Untitled Flashcards Set

IPLA Quiz 3 (March 3 onwards)

U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War

1. Post-Cold War Context

• After the Cold War, traditional security threats declined (e.g., no more fear of Soviet expansion).

• Latin America became less important in U.S. foreign policy.

  • No Soviet or German threat in the region anymore.

  • Region seen as relatively stable, with less urgency for intervention.

• Rise of China shifted U.S. attention.

  • China became a major player in Latin America through trade, investment, and interest in raw materials.

• U.S. had more space to focus on economic interests rather than military or regional security concerns.

2. U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Latin America

Was there a coherent policy?

• The U.S. tried to pursue a consistent approach:

  • Promote democracy, human rights, and economic development.

  • Address drug trafficking and organized crime.
    Examples: Support for anti-drug efforts in Colombia (Plan Colombia); economic aid and trade deals.

But... it was often inconsistent:

• Policies changed with administrations (e.g., Obama vs. Trump).

• Focused on short-term gains (like reducing migration) rather than solving root issues like poverty or corruption.
  Critics say U.S. actions were often self-serving, not regionally collaborative.

Would a coherent policy help?

• Yes, it could help build stronger, more stable partnerships.

• Hard to achieve, because:

  • The region is diverse (different cultures, economies, politics).

  • Countries have different needs and relationships with the U.S.

3. Globalization and New Issues

Key features of globalization:

• Increased mobility of goods, people, and ideas.

• Porous borders → harder to control what crosses (e.g., drugs, migrants).

• Spread of wanted goods (tech, investment) and unwanted ones (drugs, arms).

• Migration became a major topic.

• Environmental issues crossed borders (e.g., deforestation in the Amazon).

How different theories view this:

• Realism: Sees globalization as a threat to state control and sovereignty.

  • Focuses on border security and state power.

• Liberalism: Supports globalization.

  • Sees it as driven by individual choice and economic opportunity.

  • Encourages cooperation, free movement, and interdependence.

• Radicalism (Marxist/Dependency Theory):

  • Sees globalization as exploitative.

  • Worsens inequality between rich (Global North) and poor (Global South).

  • Big businesses benefit, workers suffer.

Implications:

• Globalization creates both opportunities for cooperation and sources of conflict.

• States often choose cooperation to avoid economic and political fallout.

4. Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism

Unilateralism (acting alone, without global approval)

• More common under George W. Bush (2000s).

  • Example: Iraq War – U.S. pushed for support from Latin America but didn’t consult them on interventions in their own region.

  • Mexico and Chile were pressured at the UN to support the war, causing tension.

• Venezuela under Hugo Chávez became a concern:

  • He used oil money to gain influence, especially in the Caribbean and OAS (Organization of American States).

  • The U.S. saw this as a threat to its dominance in the region

Multilateralism (working together through international institutions)

• Promoted by Robert Pastor (liberal approach).

  • Encouraged diplomatic collaboration, mutual problem-solving.

  • Example: shared responsibility in tackling regional issues.

• Advantages for the U.S.:

  • Spreads the burden of action.

  • Legitimizes U.S. policies through international support.

• Challenges:

  • Institutions often use equal voting (e.g., Grenada = U.S.), which the U.S. dislikes.

  • U.S. wants more influence to reflect its power.

  • As a result, multilateralism can feel limiting for the U.S.
    
    

5. The Leftist Wave in Latin America

What happened?

• In the mid-2000s, many countries elected left-wing governments.

  • Seen as a response to failed neoliberal policies from the 80s–90s.

  • Examples: Venezuela (Chávez), Bolivia (Morales), Ecuador (Correa).

• These leaders were:

  • Democratically elected, but often populist and anti-U.S..

  • Rejected neoliberalism and pushed state control of resources.

U.S. response:

• The U.S. didn’t intervene much, even though Chávez openly criticized them.

• Reasons:

  • Less strategic interest in the region.

  • Leftist governments weren’t always a clear military or security threat.

Venezuela's role:

• Chávez used oil wealth to:

  • Fund allies (e.g., Cuba).

  • Gain support in the region via programs like ALBA.

  • Challenge U.S. dominance in OAS.

Limitations of the Leftist Challenge:

• Radical left was stronger in smaller or weaker economies.

• Many countries (e.g., Brazil, Colombia) remained moderate or right-leaning.

• Leftist strength relied on:

  • Oil money from Venezuela.

  • Commodity boom — when prices dropped, so did their power.

• Their dependence on Chávez’s support made their influence unsustainable in the long run.

External Economic Dependency and its Changing Features and Effects

1. Dependency Theory vs. Modernization Theory

(Liberal) Modernization Theory (Sunkel):

• Assumes a linear path to development: from traditional to modern society.

• Argues that economic development leads to democracy, better governance, and higher living standards.

• Promotes integration into the global economy as universally beneficial.

• Example: Belief that competition and specialization will automatically lift countries into prosperity.

