El Salvador

Pervasive corruption has long stymied development and fueled emigration from some of Central America’s poorest countries. The recent disbanding of antigraft commissions makes their prospects for reform gloomier.

Political and economic unrest in Nicaragua could stoke the flames in a region where insecurity has forced tens of thousands to flee in recent years.

In the wake of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s historic victory, the markets are focused on Mexico’s economic prospects, keenly sniffing for any whiff of either pragmatic promise or populist calamity. Yet while a financial crisis is possible, Central American migration may prove the new administration’s biggest first challenge. Since 2014, hundreds of thousands of Central American men, women, and children, mostly from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, have fled their homes. Driven by violence, extortion, poverty, and a drought that has decimated subsistence farming, and pulled by family connections and the hope of safe haven, they mostly head north. This desperate exodus brought some 280,000 migrants to the southern U.S. border in 2014, driving a media storm and political reckoning. Images of young children spurred churches into action, political demonstrations across the country, and even conservative talk show host Glenn Beck to drive to the border with a truckload of teddy bears and soccer balls. Congress doled out extra money to care for more than 50,000 Central American “unaccompanied alien children,” or UACs in the Department of Homeland Security’s parlance; the Obama administration worked with the presidents of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to launch the Alliance for Prosperity, a two-year $1.4 billion dollar plan to spur better governance and economic development. In 2015 the massive migrant wave to the U.S. border diminished, and the cameras largely turned away. Yet the precipitous decline wasn’t because Central Americans stopped leaving their homes. It was because Mexico stopped letting them through. Backed by more than $150 million in U.S. funding, Mexico tightened its southern border, expanding checkpoints, boosting manpower, and using fingerprinting and facial-scanning to identify and detain crossers. The government even cracked down on the infamous La Bestia (“the beast”) freight trains that carried thousands from the southern border city of Tapachula north. That year, Mexico apprehended and deported more Central Americans than its northern neighbor. This status quo of Mexico stopping tens of thousands of families each year may soon end. On the campaign trail, Lopez Obrador promised to loosen Peña Nieto’s southern border defense, refusing to “continue the dirty work” of the United States by detaining Central American migrants who are fleeing violence. As Mexico looks to ease up on its southern border, the U.S. is strengthening enforcement. President Trump’s pullback from separating young children from their parents at the border — spurred by negative media coverage — is just a brief hiatus from an ever-hardening position toward Central American migrants and asylum seekers. The Department of Justice has rewritten the asylum guidelines, raising the credible fear bar asylum seekers must reach, and all but disqualifying those fleeing criminal and domestic violence, thereby denying most Central American claims. The administration has slashed refugee spots by more than half, and tinkered with rules to deny many their day in court. And the U.S. is threatening to impose its own version of the European Union’s Dublin Regulation, under which those seeking asylum must generally do so in their first country of arrival, thereby rendering moot the asylum claims of Central Americans crossing through Mexico. The net result: Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Central Americans will likely get stuck in Mexico. There, these migrants will have expansive protections — at least on paper. A 2011 legislative reform guarantees asylum seekers quick and comprehensive consideration, legal representation, and an appeal. While in Mexico they have the right to apply for access to medical care and education. In reality, these rights are at best uneven. Amnesty International found that three out of every four migrants weren’t informed of their right to seek asylum, as the law requires. Although the process has slightly improved, many asylees were detained for months, also in violation of the law. One of the problems is that Mexico’s Commission for Refugee Assistance has two offices outside of the capital; its skeletal staff was able to process fewer than 5,000 cases last year. Another is the widespread corruption and violence targeting migrants, often from the agencies and officials mandated to protect them. And Mexican society isn’t ready for the influx. Not unlike the United States, some Mexicans worry immigrants will take their jobs, depress wages, or commit crimes. Violence against these newcomers has been on the rise: In 2016 alone, the Mexican government found more than 5,000 cases of crimes against migrants, nearly 20 percent at the hands of government officials. In short, Lopez Obrador may well be caught between his promises to be more open and humane to those fleeing and the desire to no longer do president Trump’s bidding, and the huge potential costs this shift could entail for his larger domestic agenda. With Mexico’s migratory agencies and services so ill-equipped, absorbing an influx would take away resources away from his efforts to lift up Mexico’s poor. On the other hand, if Lopez Obrador allows more Central Americans to flow north, Trump could well respond by clamping down further, creating a greater burden for states in northern Mexico. Mexico has long been a sending country, with millions of its citizens living abroad, mostly in the United States. It is now increasingly a receiving nation, caught between desperation to the south and xenophobia to the north, with few tools to safely manage these inflows. Lopez Obrador’s team already faces the burden of realizing his expansive campaign promises. Resolving a migration crisis on its southern border may not have been high on its list. But part of governing, of course, is preparing for unpleasant surprises. View article originally published on Bloomberg.

