Marshalin Mathew is a second-year master’s student at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations at Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Institution of Eminence), Manipal, India.
Immigration has always been an important issue in the United States (US), shaped by jobs, security, and humanitarian concerns. There are immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, Ecuador, Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil and even immigrants from Russia, India, Turkey, China and Romania using Mexico as a transitional point to enter the US. Many people other than people from Mexico, use this transit route to reach the US, hoping for better work, safety, and a stable life. The migrants from Mexico are not entirely Mexican nationals but have, in fact, become a transition point through which Latin America and other nations find a way to immigrate to the US. Apart from the Mexican immigrants, the national security concerns stemming from events like 9/11 has made the US immigration policies often strict, leading to many challenges for migrants.
This article looks at the connection between US immigration policies and Mexico, why people migrate, and how different US governments have handled border control. It also discusses how these policies relate to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, which focuses on fairness, justice, and strong institutions. To create a fair system, reforms are needed that balance national security with respect for human rights.
The Mexico Factor
When examining immigration to the US, one can only assess it partially if it does not take into account the role of Mexico, a significant border nation. Being one of the most valued and closest partners of the US, shaped by elements like a shared history, geography, deep culture, and people-to-people ties, Mexico has always played a major role in the domestic politics of the US. The two nations, which share a 2,000-mile border and 47 active land ports of entry, celebrated 200 years of diplomatic relations in 2022. The relations between the US and Mexico are deep and encompass various aspects such as trade, economic development, education, security, drug enforcement, migration, human trafficking, and climate change. Of these areas of relations, the issue of migration is a widely discussed and decisive factor in US–Mexico relations, with each US presidency affecting immigration policies. Given the sheer number of people attempting to cross over to the U.S., the crisis remains persistent, which often invites harsh measures by US Border Enforcement Agencies, leading to issues between the US and Mexico.
The significant reason why Mexico is a prime discussion point is also that, apart from Mexican nationals, there are people from other Latin American nationalities and from different regions of the world who utilize the Mexican territory to enter the US, thus deepening the crisis. In 1853, with the Gadsden Purchase by US President Franklin Pierce, the US and Mexico marked the last border adjustment between the two nations, where the land along the Mesilla Valley , stretching from California to El Paso in Texas, was bought by the US for $10 million. It was in 1981 that Mexico’s role as a transit nation for undocumented migrants seeking to enter the US from third countries was highlighted, especially against the backdrop of the civil war in Guatemala, which led to a huge push of refugees into Mexico, who later entered the US Even when we look back into history, it is evident that the first dispute between Mexico and the US was rooted in migration. It was Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna who prohibited immigration from the US to the then part of Mexico, Texas, as an attempt to bottle the influx of the settlers who were English-speaking.
Why do people still migrate to the United States?
The primary reason for immigration from Mexico to the US is the better life opportunities, with their aspirations to get a hold of ‘El Sueno Americano’ or The American Dream. The most classical and earliest approach to explaining migration is the push-pull theory, which traces its origins back to the works of Ernest Ravenstein, who is considered the pioneer. Ravenstein’s migration theory describes movement as driven by a “push-pull” dynamic—people are pushed from their origin by adverse conditions like high taxes or repression and pulled toward places offering better opportunities, especially economic ones. He noted migration tends to decrease with distance, happens in stages, and is influenced by factors like gender or class. Everett Lee expanded on this in 1966, giving more weight to internal push factors and highlighting the role of intervening obstacles, such as political borders or family responsibilities. He emphasised that migration is selective and shaped by personal attributes like education, awareness, and social connections.
When the pull factor outweighs the push factors, people might migrate, and the theory also states that migration is primarily motivated by the desire of the individuals to improve their quality of life rather than just merely escaping unfavorable conditions. There are demand-pull factors like the significant job availability in the US, with the addition of great wage differentials between the two nations. Supply-push factors, like the drastic regional socioeconomic inequalities in Mexico, as well as its poor economic performance, drive immigration to the US. The Mexican migration is also channeled by the existence of networks of friends and family in the US. But the more humanitarian reasons include people fleeing to escape the violence and conflicts in their homeland that affect their safety and well-being, as well as their human rights.
Firstly, the influx of migrants started increasing in 2018, primarily due to Central Americans escaping a combination of challenging circumstances like gang-related violence, economic hardship, political oppression, and environmental calamities. In the summer of 2019, there was a temporary decline in detentions, which US authorities attributed to heightened enforcement efforts by Mexico and Guatemala. However, the most significant decrease occurred in the early stages of 2020, coinciding with the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions. This resulted in a dramatic drop of more than 53 percent in detentions between March and April of that year, as the pandemic severely curtailed cross-border movement. Once these measures were lifted in 2012, the numbers again rose, reaching an all-time high of 302,000 in December 2023.
