U. S. Border. Posted by the bipartisan policy center, this portion of the discussion is about an hour and 25 minutes. From the diplomatic side of things, it had been interesting to see the department of Homeland Security take on this role, the department of Homeland Security negotiating u. S. Foreign policy and broader western hemispheric policy. What is the role of dhs here and how do they navigate . Every part of the government has relations with other nations in their area of agreement. When i was at dhs, i was an attache in canada. Agreements are made with countries along the way. Former secretary nielsen was in the process of negotiating Security Cooperation agreements with northern triangle countries before she departed. The acting secretary is continuing that. They are trying to see what level of cooperation, primarily on for security with mexico and guatemala, can the u. S. Or dhs offer them Technical Assistance and support in understanding how best to secure the borders and also how to improve their immigration institutions . Thats another thing that dhs has expertise that they offer to other countries and was working on. And last but not least, going after criminal and smuggling elements that are facilitating the migration. So thats sort of the realm they are working on. And it does seem sort of contrary to sort of the way the president is conducting diplomacy via tweet, but a lot of this is ongoing series of meetings. So just yesterday, the security ministers, interior ministers of all three northern triangle countries were meeting with secretary mcleanen to talk about these things and apparently had a fairly productive meeting. But those are ongoing and i think longer term negotiations, its not the kind of things that the president is looking to shut off the migrant flow, if you will. What he is trying to do, i dont think it is clear that he is looking for a safe third, i dont think he cares if its afe. Hes looking for a country of first entry agreement. And from what we understand of the negotiations with jimmy morales, the president of guatemala, it was about guatemala accepting back anybody who had travelled through guatemala to get to the United States. It doesnt require guatemala to take applications for asylum from them or process them, it is more one way. Its more akin to possibly what the eu is trying to do with turkey. Right . Like you keep everybody there and dont let them into our territory, and similar i think thats what they were talking about in mexico. Thats different from the Safe Third Country Agreement we have with canada, which is reciprocal, and it is saying we think each others systems are relatively equivalent in terms of granting asylum and protection to people, and therefore if you are coming from one country to the other and asking for asylum, were going to send you back and say go apply there. It works both ways although the majority of the travel is going north, so canada sends more people back to the United States than the other way around. Theoretically its reciprocal. That doesnt seem to be what were talking about. Its a perfect transition to the ambassador. Not to just sort of go down the line here, but you know, youre someone who has been in the room for these negotiations and relatively recently. I mean, at the beginning of the Trump Administration. And so i would ask you, what advice do you have for guatemala and other countries within Central America right now. Obviously, mexico is in a very different position than guatemala. But what advice do you have for them right now if they are sort of in the midst of these negotiations with the u. S. About potentially taking on what could be a very large burden and may not, maybe not having the systems to accommodate it . Yeah, well, precisely given that those negotiations are still very fresh, i wont go into too much detail, but ill say whatever i can. Mexico has always, you know, tried to convince the United States that we should approach immigration in general as a shared responsibility, from a shared responsibility to perspective. And that beyond the narrative implies, i think, two or three things that are important. And im not anybody to recommend any government anything, but i do believe from our own experience, that shared responsibility, trying to push to that concept is important. And that implies basically, number one, you know, that first, its impossible to solve anything unless the sites really work together. And to be perfectly honest, i think that some people worldwide see migration as simply as a, you know, a human right and some others see it as a problem and as a challenge and were never going to have the same vision. I think we have to recognize that. So every solution is going to be imperfect and not going to leave all sides happy. I think that needs to be recognized. And i think thats precisely about, you know, approaching as a shared responsibility. It implies, i think, that the countries from which the immigration is coming should do its utmost to make sure that people are not forcing to live in their countries. And that is simply not happening, or at least not to the level necessary in the northern triangle countries, and i think thats something that is broadly recognized. That these countries do have socioeconomic challenges that are not being met and therefore, a lot of people are being forced to leave. And thats not on the United States. That should be whether its on mexico or in Central America. Those countries, our own countries should do its utmost to make sure the migration is not a forced decision and thats not happening to the extent that it should. Right. And at the same time, thats the second part of the equation is the United States in my view, and respectfully, should recognize that there is a growing demand of people to come