Welcome to “Women Around the World: This Week,” a series that highlights noteworthy news related to women and U.S. foreign policy. This week’s post, covering May 5 to May 11, was compiled with support from Amalia Trigo and Rebecca Turkington.

The Trump administration's decision to repeal Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans presents them with a difficult choice, writes Edward Alden.

The new administration has emphasized the need to curb security threats from Latin America: bad hombres, rapist Mexicans, and the wall are among the wrenching rhetorical symbols that President Trump has used to signal his goals. Five data points highlight the challenges the administration will face as it moves to secure the southern border. Crime directly consumes 3.55 percent of GDP in Latin America, on average. This is about twice the average cost in developed nations, and exceeds the annual income of the bottom 30 percent of the regional population. Corruption may consume an additional 3 percent of GDP, on average, with illicit financial outflows in some countries suggesting even higher costs. Impunity reigns. Latin American nations are near the top of a global impunity index, with Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador among the world’s worst performers. The practical implications are significant: 9 out of 10 murders go unresolved in a region that is among the world’s most violent. Astounding levels of violence drive migration. A survey of Central American migrants conducted last year by the Inter-American Dialogue found that violence was the second major reason given for the decision to migrate. No wonder, when Latin American homicide rates are four times higher than the global average. The most common trigger for migration, the search for economic opportunities, may also be influenced by the brake crime puts on local economies. In 2014, the U.S. had 55 million self-identified Hispanics or Latinos (about 17 percent of the population). Of these, just over a third – 19.4 million – were immigrants. Latin American remittances surpassed $70 billion in 2016, continuing an upward trend in which remittances to Latin America have more than doubled over the past fifteen years. According to a study of last year’s remittances, “[t]he growth in remittances to Central America…is mostly associated with continued insecurity in the region that is driving people out.” These five data points suggest that untangling the U.S. from Latin America will be fraught with difficulty. The push factors that drive migratory flows – crime, corruption, violence, and impunity – are tangled up with the pull factors that attract them to the U.S.– family ties and economic opportunity – in ways that are not easily undone. The five data points further suggest a strictly hardline approach at the border will be self-defeating. Crime and corruption together consume roughly 6.5 percent of Latin American GDP, driven in no small part by U.S. demand for narcotics and its various knock-on effects: organized crime, violence, and a weak rule of law. The fact that the costs of crime and corruption exceed remittances in most countries in the region suggests that an effective policy set to tackle threats from the southern border must at the very least include rule of law development assistance, aimed at tackling local “push” factors that drive violence and incentivize migration. If, as a consequence of administration policies, remittances were to decline and hundreds of thousands of migrants were blocked or sent home, the economic conditions in much of Latin America – and particularly in those countries closest to the U.S. southern border – would worsen considerably, deepening the “push” factors that drive migration. Both remittances and migratory flows would be driven underground: literally, through border tunnels, and figuratively, through illicit money laundering and organized migrant smuggling. The implications for border security would be profound.