Recent years have also seen a significant uptick in migration to high-income nations, including the United States. Data from the OECD indicates that in 2022, its 38 member countries received 6.1 million new permanent migrants, marking a 26 per cent increase from 2021 and surpassing 2019 levels by 14 percent. The US experienced a doubling of asylum grants in 2022, largely due to migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. This trend has positioned the U.S. as the second-highest recipient of humanitarian migrants globally, just behind Germany. These figures reflect broader global migration patterns and contribute to the increased numbers observed at the US-Mexico border.
The transition of presidential administrations in 2021 also played a role in changing migration dynamics. President Trump’s rhetoric and policies, including promises of a border wall and increased deportations, along with controversial practices like family separations, conveyed a message of a closed border. In contrast, President Biden’s administration shifted both tone and policy. This change included reduced deportations, the cessation of certain deterrent measures like rapid expulsions to Mexico and wall construction, and an increase in the practice of paroling migrants into the US to await their immigration court hearings, a process that can be lengthy. These policy shifts may have influenced perceptions and decisions among potential migrants. But later, when the US presidential elections were on the way, even the Biden administration tried to reverse the policies, as immigration was a hot topic during the presidential debates.
The immigration policy states that the US has gained great benefits from opening the door to immigrants, students, and skilled workers who are to stay in the country for a limited period. But the policy also warns that “the continued inability of the United States to develop and enforce a workable system of immigration laws threatens to undermine these achievements.” This showcases the necessity for strong and just institutions to promote peace and sustainability when it comes to addressing immigrants and their rights, especially in the backdrop of the new Trump presidency.
These trends point to a deeper concern: a weakening of institutional credibility, particularly within key US agencies that manage immigration, public health, and legal affairs. This issue carries weight not only for the nation’s internal policy framework but also in shaping how global actors interpret and respond to migration challenges. Institutions such as the United Nations rely on member states like the U.S. to lead by example in promoting humane, rules-based migration systems.
In this wider global landscape, Sustainable Development Goal 16, which advocates for peace, justice, and robust institutions, serves as a vital benchmark. The extent to which the US immigration framework reflects the principles of SDG 16 offers insight into the country’s dedication to transparent and inclusive governance. When immigration laws fall short of fairness or accountability, they risk damaging the country’s reputation and undermining efforts to foster international cooperation on human rights and migration. Thus, examining US immigration practices through the lens of international norms is essential to understanding the broader implications for institutional justice and long-term sustainability.
US Immigration System and SDG 16
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 emphasizes the importance of fostering peace, justice, and robust institutions to create societies that are inclusive, equitable, and sustainable. Within this framework, the immigration system of the United States, a nation historically built by immigrants, serves as a critical point of examination. The effectiveness and fairness of US immigration policies are integral to advancing the goals of SDG 16.
Traditionally, the US immigration policy was a federal matter, and the new administration would always put pressure to align the domestic components of the nation to cooperate with the federal enforcement efforts, even if the constituents are against it. An example is the instance of ‘sanctuary cities’ likely getting pressurised to align with enforcement efforts. Hampering immigrant integration will also be a key component of the new administration, with resources being curtailed from communities that welcome new immigrant arrivals in shelters and schools that are supposed to bear the short-term cost of these new immigrants. Project 2025 advocates for greater collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities while penalising jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate, thus making it difficult for the constituents to act in their interests. This includes leveraging voter registration and motor vehicle databases to enhance the enforcement of immigration policies. This approach is rather harsh and could undermine trust in local law enforcement, deter immigrant communities from seeking assistance, and raise privacy concerns, which all add to the humanitarian concerns. The administration plans to reassign more federal agents and deputise the police officers in the localities, as well as the National Guard soldiers who the Republican-run states voluntarily contribute to help out the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to carry out the detentions. This will help to speed up the mass deportations without due process hearings.
When analysing the Title 42 enactment in the US, the failure of the institutions to work in a just manner is evident, especially when it comes to government agencies like the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Title 42 was enacted, claiming that the ‘congregate settings’ in which the individuals are held during the asylum process are increasing the serious danger that already persists because of the spread of the virus, as the ports of entry and border patrol stations aren’t equipped well for countering its proliferation. However, there wasn’t any reasoning as to why or how these conditions were rendering only undocumented migrants more dangerous than the ones with valid documentation, as the latter also still needed to go through the processing. The enactment of the order was not based on ‘available scientific evidence’, as Article 43 of the International Health Regulations (IHR) demands. It was apparent from the statements of the public health experts that the existing scientific knowledge related to the spread of the COVID-19 virus did not support expulsion as a measure of public health. Such an order thus also undermines the trust in the CDC itself as a scientific body, which highlights the need for stronger and just institutions to protect and promote human rights.