to the United States. Now, how is that done . Its simply up its something that the United States should ecide by itself according to its own legal system, democratic process and the like, but until that is also recognized here, which is not always fully recognized, we have a problem. In the case of Central America, what we see and at least what people are talking about, around 80 of the people that are coming to the southern border, would meet or actually meet the credible fear interview requirements, but that the vast majority of these people that meet those requirements then dont really meet the requirements for being offered asylum fully. And im quoting figures. Im not saying im validating. And that, you know, its also important to recognize that a big chunk of the people that are coming here from Central America are coming here because of socioeconomic conditions, which its not evident that would have them meet the asylum requirement. So, we need to open avenues. We, the region needs to open avenues. I think theres two things and ill stop there, two things, one is to find some sort of solution, regional solution, whether its a third safe country or whatever you want to name it, but a reasonable solution in which the countries that are involved agree that theyre going to have a common approach to dealing with people that are truly seeking asylum because they are fleeing for their life or whatever. That is not there. And we need to work on it. And i think its crucial that that happens. I cannot believe that the United States government, or the United States does not want to, you know, continue with its tradition of offering people that are fleeing from violence, persecution, attempts in their country. Im not sure, but i hope not. But the point is, but i also believe that there are people that dont want to have their own asylum system abused, quote, unquote. There needs to be a solution and that solution needs to be regional. On the other side, i think its in the benefit of Central America and mexico and the United States and everybody to sit down calmly and say, ok, what is the level of movement of people we want between our countries . Are the legal avenues to do so sufficient and efficient enough so people can actually choose a legal avenue . I think we need to have a serious discussion about that, and since the last 15 years, ive heard, you know, lets get Border Security first. Right. Well, weve been working on Border Security for the past 15 years. And at least since 9 11 from what i can remember, very seriously at least with respect to mexico. When people talk about Border Security here, what exactly do we mean so we can get to that point . I think you took one of my questions coming up, but thank you for that. Less work for me, but so theres a lot to dig into there with what everyone is talking about. But one of the things you said, id actually like to say to you, actually ambassador. You say some people see migration as a human right and other people see migration as a problem. Theres clearly differing views between United States, mexico and the northern triangle countries, and even within those countries, attitudes towards migration as a human right versus as being a problem. You seem to suggest, ambassador, that those two sides were never really going to meet. I dont think theyll ever meet fully, no. Right, so actually i want to ask you, how can you take steps to address this migration crisis, whatever you want to call it, this migration surge, this changed migration . How can you take practical steps to address that when if youre starting with the premise that those two sides are never going to meet, migration as a human right versus migration as a problem . So, i think its a really good question and i think that a lot of people here in washington and then also obviously in Central America, are grappling with that right now. How do we make kind of policy solutions that can help immediately, but also give a longterm system . Obviously, everybody here acknowledges that theres a regional situation, its not a u. S. Only or a mexicoonly situation, so that involves cooperation with other governments. But i do want to just kind of note this idea that a majority of people are coming because theyre economic migrants, i think its a lot more complicated than that. I think its a lot more about issue of violence as an overwhelming factor thats intermingled with other things. We see that, you know, theres some evidence of internal displacement in all three northern triangle countries, where people will move several times before they do move north, and i think its really important to understand that the statistics, even, about who qualifies for credible fear can move on to an asylum claim are themselves being contested. You know, its our belief, i think, that some of the people who may be qualified for a credible fear and then move on into the interior, if theyre given the correct information about what they need to do to comply, will actually end up complying for asylum. And that has to do with, you know, talking about solutions, that has to do with looking at, you know, alternatives to detention, looking at better conditions here at the border and looking at infrastructure in mexico, you know, to address people who maybe want to stay in mexico through that journey, improving the asylum system there. I think there are a number of different solutions. On the u. S. Side, i think we do have to look at whats occurring at the border, both within what is in dhss daily capacity to improve the border processing centers. To improve the processing of families and children increasingly coming, but also to elinores point, to work within the existing Legal Framework that we have both in the u. S. Legal system, but also in some of the countries here when their