Central America’s Northern Triangle is one of the most violent regions in the world. Last year’s murder rate of roughly 54 per 100,000 inhabitants surpasses Iraq’s civilian death toll. El Salvador alone registered 103 homicides per 100,000—making it the deadliest peacetime country. While victims are often young men, women and children die too. Kids face a murder rate of 27 per 100,000 in El Salvador—making the country as dangerous for elementary and middle schoolers as it is for an adult in the toughest neighborhoods of Detroit or New Orleans. Its neighbors Honduras and Guatemala are also among not just Latin America’s but the world’s most dangerous nations. This violence is one of the main factors driving massive migration. In 2014, U.S. border patrol detained a record 239,000 Central Americans on the southern border. In 2015, this figure fell, in large part because Mexico stopped those leaving—sending back some 150,000 migrants caught along its border with Guatemala. In the last three plus years over 136,000 unaccompanied minors and 140,000 more family members have come north—enough to populate Cincinnati. Tens of thousands are fleeing to neighboring countries—Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize have all seen asylum applications skyrocket. Less than five months into 2016, 56,000 new unaccompanied minors and others are already in U.S. custody, suggesting another record surge in the making. The challenges facing Central America won’t diminish soon, meaning migration flows to the United States and elsewhere won’t end. Proposed solutions—strengthening public prosecutors, training police, cleaning up prisons, building community centers, and developing alternative jobs programs —will only make a difference in the medium to longer term. And though the U.S. Congress has approved $750 million for programs to reduce violence and boost economic development, those taking a historical perspective know this isn’t the first time the United States and others have tried to buttress these fragile nations, with few results. Yet what might be different this time comes from these societies themselves. Even as many justifiably flee, other Central Americans (notably not many of their elites, at least yet) are raising their voices against the poverty, inequality, corruption, and violence. Investigative journalists, armed with freedom of information acts, digital paper trails (such as the Panama papers), and other tools within these budding democracies have uncovered deep-seated corruption—including powerful Guatemalan politicians using their office for personal gain, and the expansive ties between Honduran elites and organized crime. Local prosecutors and judges too have stepped up to make sure justice is done, even if it involves the powerful. In Guatemala, the attorney general—working closely with the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG)—brought down the former president and vice president for running a customs fraud scheme. El Salvador’s Supreme Court is going after two former presidents for graft. And citizen protests have grown. In Guatemala, the peaceful demonstrations by tens of thousands led to the resignation of President Otto Pérez Molina. In Honduras, citizen outrage over $200 million missing from the social security system forced the government to accept a new Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, modeled after CICIG, to investigate that and other alleged wrongdoings. Ongoing protests following the assassination of environmental and indigenous activist Berta Cáceres are forcing the government to investigate. These steps, while fledgling, could matter for these nations’ future. Their successes or failures will also likely matter in shaping future decisions to exit—through migration—or to stay and raise one’s voice, for change at home.

This is a guest blog post by Dr. Richard Messick, an anticorruption specialist. It is based on a CFR roundtable discussion on March 24 hosted by Matthew M. Taylor, adjunct senior fellow for Latin America Studies. One of the most promising developments in U.S. foreign relations is the all-out war on corruption being waged across Latin America. From “Operation Car Wash” in Brazil to investigations of presidential wrongdoing in Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Panama, across the region independent, tenacious prosecutors and investigators are out to end the massive theft of state resources that for so long has hobbled political development and throttled economic growth. The United States should be cheering for these corruption warriors, for we have much to gain if they succeed. Less corruption translates into more stable, reliable political allies; it means faster, more equitable growth and that means shared prosperity and less northward migration. Finally, less corruption in government will offer U.S. firms new opportunities. Think what the end of corruption in Brazilian public works would mean for U.S. engineering and construction companies. But given the stakes in Latin America’s corruption war, the United States should be doing more than cheering from the sidelines. It should be doing everything it can—without infringing the sovereignty or sensibilities of Latin American neighbors—to see its corruption warriors succeed. Here are five things to start with: Fund the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs (OIA) budget request. If a Latin American investigator learns an official he or she is investigating has a bank account in the United States, the investigator can ask the OIA to obtain the account’s records