A Nation of Immigrants? The Harmful Legacy of “Remain in Mexico”
President Donald Trump’s political rhetoric has long equated migration with criminality, framing immigrants as threats to national security and social stability. During his inauguration, he reminded the United States that such statements are not merely rhetorical. President Trump is transforming his rhetoric into policy. And this policy has far-reaching consequences. By declaring a national emergency at the Southern border and seeking to reinstate the controversial Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, President Trump reignites a policy framework that disproportionately harms racial minorities, women, and the working poor. Reviving the “Remain in Mexico” policy would not be a true immigration reform, and more importantly, harm human rights, safety, and access to due process for vulnerable migrants.
How Did the “Remain in Mexico” Policy Work?
The Trump administration’s MPP program was used to send nearly 70,000 asylum seekers to dangerous border areas in Mexico, where they were frequently subjected to kidnapping, rape, trafficking, and torture by Mexican criminal organizations while their asylum cases were being adjudicated. Only 500 people—fewer than 1% of asylum seekers kept in Mexico—were granted asylum. The marginal admission rates hint at the likely core purpose of the program: to deter migrants and keep them out of the United States, as part of a wider racial agenda to repatriate immigrants.
Although the program was not limited to any nationality or language, it practiced linguistic profiling (the practice of conducting law enforcement actions against people primarily because of the language they speak), mainly targeting Spanish-speaking individuals. The top seven national origins of those placed under the program by Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officials were Honduras, Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. By design, Latino immigrants were the primary target of this policy.
The MPP Empowered Cartels and Perpetuated Needless Violence
The MPP exposed asylum seekers to perilous conditions and violence in Mexico. As of February 2020, individuals under MPP faced over 1,000 instances of murder, rape, torture, and kidnapping. In many cases, asylum seekers were separated from relatives or friends already in the United States—where they would have been safe—and thrown into the perilous environment of the Mexican border regions.
Even more alarming is the fact that cartels made money off of the MPP. In concert with corrupt Mexican immigration officials, they preyed on migrants being returned or displaced to Mexico, specifically targeting those with families in the United States for kidnapping and extortion operations, demanding up to $3,500 for the release of abducted relatives. Some asylum seekers missed hearings because of kidnappings or theft of crucial documents.
The MPP Compounded Trauma
Under the MPP, asylum seekers attending court hearings in the United States could declare a fear of returning to Mexico, allowing them to undergo a “non-refoulement” interview with an asylum officer. Despite escaping dangerous conditions in their countries of origin—conditions that compelled them to seek asylum in the first place—only 40.4% received the requisite interviews for protection, and a mere 1% to 13% of these individuals passed the interviews. Many were sent back to Mexico regardless, reflecting a policy that starkly contradicted the very purpose of asylum protections—giving protection to those under credible threat of harm.
A strict interpretation of the MPP prohibited certain groups in special circumstances (such as individuals with known physical or mental health issues) from being placed in the program. However, the discretionary power of CBP officers allowed them to send back families with infants and toddlers or with pregnancies, as well as other vulnerable groups. This included protected groups such as indigenous people or individuals requiring special accommodations like critically ill or people living with disabilities.
The MPP deliberately established significant logistical barriers to the immigration process, making it nearly impossible for many asylum seekers to attend their hearings. Families were returned to cities in Mexico that were up to a seven-and-a-half-hour journey away from the port of entry where their hearing was held. The families were asked to find their own transportation and arrive between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. for hearings beginning at 8 a.m. These long journeys made an already hard process even more dangerous, putting asylum seekers at risk of criminal groups. These groups often control buses and taxis, leading passengers to roadblocks where they can be questioned, extorted, or kidnapped. For those who could attend their hearings, all family members, including children, must be present and were threatened with not seeing a judge if their children made noise. After the hearings, they were locked in immigration holding cells, where boys under the age of 18 were placed with unrelated adults. Over 700 children crossed the border alone, despite arriving there with parents or relatives.
The MPP Made The United States Hypocritical
For decades, a goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights. Human rights standards prescribe humane treatment for asylum seekers, which includes not subjecting them to incarceration. Yet, under MPP, they were locked in overcrowded immigration cells, known as “hieleras” because of their cold temperatures, which reached as low as 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Human rights organizations reported on the abusive treatment of CBP officers who regularly took away their sweaters and provided food that was still frozen.
Neglecting the safety of migrants tells the world that the United States lacks compassion and undermines the rhetoric around the American values of humanity, freedom from oppression, and liberty and justice for all. Reinstating the MMP is a misguided decision “that will drive insecurity at the border, waste U.S. resources, undermine the U.S. asylum system, empower traffickers, strain diplomatic relations, and further a humanitarian crisis on our border.” A true immigration reform cannot be a measure that makes the situation at the Southern border worse. It must be a policy that regulates immigration, protects the rights of legitimate asylum seekers, provides legal pathways into the United States, and does not empower actual criminals like cartels and traffickers.
An Alternative Asylum System Guided by American Values
For asylum seekers, the United States is an opportunity to start a new life in safety and dignity. In place of the MPP, the United States should adhere to its international obligation of non-refoulement, which asserts that refugees should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. Asylum seekers should be allowed to remain in the United States while immigration courts adjudicate their cases.
Mexico’s measures to provide protection to asylum seekers are not a substitute for U.S. domestic and legal obligations toward asylum seekers whose objective is to pursue a life in the country. Considering that the United States spends nearly three times as much on immigration detention alone than it does on the entire adjudication system for removal and asylum claims, it should redirect funds from border policing to enhance the capacity of immigration agencies and federal courts. The United States should provide court-appointed legal representation to expedite the adjudication of asylum claims, allowing asylum seekers to integrate into their new communities and contribute meaningfully sooner.
Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is not only unfounded but also deeply misleading. Research consistently demonstrates that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born population. More importantly, seeking asylum is a legal right under both U.S. and international law—it is not a crime. A migration system rooted in true American values would be fair, humane, and welcoming. After all, isn’t the United States a nation built by immigrants?
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: GMA