It’s Time to Adopt a Hemispheric Approach to Migration: Part II
This article is Part II of a series that explores the need for a hemispheric approach to migration in the Western Hemisphere. To see Part I, click here.
Migration Flows and the Decay of the Nation-State
The nation-state has served as a model for countries in the Western Hemisphere since the late eighteenth century. The concept of a state based on an imagined nation, whose inhabitants are treated as citizens with rights and membership within a larger national community, has been explored by scholars and experts (such as Benedict Anderson for instance in his classic Imagined Communities). These national communities are supposedly bound by an imagined ideology, history, culture, and language and based on a state with geographical boundaries. However, these same national communities are collapsing before our eyes.
The symptoms of this collapse include the rise of populism, the decay in election accountability, and the sharp degree of social and political polarization. In addition, corruption and lack of political will engender feelings of suspicion and hostility that eat away at the trust that is essential in a republican or parliamentary system. This political decay is occurring as polarization shatters previously accepted notions of what makes up a national community. The fragile and changeable edifice of the nation-state is crumbling in the face of these crises.
The failures of the nation-state have forced the exodus of millions of people across the world, especially in the Western Hemisphere. In the Western Hemisphere, more and more people feel they have no future in nation-states that are on the brink of collapse. As a result, migrants have tried, are trying, and will try to get to the U.S. Despite its decline as a global empire and nation-state, the U.S remains the best destination for them.
While treating migrants with more humanity, more investment in transnational organizations, more intergovernmental cooperation, and more direct U.S aid to afflicted groups are helpful, they remain too limited in scope and based on the nation-state to succeed in solving larger, hemispheric issues such as migration. To change this situation, we need to center migration within a hemispheric perspective.
But where do we start?
The idea of a nation-state is fundamental to so many people and is the cornerstone of every state that exists in the world today. Does the effort to replace it have to be a Herculean task? Perhaps, if we try to change everything at once. However, if we start with certain ideas and policies, a hemispheric approach becomes more and more plausible. Let us start with migration.
A Hemispheric Approach to Migration
Albert Einstein once said, “A problem cannot be solved by the same consciousness that created it.” He was right. Current nationalist policies towards migration across the Western Hemisphere are the result of flawed thinking and policies based on the nation-state. Naturally, other ideas based on the same ideas cannot be used. These include ideas (such as transnationalism and multilateralism) that rest on the idea that the nation-state should be the default actor in international affairs.
Migration may seem like a crisis from a nationalist point of view, but it is a manageable issue to a hemispheric one.
If the nation-state is part of the problem, then it cannot be part of the solution. A hemispheric approach is feasible in solving migration in the short term and can help prevent the suffering of millions of migrants that seek a better life in the Western Hemisphere. Any policy based on a hemispheric approach to migration must be based on the following principles:
1. Each hemispheric government acknowledges that all countries in the Western Hemisphere share a common destiny and are part of the same hemispheric family.
2. Each hemispheric government agrees to pursue policies that assign priority to other hemispheric countries whether it be trade policy, aid, political treaties, etc.
3. After all hemispheric countries acknowledge each other as members of a family with a common destiny, all hemispheric governments must then extend that recognition to all inhabitants of said countries. This would translate into unrestricted migration and settlement into any hemispheric country without fear of being deported. In other words, if a migrant has citizenship in a hemispheric country, then their citizenship should be respected in all other hemispheric countries.
Any policy or agreement based on a hemispheric approach must be based on these three principles. Otherwise, current and future migration policies will continue to be limited to a nationalist framework; condemning them to repeat the same mistakes of the past concerning the alienation, mistreatment, and detention of migrants. We need now, more than ever, concrete hemispheric policies instead of nationalist policies that are not equipped to solve issues that transcend the nation-state such as migration.
A hemispheric approach would require the revision of all current migration policies in the Western Hemisphere. It would also require cooperation across the hemisphere to ensure that each country adopts a similar policy.
A shift towards a hemispheric approach in the U.S would greatly improve the situation and would inspire other governments in the Western hemisphere to do the same. Such an approach would radically change the situation for the better since, according to recent studies, more than 50% of migrants that enter the United States today are originally from countries in the Western Hemisphere (especially from Mexico whose migrants compose almost half this figure).
Migration may seem like a crisis from a nationalist point of view, but it is a manageable issue to a hemispheric one. A hemispheric approach to migration can also be a step forward in creating a hemispheric entity. The fundamental idea of a hemispheric entity in the Western Hemisphere is that the entire Western hemisphere is the home to all who inhabit it. This feeling translates into states in the Western Hemisphere prioritizing relations with other states in the same hemisphere and allowing freedom of movement between countries among people who have citizenship in hemispheric states. A nationalist policy towards migration labels migration as “immigration” and paints migrants as either responsible immigrants that obey immigration policies or dangerous foreigners that must be expelled. In contrast, a hemispheric policy towards migrants from the Western Hemisphere would be more effective because these migrants would be treated with more respect instead of as suspicious undesirables.
At a time where old ways of thinking are crumbling, it is important to be bold and effective. I believe that the path towards a hemispheric entity is the best path. A hemispheric approach to migration is a step forward along this path. It also serves as a steppingstone in imagining a greater hemispheric future.
Right now, the U.S and other countries in the Western Hemisphere must not only elaborate hemispheric policies but also base them on principles of a common hemispheric future. With the collapse of the nation-state upon us, it is important to start imagining these things now.
We must think, hope and plan as one hemisphere. This is not the objective of one person, government, or country but of a hemisphere whose members share a common destiny. However, before we can call ourselves a hemispheric family, we must first demonstrate it. Migration is a way we can do that.
Thank you for reading! Follow me on Medium to get notified on the latest articles. If you are looking for writing submissions similar to this or on another topic for a journal, op-ed, or other thought piece, freelance translation in English, Spanish, French, and/or Portuguese, a research assistant/analyst for a think tank, or are looking for a full-time on-staff writer or editor, feel free to reach out.