to see if corrupt money is being parked there. But the office had at latest count more than 11,000 requests pending and was receiving 3,000 plus new ones each year. Unless the investigator gets lucky and the request finds its way to the top of the pile, he or she will be long retired, and the suspect long dead, before the OIA responds. For years the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked Congress, without success, for funds to hire more staff to speed requests. This year it requested $10 million to add 97 positions, 54 attorneys, and 43 paralegals and support staff. Isn’t it time Congress said yes to this modest request? Name a single focal point to help Latin American law enforcement agencies. When looking to the United States for assistance, Latin Americans face a bewildering number of agencies, bureaus, and offices: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the 92 U.S. Attorney’s offices, and these are just at the federal level. There are hundreds, if not thousands, at the state and local level. It takes experienced U.S. law enforcement officers years to figure out where to go for information. Why not make it easy for Latin Americans who don’t have years to decipher the complex and bewildering U.S. system? Create one office, staffed with personnel fluent in Spanish and Portuguese from across the federal and state governments who can serve as a “one-stop shop” for Latin American police, prosecutors, and judges needing information from their U.S. counterparts. Create an interagency task force to work with Latin American counterparts to target corrupt Latin American officials. Whenever a corrupt Latin American official uses the proceeds of a bribe to buy an apartment in Miami or open a bank account in Houston or Los Angeles, he or she has violated U.S. antimoney laundering laws. Depending upon whether they traveled in the United States, used U.S. mail services, or U.S. email servers, they may have also committed wire fraud or violated the laws forbidding travel across state lines in furtherance of fraud or corruption. A task force of U.S. personnel drawn from ICE’s Foreign Corruption Investigations Group, DOJ’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit, the U.S. Attorney’s offices in Miami, the FBI’s international corruption squads, DOJ’s kleptocracy unit, and other relevant agencies should be available to work with Latin American counterparts on possible violations of U.S. law committed by corrupt Latin American officials. Greater intelligence sharing and joint investigations in association with Latin American anticorruption agencies and prosecutors would enhance both regional and domestic efforts against corruption and ill-gotten gains. Enact the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. Introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and colleagues in the House of Representatives and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and colleagues in the Senate, this would end the ability of corrupt officials, as well as drug traffickers and other unsavory individuals, to keep investigators from learning how much money they have and where it came from. Under current law, a corrupt Latin American official can open a bank account in the United States in the name of a Delaware limited liability company. He or she can own the company anonymously, that is, without anyone, in Delaware or elsewhere, knowing his or her identity. If Global Witness’s exposé of U.S. lawyers counseling an investigator posing as the agent of a corrupt minister weren’t enough to persuade lawmakers of the need for the legislation, the April 3 revelations of massive abuses in the use of anonymous shell companies by the International Center for Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) should lay to rest any lingering doubts about how critical this legislation is to the fight against not only corruption but terrorism and organized crime as well. End secrecy in the U.S. real estate market. Thanks to gaps in U.S. antimoney laundering regulations, corrupt officials in Latin America (and elsewhere) can use the proceeds of corruption to secretly buy property in the United States. Requiring real estate agents, title insurance companies, and others involved in the purchase and sale of condominiums, houses, and other U.S. real estate to comply with the antimoney laundering rules will expose attempts by corrupt officials to create a “safe haven” for when they leave office. The U.S. Department of the Treasury took a small, first step in this direction in January when it issued an emergency order (in response to a New York Times’ exposé) requiring title insurance companies in Manhattan and Miami-Dade Country to apply antimoney laundering rules to all real estate purchases over $1 million in cash for the next six months. The rule should be made permanent and extended to all regions. Since 2002 the Treasury Department has given real estate brokers a “temporary” exemption from the antimoney laundering rules while it studies their situation. The time for study is over. The Treasury Department should follow the European Union’s lead and require brokers to comply with the antimoney laundering rules. The burden of ridding Latin America of the corruption that infests so many of its governments remains first and foremost the responsibility of its governments. But the United States has much to gain if they succeed, and there is much it can do to help them. The steps above are a modest beginning; it should move on them expeditiously. This piece also appeared on the Global Anticorruption Blog.