Radical Dependency Theory (sunkel):

• Economic underdevelopment in Latin America is a result of development in the Global North.

• The North’s prosperity is directly linked to the South’s poverty.

• Emphasizes exploitation through global capitalism.

• Example: Latin American countries stuck exporting low-value goods (like bananas) while importing high-value manufactured goods.

2. Sunkel on Transnational Corporations (TNCs)

• TNCs distort development by dominating key sectors, outcompeting local businesses.

• Skew social development by worsening inequality, creating enclaves of modernity surrounded by poverty.

• Undue political influence: Shape domestic policies, weaken local sovereignty.

• Technological impacts: Automation reduces labor needs, fewer jobs for locals.

• Transnational integration, national disintegration: TNCs embed themselves in economies but bypass local communities.

  • Example: A mining company benefits elite and foreign investors while locals face pollution and displacement.

3. Gereffi and the New View of Dependency

Dependent Development:

• Development is possible within dependency—e.g., through integration into global commodity chains.

• Global (Asymmetrical) Commodity Chains (GCCs): Products are made through a sequence involving many countries, but profits and power are concentrated in the North.

  • Example: Latin America mines raw materials, while Northern firms do the design, branding, and high-profit steps.

Role of the State:

• States can manage dependency by setting conditions (e.g., requiring local hires or tech transfer).

• Success varies: Brazil (skilled workforce, better leverage) vs. Bolivia (more limited bargaining tools).

Outsourcing & Industrialization:

• Manufacturing jobs moved to Global South, but this does not equal Northern-style industrialization.

• South often stuck in low-value tasks (assembly, raw materials).

Differentiation in Latin America:

• Some countries (like Chile) achieve stable growth; others (like Bolivia) lag behind. Some (like Peru) stay pretty stable (middling)

• Political stability, legal systems, and institutional strength matter.

4. Historical Patterns of Economic Policy in Latin America

1930s–80s: Nationalist State Interventionism

• Response to the Great Depression.

• Policies: import substitution industrialization (ISI), state-led development, nationalization.

• Outcome: Some progress, but also inefficiencies, debt crises.

1980s–90s: Neoliberal Market Reforms

• Goals: Fight inflation, open markets, attract investment.

• Features: Austerity, privatization, trade liberalization.

• Pros: Inflation control, more foreign investment.
  Cons: Social costs, industry collapse, return to primary goods exports.

  • Example: Local businesses couldn’t compete with cheap imports.

2000s–2010s: Partial Return to State Role

• Moderate leftists: reform within the market (e.g., nationalizing oil/gas).

• Radical leftists: move beyond market logic.

• Fueled by commodity boom, often tied to Chinese demand.
  
  

5. China's Growing Role in Latin America

• Became top trading partner in many countries after 2000.

• Buys raw materials (copper, soy), sells manufactured goods.

• Boosted Latin American economies: more jobs, tax revenue, funding for social programs.

  • Example: Venezuela funded social policies with Chinese-backed oil revenues.

Opportunities:

• Alternative to US hegemony.

• New leverage for Latin American countries.

• Economic support for leftist movements.

Risks:

• New dependency: reliance on Chinese demand.
  Lower accountability: Chinese firms less concerned about labor/environment than Western TNCs, because western TNCs are built on liberal tendencies, so must uphold this view of compatible interests.

• Domestic industry strain: cheaper Chinese goods outcompete local producers.

  • Example: Mexican manufacturers struggled to compete with Chinese imports.

TNCs: Benefit or Harm?

Benefits:

• Jobs, infrastructure, capital, tech transfer.

Harms:

• Exploitation, environmental damage, limited long-term growth, inequality.

Bottom line: It depends on context and state policy.

Geopolitical Rivalry:

• China's role not just economic—potential political and military influence.

• Challenge to U.S. dominance in the region.

Brazil and BRICS:

• Brazil plays a leading role as a regional power.

• BRICS creates a platform for alternative global leadership.

Summary of Dependency Theory (Sunkel):

• Rich countries grow at the expense of poor ones.

• Global South’s underdevelopment is built into the global system.

• Breaking free requires autonomy, reduced reliance on foreign capital, and prioritizing domestic industries.

Comparison: Classic vs. New Dependency (Castells & Laserna)

Classic (Sunkel):

• Focus on North-South exploitation.

• Emphasis on economic dependence 

New Dependency:

• Adds tech, media, and cultural dimensions.

• Dependency also within and among developed nations.

• Some opportunities for advancement via ICT and digital integration.

Gereffi’s Contribution

• Retains focus on global inequality.

• Introduces the idea of "upgrading" in commodity chains.

• Development is possible—but only if countries move up the value chain.

  • Example: Moving from raw coffee bean export to branding and selling high-end coffee.

Regional Economic Integration in Latin America

I. Phases of Economic Integration in Latin America

1. Economic Nationalism (1950s–1970s)

   • Goal: Build complete, self-sufficient national economies.

