdrawing support, imposing tariffs, or even taking back control of the Panama Canal. Marcela Martino, deputy director of Central America and Mexico for the Center for Justice and International Law, emphasized the power imbalance in the relationship, stating that these countries were not in a position to refuse the U.S.’s demands.
Panama was among the first countries to agree to a deal with the U.S. Under the agreement, Panama took in hundreds of migrants from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, China, and Pakistan. While some migrants agreed to be returned to their home countries, a significant number, 128 out of 299, refused. This refusal placed the migrants in a "legal limbo," leaving them with uncertain futures and limited options. Viral photos depicting a young Iranian migrant who had scrawled "help" on a hotel window in Panama City, where migrants were temporarily held, served as a poignant symbol of the migrants’ plight.
While criticism of the legality and humanitarian implications of the deportation programs mounted, Ries countered by noting that many of the same countries now complaining about the U.S. policies had served as hosts for migrants traveling towards the U.S. during the Biden administration. Ries argued that these countries had effectively treated the U.S. as a "dumping ground" by allowing millions of migrants to traverse their territories en route to the U.S. border.
Ries emphasized that the U.S., as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine who enters its borders, how many are admitted, and under what terms. She characterized the Trump administration’s approach as a demonstration of American leverage, a tool that she claimed had not been used effectively under the Biden administration. Ries asserted that the U.S. possesses significant influence over other countries and that the previous president had failed to utilize this influence, allowing people to enter the country "by the millions."
Ries also pointed to the potential deterrent effect of the deportation deals. She suggested that the agreements might discourage both migrants from attempting to travel north and the countries that had facilitated their passage in recent years. She argued that these countries are capable of securing their own borders and preventing mass migration, thereby mitigating the negative consequences associated with uncontrolled migration flows.
The deals were said to signal that the U.S. would not passively accept uncontrolled migration, but would actively engage with its neighbors to manage the issue. The U.S. has leverage with other countries, and our last president didn’t use it and again, treated our country like a doormat, just let people in by the millions, Ries argued. The current president is choosing to use that leverage with respect to these other countries.
The Trump administration’s immigration policies sparked considerable debate, underscoring the complex and multifaceted nature of immigration management. While proponents lauded the policies as a necessary assertion of sovereignty and a means of deterring illegal immigration, critics raised concerns about the humanitarian consequences and the potential for exploitation of vulnerable migrants.