This is a guest blog post by Dr. Richard Messick, an anticorruption specialist. It is based on a talk he gave at a CFR roundtable on March 24 hosted by Matthew M. Taylor, adjunct senior fellow for Latin America Studies. One of the most promising developments in U.S. foreign relations is the all-out war on corruption being waged across Latin America. From “Operation Car Wash” in Brazil to investigations of presidential wrongdoing in Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Panama, across the region independent, tenacious prosecutors and investigators are out to end the massive theft of state resources that for so long has hobbled political development and throttled economic growth. The United States should be cheering for these corruption warriors, for we have much to gain if they succeed. Less corruption translates into more stable, reliable political allies; it means faster, more equitable growth and that means shared prosperity and less northward migration. Finally, less corruption in government will offer U.S. firms new opportunities. Think what the end of corruption in Brazilian public works would mean for U.S. engineering and construction companies. But given the stakes in Latin America’s corruption war, the United States should be doing more than cheering from the sidelines. It should be doing everything it can—without infringing the sovereignty or sensibilities of Latin American neighbors—to see its corruption warriors succeed. Here are five things to start with: Fund the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs (OIA) budget request. If a Latin American investigator learns an official he or she is investigating has a bank account in the United States, the investigator can ask the OIA to obtain the account’s records to see if corrupt money is being parked there. But the office had at latest count more than 11,000 requests pending and was receiving 3,000 plus new ones each year. Unless the investigator gets lucky and the request finds its way to the top of the pile, he or she will be long retired, and the suspect long dead, before the OIA responds. For years the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked Congress, without success, for funds to hire more staff to speed requests. This year it has requested $10 millionto add 97 positions, 54 attorneys, and 43 paralegals and support staff. Isn’t it time Congress said yes to this modest request? Name a single focal point to help Latin American law enforcement agencies. When looking to the United States for assistance, Latin Americans face a bewildering number of agencies, bureaus, and offices: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the 92 U.S. Attorney’s offices, and these are just at the federal level. There are hundreds, if not thousands, at the state and local level. It takes experienced U.S. law enforcement officers years to figure out where to go for information. Why not make it easy for Latin Americans who don’t have years to decipher the complex and bewildering U.S. system? Create one office, staffed with personnel fluent in Spanish and Portuguese from across the federal and state governments who can serve as a “one-stop shop” for Latin American police, prosecutors, and judges needing information from their U.S. counterparts. Create an interagency task force to work with Latin American counterparts to target corrupt Latin American officials. Whenever a corrupt Latin American official uses the proceeds of a bribe to buy an apartment in Miami or open a bank account in Houston or Los Angeles, he or she has violated U.S. antimoney laundering laws. Depending upon whether they traveled in the United States, used U.S. mail services, or U.S. email servers, they may have also committed wire fraud or violated the laws forbidding travel across state lines in furtherance of fraud or corruption. A task force of U.S. personnel drawn from ICE’s Foreign Corruption Investigations Group, DOJ’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit, the U.S. Attorney’s offices in Miami, the FBI’s international corruption squads, DOJ’s kleptocracy unit, and other relevant agencies should be available to work with Latin American counterparts on possible violations of U.S. law committed by corrupt Latin American officials. Greater intelligence sharing and joint investigations in association with Latin American anticorruption agencies and prosecutors would enhance both regional and domestic efforts against corruption and ill-gotten gains. Enact the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. Introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and colleagues in the House of Representatives and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and colleagues in the Senate, this would end the ability of corrupt officials, as well as drug traffickers and other unsavory individuals, to keep investigators from learning how much money they have and where it came from. Under current law, a corrupt Latin American official can open a bank account in the United States in the name of a Delaware limited liability company. He or she can own the company anonymously, that is, without anyone, in Delaware or elsewhere, knowing his or her identity. If Global Witness’ expose of U.S. lawyers counseling an investigator posing as the agent of a corrupt minister weren’t enough to persuade lawmakers of the need for the legislation, the April 3 revelations of massive abuses in the use of anonymous shell companies by the International Center for Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) should lay to rest any lingering doubts about how critical this legislation is to the fight against not only corruption but terrorism and organized crime as well. End secrecy in the U.S. real estate market. Thanks to gaps in U.S. antimoney laundering regulations, corrupt officials in Latin America (and elsewhere) can use the proceeds of corruption to secretly buy property in the United States. Requiring real estate agents, title insurance companies, and others involved in the purchase and sale of condominiums, houses, and other U.S. real estate to comply with the antimoney laundering rules will expose attempts by corrupt officials to create a “safe haven” for when they leave office. The U.S. Department of the Treasury took a small, first step in this direction in January when it issued an emergency order (in response to a New York Times’ expose) requiring title insurance companies in Manhattan and Miami-Dade Country to apply antimoney laundering rules to all real estate purchases over $1 million in cash for the next six months. The rule should be made permanent and extended to all regions. Since 2002 the Treasury Department has given real estate brokers a “temporary” exemption from the antimoney laundering rules while it studies their situation. The time for study is over. The Treasury Department should follow the European Union’s lead and require brokers to comply with the antimoney laundering rules. The burden of ridding Latin America of the corruption that infests so many of its governments remains first and foremost the responsibility of its governments. But the United States has much to gain if they succeed, and there is much it can do to help them. The steps above are a modest beginning; it should move on them expeditiously. This piece also appeared on the Global Anticorruption Blog.

