English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article will attempt to answer two questions; first, in what way did the Government of Mexico attempt to resolve the influx of a large number of migrants, children and family members, from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) who were transiting Mexico on their way to the United States in the 2014–2016 period? Second, why have migrants continued to arrive even after the adoption of the Mexican Programa Frontera Sur (PFS) of 2014, which was supposed to resolve the migration crisis and put an end to arrests and deportation? At the same time, the article will try to assess, according to Haines (2013), whether the Mexican post-2014 migration policy has been “good” (in line with the political and cultural context, achievable and effective with acceptable costs of staff and resources), or “bad” (discriminatory and incompatible with existing moral and legal norms). The thesis of the article is that under the influence of the United States, Mexico is treating migrants in transit as a security threat, rather than as members of the same cultural circle who require protection. So, instead of helping them, Mexico uses coercion to suppress them. While traditional threats are endangering the survival of the state, new threats to the state are also endangering individuals. The article consists of an introduction, three sections and a conclusion. The first section will provide an explanation of the relationship between migration and security (traditional national security and human security). The second section analyses the pull-and-push factors of migration from the Northern Triangle countries. This is followed by Mexico’s transit policy towards illegal migrants, which is discussed in the third section. Case study research was used as a methodological strategy. The migration wave in the 2014–2016 period, consisting of many children and mothers from the Northern Triangle states transiting through Mexico on their way to the United States, was characterised as a crisis. A crisis implies the existence of a threat justifying the imposition of extraordinary measures. The issue of migrants in transit through Mexico was no novelty. Since the late 1980s, under the pressure of the United States, Mexico has been deporting migrants in transit back to their countries of origin. As Mexico has increasingly associated with the United States, there has emerged a growing need for greater compliance with “American requirements” and for the understanding of “American fears” of illegal migrants. After 11 September 2001, the fear became almost paranoid. Mexican presidents Fox, Calderon, and Nieto brought about and implemented a restrictive migration policy in line with the US policy, according to which migrants posed a threat to national security. Although repeatedly emphasising its intention to protect the migrants in transit, Mexico militarised and securitised its migration policy. This was particularly apparent after the 2014 Frontera Sur programme, which applied the same methods – arrest, deportation and denial of asylum – to the vulnerable population of women and children who largely satisfied the criteria for refugee status recognition. The PFS emphasised the intent to protect migrants, to better manage border crossings and to create security and prosperity zones in the south of the country. However, after two years of the programme’s implementation it can be concluded that none of the objectives above have been achieved. Indeed, migrants in transit are additionally exposed to strife, suffering, and violations of their fundamental human rights, both by criminal organisations and the forces of law and order. Therefore, their transit has become much more uncertain than it was before. At the same time, human rights are violated by the state of Mexico itself, which denies migrants the right to asylum or recognition of humanitarian visas. The border in the south of the country has not become more secure. That PFS complies with US interests is apparent from the fact that the United States is its main source of funding, since it has managed to link the combat against drugs and migrants in transit via the Merida Initiative. The question is why have migrants continued to arrive despite everything mentioned above? It was their hope that somehow, they would reach the USA or, in the worst case, remain in Mexico. The most elementary human right, the right to life, is endangered in the countries of the Northern Triangle. In addition to personal insecurity, there are other human security threats in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador forcing the citizens to flee and emigrate from political, economic, environmental, and health and food insecurity. With everything being said, it is not easy to evaluate the Mexican migration policy. From a perspective of human security, it was “bad” because it was discriminatory and incompatible with the cultural and political context, as well as with moral and legal norms. Evaluated from a national security perspective, it was “good” because it was achievable, it has yielded results with an acceptable cost of staff and resources and has achieved state interests – good relations with the United States. At the same time, it is one of the tools Mexico can use in the future if Trump should decide against Mexican interests (significant taxing of Mexican products or deporting the many Mexican citizens illegally residing in the United States). Since Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador belong to the same cultural (historical, religious and linguistic circle), it was presumed that Mexico would pursue a policy that favours migrants and their protection; however, that did not happen. The authors agree with Kimball (2007: 140) that in the long run, Mexico will not be able to simultaneously advocate and implement both the pro- and anti-immigrant policy. The problem of the migrant wave, mostly consisting of mothers and children from the Northern Triangle countries, who were in transit through Mexico during 2014–2016, was attempted to be resolved via securitisation rather than care about their security. Castles de Haas and Miller (2014: 5) state that in the case of Mexico, there is a proliferation of migration transition, since it is turning from an emigration into an immigration country. To be more specific, with Trump coming to power, Mexico is increasingly not just a transit country, but also an ultimate destination country. Trump’s immigration policy regarding immigrants from Central America suffers from deep historical amnesia related to the role of the USA in the Central American conflict of the 1980s, which has significantly destabilised the region. Moreover, Trump denounces and demonises as dangerous criminals the families, women and children, who have fled from violence contributed to by the USA (Portillo Villeda and Miklos, 2017: 53–54). This is one of the reasons the number of arrested migrants from Central America on the southern border of the United States has significantly decreased, but the number of asylum seekers in Mexico has increased threefold. There is a hope that new Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador would perceive vulnerable Northern Triangle migrants more as a threat to human rather than national security. KEY WORDS:  illegal migrants; transit; security threat; securitization; Mexico; Northern Triangle

Ilegalni migranti u tranzitu kao prijetnja sigurnosti građanima Meksika