governments say theyre not going to engage in agreements. You know, i think another thing thats really important to some of my fellow panelists have noted, kind of the inconsistency of the Trump Administration policy. You know, we went from hearing there could be a possible Safe Third Country Agreement or you know, return agreement as teresa pointed out, to hearing there could be tariffs or a ban, to the point of even ending remittances back to that country. Guatemala relies on about 12 of their National Economy is remittances, and what kind of onsistent policy are we saying if we want people to stay in guatemala if were cutting off aid and remittances . There needs to be a little bit of lifting up and seeing how things work together. Aid, negotiations, and daily remedies dhs feels that they can implement. Feel free to jump in with each other. Let me just dove tail on that. One of the problems i agree completely its a very complex phenomenon. Whats going on and theres not a single, i dont think there is one route, one concept of whats going on and i think its a mistake. I was recently reading an article on immigration and the other said lets be careful about Single Solutions to problems. I think hes right. Think the way to approach this, precisely because there are Different Reasons behind it, is a multipronged approach. That implies that we do better job of coordinating our asylum policies. That we do a better job. When i say we, i mean the whole group of country. Actually fighting human smuggling and trafficking, i think thats absolutely necessary. And we know by fact that trafficking organizations are tricking people into taking these routes and using the asylum system, whether thats, you know, its theyre saying that that is going on. Heres a need to have, you know, humane Border Security and enforcement. I think thats part of what we need to do in a way thats careful. And so, my only point is, yes, we need to work on different fronts to actually get a solution. And you think about one single point solution, let me use the word, if we think its only going to be a wall, probably be i dont think that that will work. We need to work on different fronts. We need to work on the development of those countries and i think the United States is, you know, has done a lot already and we need to do even a little bit more. So its a bunch of things that need to be put together. I mean, whats the saying, for every complex problem, there is a simple solution thats wrong . I agree precisely, and thats one of the reasons why in our recommendations, we address it, and put it in terms of time frame. Development in the northern triangle countries, and dealing with systems of corruption and crime and impunity and a pile of things that are driving migration in addition to Economic Issues and violence and those things is a longterm process. Thats not going to be solved very quickly. It requires longterm investments and longterm cooperation and certainly the efforts of the countries themselves. They have to take responsibility there. But at the end of the day, those are the things that keep people home. But we also have to address sort of the most immediate situations at the border right now, thats whats driving sort of the Energy Around this right now. We have an immediate issue of, you know, record numbers of families and children at a border, through a system that was never designed to deal with this at this volume. And when i say the system was never designed to deal with this, our asylum system was designed to do exactly what everyone is saying, which is recognize the human rights of people and give them the process to go through and discern whether they qualify under the asylum law legally. If they do, grant them protection, and and if not, remove them. We have processes dealing with unaccompanied children and people, and what we dont have is sufficient capacity to address the volume that we have right now. And we did not and im going back to when we first started seeing unaccompanied kids coming in 2013, 2014, invest in the system to address that volume. We invested in the border and trying to stop that problem. And i think that thats something we need to think seriously about and that is, you know, if the issue is, you know, how we deal with asylum and whether we make those decisions, we have the process in place but were not letting them work the way they were intended because the capacity issues arent there. Were covering a lot of ground here and obviously, this is a complex issue that requires complex solutions. I also feel like you come to an event at a think tank in washington and you always hear, we need a comprehensive approach, right . You do. We need a comprehensive approach, this is a complex problem. We need a whole of government and need to use all the tools in the toolbox. Weve heard these phrases. Lets drill into some of these specifically. Comprehensive does not mean solving everything at the same time. Right you have to have priorities. Make sure youre looking at everything that needs to be addressed and then precisely the timeline. Right, i want to get to the solution at the border when were talking about timeline and priorities and most people would see as the most immediate. But lets take a step back from the border and stay in Central America for just a moment. Obviously, there are complex factors contributing to this dramatic shift in migration that is part of the capacity challenge at the border. We also have a situation in which the Trump Administration has threatened aid to Central America and is even redirecting some of that money towards venezuela, for example. And what i want to ask you, and each of you, and whoever feels to weigh in on this, what are the Aid Solutions the support from the United States thats working in Central America . Wha