18 million Latin Americans—1 in 5 of those between the ages of 15 and 24—neither work nor attend school. Commonly dubbed “ninis” (ni estudian ni trabajan), a new World Bank report looks at this phenomenon across the region. Latin America’s share falls near the world average—far better than the Middle East and North Africa, where one in three roam the streets, but nearly double the rate of industrialized nations. It also varies by nation. In Peru there are fewer ninis than in the United States, while in Central America over a quarter of adolescents are disconnected. The majority are young poor urban women who drop out of school or the workforce after a teen pregnancy or early marriage. The men come from similar backgrounds, leaving school for a precarious job market. In general, conditions are getting better—the share of ninis fell from 23 to 19 percent of young people between 1992 and 2010. These percentage improvements come almost solely from young women, who now stay in school longer, and, when they do leave, find jobs. For men, those that abandon school struggle to find work, filling the ranks of the 2 million more ninis than in the past. Latin America’s disengaged youth threaten the region’s economic advancement. Studies show that lifetime earning power dissipates with just a few years out of the workforce, as individuals stop accumulating human capital and skills. Once excluded, many will only find work in the informal sector—where they will earn less, be less productive, and receive fewer benefits. This reinforces the region’s inequality—with most ninis coming from the lower socioeconomic ranks, they and their families will likely stay there. Excluding millions of young people also wastes Latin America’s current demographic bonus. If these countries are to grow rich before they grow old, they can’t have 18 million working age people on the sidelines. And the disconnectedness links to rising violence, particularly in Mexico, Colombia, and Central America where levels of violence and ninis spiked together. A report by the Wilson Center shows the single most predictive factor of Central American violence is schooling—the more education local youths have the less violent their neighborhood. Broader criminology studies echo this finding—that as education rises crime falls. For policymakers taking on the ninis problem, one challenge is keeping young people in school. They need to convince kids and their families that school matters, and help support this choice—in the form of conditional cash transfers, scholarships, and other policies—so that children don’t have to choose between the classroom and sustenance. Another challenge is ensuring that when kids graduate they find work. Through job training, entrepreneurship programs, and employment services, governments can help link jobseekers with companies and opportunities. The regional economic downturn, leaving so many more vulnerable, makes a response all the more important.

During the summer of 2014 tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors surged across the U.S-Mexico border. Over the course of the fiscal year, nearly 70,000—mostly from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—endured brutal and at times even deadly conditions as they made their way to the United States. While most of these children were between the ages of 13 and 17, the fastest growing group was 6 to 12 years old. Of the many factors that influenced their individual decisions, four stand out. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, “Unaccompanied Alien Children Encountered by Fiscal Year,” 2015. The first is violence. In 2012, the homicide rate in Honduras reached 90 per 100,000—the highest in the world. El Salvador and Guatemala’s homicide rates were 41 and 40 per 100,000, respectively, some of the highest in the hemisphere. Much of this violence is gang related, fueled by robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and drug trafficking. Extreme poverty and inequality also leads children north. Nearly 67 percent of Hondurans, 45 percent of Salvadorans, and 55 percent of Guatemalans live in poverty. One in two Guatemalan children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition, affecting their physical and cognitive development for life. Add in bad schools and few good jobs, there is little reason to stay. The third driving force is family. Over 3 million Central Americans live in the United States, the result of past migration waves. Surveys by Fulbright Scholar Elizabeth Kennedy found that 90 percent of the unaccompanied minors she interviewed from El Salvador had a family member living in the United States. One in three said reuniting with them was the main motivation for leaving home. The importance of family networks is reflected in the disparities in migration paths: despite extreme poverty, few Nicaraguans head to the United States; instead they flock to Costa Rica. Finally, misinformation from client-seeking coyotes pushed many to come. Last spring and summer these traffickers spread rumors that for a limited time United States government would give children amnesty. Pushed out through social media, many families spent upwards of US$8,000 to take advantage of this supposed relaxation in rules. The surge seemed to end as quickly as it began. By September illegal apprehensions were less than half May numbers. One reason for this rapid decline is seasonality. More Central Americans (and Mexicans) come in the spring and summer months when labor needs spike. A second are U.S. efforts to counteract coyotes’ erroneous claims. A US$1 million Spanish-language multi-media “Dangers and Awareness” Campaign ran some 6,500 radio and television advertisements in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to dispel the falsehoods being spread. Perhaps most importantly, Mexico stepped up its southern border and transit route enforcement; curtailing, for instance, migrants riding the infamous train “The Beast.”In 2014, deportations back to Central America jumped by a third. Still, the United States should prepare for a new influx this spring. Poverty, inequality, and violence continue unabated in the region. And a decent U.S. economy provides opportunities that, for many, outweigh the dangers of the trip. If early trends hold, unaccompanied minors heading north in 2015 will likely be second in number only to the record breaking 2014 flows. To help tackle the root causes, President Obama has asked for over US$1 billion to, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, support the “difficult reforms and investments required to address the region’s interlocking security, governance and economic challenges.” Skeptics may argue that the billions of dollars spent in the past have little to show. Others may question whether just US$1 billion, divided between three troubled nations, can make a difference. Leadership and political resolve will matter just as much as resources. But without steps to change the calculus, Central America’s youth will continue their treks to the U.S. border.

