‘Remain-in-Mexico’ is the right policy — for Central Americans and Afghans

The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump-era “Remain-in-Mexico” policy for migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border should proceed despite the Biden administration’s effort to shut it down. Humanitarian advocates oppose the policy saying it endangers vulnerable people seeking protection in the United States. Advocates insist it is a rational response to an escalating security crisis. They both are right.

Preventing a stampede into the United States is a priority for any administration. Our outdated and inadequate asylum system cannot handle the volume it faces — instead, it resorts to either unnecessary detention, even of children, or provisional entry pending an asylum hearing months later. Neither response makes sense.

Except for accidents of geography, we would be facing a similar crisis with people trying to flee Afghanistan.  

The intersection of security concerns and humanitarian need is plain for everyone to see in the exodus from Kabul. Simply flying tens of thousands of poorly vetted Afghans into the United States, although possible, is not in our best interest. Instead, we are distributing them to temporary facilities in different countries until we ascertain who among them is appropriate for resettlement here.  

In essence, we are applying the logic of Remain-in-Mexico to Afghans, i.e. responding (badly) to the humanitarian crisis while keeping potential security threats at arm’s length. So why is the Biden administration against using the same reasoning when it comes to migrants and asylum seekers in Mexico itself?

Experts may point to the razor thin distinction between refugees, Afghans in this case, and asylum seekers, the people at our southern border. The difference is primarily a matter of proximity to our territory and is not a reason to dismiss a reasonable solution to an urgent problem.

Both Afghans fleeing the Taliban and Central Americans fleeing criminal gangs and dysfunctional governments have legitimate claims to our assistance. While our culpability in Afghanistan is painfully obvious, many of us who served as diplomats, intelligence officers and in the military in Central America can still remember the mistakes we made there in the 1980’s, compounded by our equally damaging war on drugs. Noble intentions aside, our actions then and now helped set the stage for the violence and hardship that continues to drive many into Mexico and farther north.  

But despite some culpability for the crisis on our own border, it is no more in our national interest to let large numbers of unvetted migrants cross it than to let poorly checked Afghans into our airports. Offshore processing, when feasible, is a legitimate way to balance our humanitarian and security responsibilities. We already apply remote processing to refugees, including Cubans interdicted at sea. Why not apply it to the crush of migrants massing to our south?

The argument that staying in Mexico is too great a hardship for already vulnerable people can also be applied to Afghans in their temporary accommodations. Media reporting suggests the conditions they face, even at U.S. military facilities, are awful. Fixing that problem is within our means. Similarly, it is within our diplomatic and foreign assistance capacity to negotiate better conditions for migrants in Mexico, monitored and assured by the United States and international organizations. The argument against taking that step is often ideological or partisan, not practical.

We have both a moral and a legal responsibility to assist refugees, asylum seekers and other survival migrants wherever and whenever we can. That obligation has been ratified in various treaties and national laws and we generally try to meet our obligations, with a few notable exceptions.

At the same time, we have a more fundamental responsibility to our national security, which extends far beyond over-hyped concerns about terrorism. The Remain-in-Mexico policy can be turned into a reasonable approach to protect both our security and our decency. The Supreme Court’s ruling gives the Biden administration the opportunity to improve the program rather than to simply drum up new legal challenges to it. It would be a relief to see pragmatism trump politics.

Ambassador David Robinson (Ret.) is a former emissary to Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guyana. He was assistant chief of mission in Afghanistan in 2013-2014 and served as assistant secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations in the Obama administration.