When it comes to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is a federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing smart immigration policies, ensuring humane detention practices, and combating illegal trafficking of people and goods, the shortcomings are stark and questionable, given that it radically affects human rights. However, according to an August 19, 2024, report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE has lost track of over 32,000 unaccompanied minors. Moreover, these lost children are at significant risk of falling victim to crimes such as human trafficking and exploitation, both sexual and labor-related. This reveals a serious breakdown in communication between the agencies involved and a glaring deficiency in ICE’s operational capacity to maintain accurate records and effectively notify the children of their court appointments or other immigration proceedings. The DHS inquiry criticized ICE for failing to initiate legal processes under its jurisdiction for most cases while noting the broader lack of coordination between government entities. For example, DHS also reported that 84 per cent of the 41,000 juveniles linked to specific ICE offices did not receive an appointment for further review. Unaccompanied children are initially received at the border by officials who then transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. These children are typically held for an average of 27 days before being placed with sponsors, which often include relatives already residing in the U.S., distant family members, foster families, or shelters. However, previous investigations have found that the background information on foster families is not always thoroughly vetted, raising concerns for the safety and well-being of these minors. This lack of scrutiny leaves the children vulnerable to exploitation, including human trafficking, sexual abuse, and forced labor. ICE agents involved in the DHS inquiry disclosed that the agency lacks the authority to intervene even in cases where sponsors fail to meet basic safety standards. For instance, in one case, a woman reported her husband’s inappropriate behavior towards a foster child in their care. Despite concerns voiced by an ICE agent involved, they acknowledged their inability to take action to protect the child due to existing limitations in ICE’s authority and protocols.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an Obama-era programme, protects individuals brought to the U.S. as children without legal status, offering them relief from deportation and work permits. Donald Trump attempted to end the DACA programme during his term, but the Supreme Court blocked his efforts on procedural grounds in 2020. However, with the shift in the Court’s composition after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s advisor, Stephen Miller, suggested that a new attempt to end DACA could succeed under the current conservative majority. To face the challenge of insulating courts from political influence, life tenure is designed to shield justices from short-term pressures, but the appointment process itself, as seen with Amy Coney Barrett’s swift confirmation in October 2020, can amplify perceptions of partisanship. Barrett was nominated and confirmed in under six weeks, just days before the presidential election, following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. That timing sparked widespread debate, especially given the Senate’s refusal to consider Merrick Garland in 2016, months earlier in an election year. Life tenure for federal judges is indeed established in Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” This provision, ratified in 1788, reflects the framers’ intent to shield the judiciary from transient political pressures.
Despite this design, the appointment process, presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, introduces political dynamics. The president nominates, and the Senate, a partisan body, confirms by majority vote. Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation on October 26, 2020, illustrates this. Nominated by President Trump on September 26, 2020, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Barrett was confirmed in just 38 days by a 52-48 Senate vote, driven by a Republican majority. This rapid timeline, days before the 2020 election, contrasted with the Senate’s refusal to consider Merrick Garland in 2016.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed this politicization in a July 12, 2016, interview with The New York Times, where she said: “The process has become far too political… It shouldn’t be that way. The Court should be above politics” This came amid debates over Garland’s stalled nomination.
It’s a stark example of how political winds can gust through the judicial system, even with structural safeguards. This showcases how even the judicial system, which should be unbiased and just, has a chance of being influenced by those in power, highlighting the need for strengthening the institutions.
The existence of structural racism within the institutions of the US immigration system in itself challenges the very notion of just and peaceful institutions for promoting human rights. The instability in the US immigration policies resulting from changing ideologies and presidents projects the need for stronger institutions, that is, strengthening the current institutions like ICE, DHS, etc. It always keeps the immigrants on the edge of uncertainty, not knowing what to expect in each term. Having a constant and sustainable immigration policy powered by and deeply rooted in just institutions is thus an urgent need to bring down human rights violations and inequalities.
Conclusion
To align with the US immigration system with SDG 16 and promote sustainable development, comprehensive reforms are essential across multiple dimensions. These reforms must begin with strengthening institutional frameworks by establishing independent oversight mechanisms, enhanced interagency coordination, and increased judicial capacity. Critical priorities include ending family separation policies, reforming detention practices, implementing robust child protection measures, and ensuring due process rights for all immigrants. The system needs to develop transparent procedures, guaranteed legal representation, and clear pathways to legal status while strengthening protections for asylum seekers. Additionally, modernising technological infrastructure, implementing secure digital tracking systems, and establishing comprehensive data protection measures will enhance efficiency and accountability. These changes must be supported by increased funding for immigration courts, improved training for enforcement personnel, and the development of community-based support systems that facilitate immigrant integration.
Successful implementation of these reforms requires sustained commitment to international cooperation and partnership development. This includes addressing root causes of migration through collaboration with origin countries, sharing intelligence on trafficking networks, and developing regional migration management strategies. The reformed system should emphasise economic integration through expanded work permit programmes, support for immigrant entrepreneurship, and facilitated credential recognition. Furthermore, establishing a bipartisan immigration framework that can withstand political shifts while maintaining a commitment to human rights and justice is crucial for long-term sustainability. Regular evaluation and adjustment of reforms, coupled with sustained research efforts to monitor effectiveness and assess human rights impacts, will ensure continued alignment with SDG 16 goals. Through these comprehensive reforms, the US can create an immigration system that upholds human dignity, promotes justice, and contributes to sustainable development both domestically and globally while ensuring peace and human rights for all individuals regardless of their immigration status.