Despite the standstill in Congress on immigration reform, state and local governments have been very active in passing their own immigration legislation. In this article for Foreign Policy, I look at what different states and cities are doing regarding immigration and the effects of their policies. You can read the beginning of the piece below:  With all the mudslinging and acrimony in Washington over unaccompanied minors and unauthorized immigrants, you might have missed it. Immigration reform has already happened -- in fact, hundreds of times. With the federal government incapacitated, states, cities, and municipalities have stepped into the fray. In 2013 alone, forty-five of the fifty state legislatures passed over four hundred laws and resolutions on everything from law enforcement and employment to education and public benefits. Among this flurry were a few in the Arizona SB 1070 style -- bills making life more miserable for undocumented immigrants. These laws ranged from blocking access to health care and schools to criminalizing common activities such as driving cars or buying homes. But the majority are actually designed to find ways to integrate undocumented immigrants -- funding English language and citizenship classes and providing access to medical care and other social services. You can read the rest of the piece here on ForeignPolicy.com.

Earlier this week, Salvadorans headed to the polls to cast their ballots in a presidential runoff election, since on February 2 the candidates failed to reach the 50 percent threshold to avoid a second round. In the runoff’s lead up, Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a former guerrilla commander and the current vice president from the ruling party, looked poised for an easy win over his closest opponent Norman Quijano from the conservative Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA). But with the final ballot count separating the candidates by some 0.2 percent of the votes and with allegations of fraud, it seems that the protests and debates surrounding this election are far from over. The Costa Rican elections were also held on February 2 and similarly, were pushed into a run-off scheduled for April 6. With second place finisher Johnny Araya’s (from the ruling National Liberation Party) recent exit from the race, Leftist Luis Guillermo Solís’s (from the Citizens’ Action Party) victory is all but assured. While neither of these two elections are yet resolved, there are others on the horizon in Latin America. On May 4, Panamanians will elect their president for the next five years. Current President Ricardo Martinelli’s time in office is coming to an end, at least for now, given Panama’s restriction that presidents must wait two terms before trying again for office. Though Martinelli and his conservative Democratic Change (CD) party led Panama through a period of extraordinary 8 percent (on average) economic growth and declining crime, the country’s stark income inequality (which I talk about in this blog post) combined with shifting political alliances, could provide headwinds for the party’s candidate José Domingo Arias. On May 25, Colombians will head to the ballot boxes to decide whether or not to reelect President Juan Manuel Santos. As of now, Santos’s odds look fairly good—garnering 26 percent of the vote in a hypothetical “next-day election” scenario; 19 percent more than his nearest rival, Óscar Iván Zuluaga of the Democratic Center party, 18 percent more than Enrique Peñalosa of the Green Alliance party, and far above the more recent entrant to the race, Marta Lucía Ramírez from the Conservative Party. Santos  is staking much of his campaign on the peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (even as Colombians become increasingly pessimistic over its success), and he will also face tough questioning over his economic policies and subsequent handling of rural protests (that pushed his approval ratings down to 25 percent last August). Still, his popular support has rebounded—up to near 40 percent in March—and this momentum, without a strong challenger, will likely take him back to the Casa de Nariño. October brings presidential elections in Brazil, Bolivia, and Uruguay. In Brazil, most expect President Dilma Rousseff of the Worker’s Party (PT) to win reelection against Aecio Neves (from the PSBD party) and Eduardo Campos (from the PSB party). Still, with economic growth faltering, worries about the coming World Cup (with latest reports questioning both the sporting event’s expense and the country’s readiness), and still vivid memories of last summer’s widespread protests, a unified challenger could make the race interesting. That same day Bolivians will also be casting their ballots. Evo Morales is up for his third term, after a constitutional amendment in 2009 allowed for reelection and a 2013 constitutional court decision decided that his first term did not count toward the two term limit (since it began before the new Constitution). With twelve parties and a crowded race, no serious challenger has emerged to take on Morales. Still, questions remain whether the president’s Movement for Socialism (MAS) can gain an absolute majority—potentially frustrating any major policy changes. Uruguay’s famously spartan President Jose Mujica will bid goodbye to a presidential palace in which he never lived. The frontrunner for his position is former president and Broad Front colleague Tabaré Vázquez, who left office in 2010 with an approval rating of over 60 percent. A Vázquez victory would mean continuity for the country and a continuation of Mujica’s policies, such as the country’s marijuana regulation and renewable energy promotion.

