One Way To Quell The Migrant Crisis? Send U.S. Police To Restore Order In Central America
In an attempt to stop massive-scale migration into Europe, Britain is stationing special police officers in North African countries like Tunisia and Algeria to assist local officers in breaking up human trafficking gangs. It’s a curious tactic that the U.S. might consider using with our own migrant crisis.
A report from The Times of London indicated that the National Crime Agency (NCA), the British FBI, will work with local leaders and will have “all assets on offer,” to help local administrations deal with people smuggling. Europe is expected to face a massive surge of migrants crossing a Mediterranean coastline, now bereft of order, after the destruction of Libya.
Similar numbers are also expected on the United States’ southern border. Recent reports suggest that 1.5 million migrants, mostly able-bodied draft-age men, are to apply for the American migrant sponsorship program with the Biden administration, with a 30,000 monthly cap. In essence, a moderate-sized Minor League Baseball stadium full of people allowed in every month.
A key issue often lost in the immigration debate is about the competence of a state structure in the regions from which mass migration originates. Whether they are sub-Saharan African or Central and South American countries, a combination of lack of order and opportunity leads people to migrate north, to places where further dysfunction and social imbalance ensues.
What might be a clever and unusual solution? Ideally, it might look something like permanent small and localized, heavily armed and self-sufficient garrisons in some of those dysfunctional countries, which are at pivot points of various continents. These special forces and soldiers are not to interfere in local affairs but are only to be used to safeguard a competent and trained foreign officer class, helping local authorities to maintain order and manage work opportunities.
The social and religious customs, as well as authority, remain local, as long as it doesn’t harm common law and jurisdiction under the management of a district officer and magistrate. In times of insurgency, local authority will quell such, and restore order. If situations do arise, a balance of power and “divide and rule” might be used. Under no circumstances will there be attempted nation-building or wholesale change of local culture or religion. The officer class stationed there will be purely detached and in advisory capacities.
Now, where have we observed a similar arrangement before, more or less working perfectly, for a few centuries?
Pros and cons all included, a permanent and detached American officer class fixing some of Latin American social, financial, and governmental problems would be better than whatever system is currently in place. It would remove the main cause for hundreds and thousands of men racing north for work and stability. It would negate the main argument that this nation needs a regular supply of labor force to compete with manufacturing giants such as China. It would provide managerial jobs for our surplus elites churned out of our universities, and it would be a fraction of the cost of nation-building in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, or providing security to Ukraine and Europe.
When the British officer class was based in Calcutta, they settled there, married, and had families. There was a significant wealth transfer between the two countries that went both ways. Stuart Hogg Market is still the name of the main market center in Calcutta, named after a Scotsman. Nothing remotely similar happened in the American adventures in the Middle East and Asia. Johnny Public from South Carolina gave blood but never acquired any treasure in return. The only people arguably to profit from the last 20 years were gender consultants and NGOcrats and weapons manufacturers. Anything that seems to be even remotely similar to nation-building is justifiably anathema to Americans.
Americans also are philosophically disinclined to such arrangements. America’s founding story is of a struggle against empires and tyrannies. Detached and amoral realpolitik often doesn’t sell. Most Americans also hate to “be hated,” a notable disadvantage in foreign affairs, as research suggests you have to either be the bad guy or side with the bad guy if you intend to truly restore order. Any idea of the existence of any form of social hierarchy or cumulative cultural difference is borderline taboo in sophisticated circles, as it goes against the foundational egalitarian ethos, as well as the ingrained individualism of this country. Finally, no such long-term plan is possible to implement, in the presence of a hyper-liberal and activist bureaucracy, federal judiciary, or human rights activists.
This is not a case to go to war and nation-build in Central America. In fact, that would be counterproductive, as the burden of fixing will be on those who broke the system. Because the scale of the problem demands unusual solutions, and the problem isn’t going away anytime soon, private enterprise and a detached officer class might be the unusual solution to do the trick.
A sclerotic Europe has finally started to think out of the box about solving unchecked mass migration. They’re placing officers in African countries, creating buffer zones on the other side of the Mediterranean, enforcing naval patrols, and using drones to combat human trafficking. America is far more capable and powerful than Europe. Sometimes all that is required is a strong will and an unusual but competent Rooseveltian leadership.
Dr. Sumantra Maitra is a senior editor at The American Conservative, a fellow at the Center for Renewing America, and an elected associate fellow at the Royal Historical Society. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, and can be reached on Twitter @MrMaitra.
Comments are closed.