Image Source: ABC News.
The Republican National Convention begins this Monday in Milwaukee, a pivotal event in the campaign, marked by recent turmoil following an assassination attempt on former President Trump. Amid heightened security and a backdrop of political tension, thousands of Republicans, including top figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, will gather for the first full-scale convention since the pandemic.
Observers are keenly watching several key aspects of the convention: Trump’s response to the recent violence, the selection of his vice-presidential running mate, and the overall atmosphere in light of the heightened security concerns. Additionally, the platform presentation will be closely scrutinized, and Latin American observers will be particularly interested in its stance on immigration and other issues relevant to the region.
This explainer delves into the GOP’s 2024 platform, focusing on immigration policies that address border security, visa reforms, and cooperative efforts with Latin American countries, examining their potential impact on U.S.-Latin America relations.
Where does the call for the “largest deportation operation in American history” fit in the nation’s dual histories of welcoming immigrants and xenophobia?
The call for the “largest deportation operation in American history” in the 2024 GOP Platform is a stark manifestation of the United States’ checkered history on immigration. Historically, the U.S. has been celebrated as a melting pot, offering the promise of the “American Dream” and opportunities for a fresh start to immigrants from around the world. This tradition highlights the inclusive and welcoming image of the country. However, the U.S. also has implemented policies restricting immigration, such as the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, or even incarcerated immigrants deemed to be a threat to national security, such as the Japanese Internment during World War II. Even during the immigration boom of the 19th Century, there were signs of aversion to German, Irish, Italian, and Asian immigrants, and legislative measures like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
More recently, we have seen the implementation of the 2006 Fence Act, the 2017 Muslim travel ban, and pandemic-related immigration restrictions in 2020. The GOP’s advocacy for the removal of millions of illegal migrants appears to be a return to some of the more controversial moments in U.S. immigration policy, in a policy shift that resonates with a significant portion of Trump’s voter base.
While Trump’s rhetoric and GOP policies primarily emphasize exclusion, their support for granting citizenship to immigrants with higher education degrees from U.S. institutions indicates a selective approach. This merit-based aspect of his immigration plan aims to retain talent and foster economic growth, suggesting an acknowledgment of the benefits skilled immigrants bring to the country. Thus, while the broader policy stance is restrictive and aligns with the nation’s history of xenophobia, there remains an element that echoes the tradition of valuing immigrants who contribute significantly to the nation.
Could labeling the influx of migrants as an “invasion” and focusing on deporting millions promote xenophobic attitudes domestically or harm U.S.-Latin America relations?
Labeling the influx of migrants as an “invasion” portrays migrants as a threat rather than as individuals seeking better lives, and conflates illegal immigration with crime and drug trafficking, despite evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Such language and policies, as outlined in the 2024 GOP Platform, may target law-abiding migrants, including children born in the U.S., destabilizing communities, separating families, and damaging the economy. The platform’s focus on excluding individuals based on their political beliefs or religion, particularly from certain countries, reveals an exclusionary and prejudiced stance. This approach contradicts America’s appreciation for diversity and inclusion, and may even face constitutional challenges.
Moreover, the platform’s emphasis on anti-immigrant rhetoric and restrictive policies could deepen social divisions and foster widespread discrimination and xenophobia. While these views may not reflect the entire Republican Party, their implementation would likely influence public opinion, reinforcing negative stereotypes and attitudes towards immigrants.
The platform could also strain U.S. relations with Mexico, Central America, Panama, and Colombia. Such rhetoric and policies may exacerbate regional instability, leading to increased migration flows rather than curbing them. Mexico and Central America are vital trade partners, with U.S. exports to Mexico alone totaling $323.4 billion in 2022. Similarly, Panama and Colombia are key allies in managing the flow of migrants through the Darien Gap, where illegal crossings have surged. In 2023, over 400,000 migrants were reported to have crossed the Darien, a significant increase from previous years. Deteriorating diplomatic ties could hinder economic cooperation, security collaboration, and development efforts, impacting millions on both sides of the border.
How do the proposed immigration policies compare to historical U.S. policies that have promoted diversity and inclusion, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965?
Since at least the 1960s, the U.S. has enjoyed policies that have promoted diversity and inclusion, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This act abolished national-origin quotas and welcomed immigrants from all nationalities, emphasizing the value of family ties and skills, thus enriching American society both culturally and economically.
In contrast, the GOP platform’s focus on mass deportations, reinstating travel bans, and stringent immigration controls neglects the broader appreciation of immigration as foundational to the nation. The emphasis on deporting illegal migrants (targeting primarily Latino immigrants) is likely to provoke discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment, potentially re-establishing indirect national-origin quotas.
Moreover, the platform’s aim to deny entry based on political beliefs starkly contrasts with the more inclusive historical policies like the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 and the Immigration Act of 1990, which protected migrants fleeing persecution and revised exclusion grounds based on political or ideological beliefs. These acts underscored the U.S. commitment to human rights and asylum, promoting assistance to those escaping extreme circumstances.
Thus, the proposed policies would probably lead to a more exclusionary and restrictive immigration system, deviating from past policies that celebrated diversity, provided refuge to persecuted individuals, and reinforced the nation’s identity as a welcoming melting pot.