This is a guest post by Natalie Kitroeff, a research associate here at the Council on Foreign Relations who works with me in the Latin America program. She received her BA from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina has been acting strange lately. Just one month after his inauguration, he is already ruffling U.S. feathers, and making waves in the politics of the region in unexpected ways. Pérez Molina’s military past and hard-line “mano dura” security policy made many worry that he would backtrack on justice reforms led by the UN Commission against Impunity (CICIG) and the new Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz. Instead, the new president has come out in support of these institutions. Last week he announced that when CICIG’s mandate runs out in 2013, he plans on extending it for another two years without seeking congressional approval. This preemptive decision was in response to a lawsuit filed last month against Álvaro Colom, alleging that CICIG has no right to be in the country because the executive branch bypassed congress to approve its current mandate. The interior minister followed up by asking CICIG to vet his staff to identify any links they may have with organized crime. Vowing to keep Paz y Paz on board for the foreseeable future, Pérez Molina has also stayed neutral as her office tries former de facto President Efraín Ríos Montt on crimes against humanity charges for his role in the civil war (in which the current president was deeply involved). But after this string of pleasant surprises, Pérez Molina’s most recent about face has drawn annoyance and even anger from the United States. Last Saturday he raised the possibility of legalizing drugs in Central America, saying he’d put the debate on the table in future meetings with regional leaders. He followed through on this promise on Monday, when he discussed decriminalization with Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes (who first agreed to consider the option, and later retracted facing pressure from Washington). The U.S. Embassy in Guatemala responded with a swift condemnation of the proposal. So what is Pérez Molina’s endgame? A popular theory is that he’s trying to pressure the United States into lifting its ban on weapons sales to Guatemala, instituted in 1978 due to the military’s role in human rights abuses during the civil conflict. This makes sense. The president has spoken openly and frequently about his desire to buy U.S. arms, pressing the issue with head of Southern Command Douglas Fraser during their meeting last November (Fraser said the embargo may well be lifted in the near future). Threatening to decriminalize drugs as a last resort solution the problem of organized crime could pressure the United States to offer an alternative: renewed military aid. But Pérez Molina may also be making a more ambitious attempt to alter the long-standing foundations of U.S. relations with Guatemala and Central America more broadly. The six-country region has largely been an afterthought in U.S. security cooperation with Latin America, which has historically centered on the larger economies of Colombia and Mexico. In FY2013 Central America will receive $60 million in U.S. security aid– less than half of the funds destined for Colombia and a third of total aid to Mexico – and of that Guatemala gets a paltry $2 million. Meanwhile, Pérez Molina inherited a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world, and an impunity rate of 95 percent (meaning just 5 in every 100 crimes are solved). The legalization debate is a way of putting Central America – and Guatemala in particular – on the United States’ radar screen. It is also a way of asserting the country’s autonomy from Washington. Pérez Molina joins a long list of leaders calling for decriminalization, including former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. In an era of waning American influence in Latin America, he may to be trying to align Guatemala more closely with its regional partners, pulling a country long beholden to the United States out from under its powerful shadow.