   • Protectionist policies, ISI (Import Substitution Industrialization).

   • Strong state role in economic planning.

2. Neoliberalism (1980s–1990s)

   • Shift from national self-sufficiency to global market integration.

   • Emphasis on free trade, open markets, deregulation, privatization.

   • Major agreements: NAFTA, FTAA (proposed).

   • Principles: Reciprocity, mutual openness.

3. Post-Neoliberalism (2000s–Present)

   • Reaction against neoliberalism, especially from the left.

   • Emphasis on social inclusion, regional autonomy, political integration.

   • Brazil seeks regional leadership (e.g., UNASUR).

   • Proliferation of alternative regional integration schemes (e.g., ALBA).

II. Competing Theories on Economic Integration

1. Liberalism

   • Free trade = mutual benefit and efficiency.
     Integration promotes peace, democracy, prosperity.

   • Emphasis on economic interdependence and global norms.

2. Radicalism (Dependency/Marxist View)

   • Integration favors Transnational Corporations (TNCs).

   • Exacerbates inequality, undermines labor rights.
     Strengthens dependency on core countries (esp. U.S.).

3. Realism

   • States act in self-interest; politics drive economics.

   • Integration as a tool for regional influence and power.

   • Example: NAFTA as U.S. geopolitical strategy to bind Mexico.

III. Case Studies

A. NAFTA → USMCA

• Nature: Neoliberal trade agreement (1994); replaced by USMCA (2018, minimal changes).

• Effects:

  • Increased trade and investment.

  • Outsourcing of jobs to Mexico; U.S. job losses in manufacturing.

  • Mexican agriculture harmed by U.S. imports.

  • No regional compensation or social support mechanisms.

  • Helped Mexican economic diversification and limited democratic gains.

• Critiques:

  • Failed to address inequality between U.S. and Mexico.

  • Mixed results; benefits unevenly distributed.

B. FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) – Failed Project

• U.S. Goals: Hemisphere-wide free trade zone.

• Latin American Resistance:

  • Fear of U.S. dominance.

  • Concerns about sovereignty, inequality, and local development.

• Key Opponents: Venezuela (Chávez), Brazil.

• U.S. Side Problems:

  • Unwillingness to compromise on agriculture, IP rights.

  • Shifted focus to bilateral deals (e.g., TPP).

C. ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America)

• Founder: Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), supported by Cuba, Bolivia, others.

• Goals:

  • Counter-hegemonic; block FTAA and NAFTA

  • Emphasize solidarity, social justice, and sovereignty.

  • Promote cooperation in education, health, energy.

• Achievements:

  • Cuban doctors, subsidized oil, rhetorical leadership.

• Limitations:

  • Lacked institutionalization.

  • Dependent on Chávez's leadership and oil wealth.

  • Weakened after Chávez's death and Venezuela’s crisis.

IV. Core Questions for Discussion & Analysis

1. Why has regional integration in the Americas seen limited success?

   • Differing interests, values, and development levels.

   • Weak governance and coordination.

   • External pressures, esp. U.S. dominance and global economic shifts.

2. Why did the FTAA fail?

   • U.S. rigidity + shifting trade priorities.

   • Latin American resistance (sovereignty, equity concerns).

3. Can integration among unequals (e.g., U.S. and Mexico) work?

   • Promising: trade, growth, technology transfer.

   • Problematic: asymmetry, dependency, sectoral disruptions.

4. Did NAFTA reduce inequality or worsen it?

   • Mixed results: growth with inequality.

   • Limited social protections; regional disparities increased.

5. Why is NAFTA’s impact hard to measure?

   • Interacting global forces (technology, policy shifts).

   • Long-term, diffuse impacts; lack of proper data.

6. How does ALBA differ from NAFTA/FTAA?

   • ALBA: Social justice, cooperation, sovereignty.

   • NAFTA/FTAA: Market-driven, liberalization-focused.

7. Can ALBA achieve its goals? Has it made a difference?

   • Short-term solidarity gains, long-term institutional weakness.

   • Symbolically significant but geopolitically limited.

8. Which kind of integration is more beneficial: with or without the U.S.?

   • Without U.S.: greater regional autonomy, sustainability.

   • With U.S.: access to capital/markets, but risks dependency.

The Promotion of Democracy 

I. U.S. Promotion of Democracy in Latin America

• U.S. ideals vs. reality

  • Idealism, paternalism, inconsistency

  • Interests often prioritized over democratic principles

  • Democratic concerns sidelined except under some presidents (e.g., Carter, Kennedy)

• Democracy in Latin America

  • Authoritarian wave in the 60s–70s

  • Shift towards democracy began in 1978 (e.g., Dominican Republic, Costa Rica)

  • 1980s: emergence of multiple democratic governments

II. Defining "Perfect Democracy"

• Elections must be:

  • Free, fair, and competitive

  • Coupled with civil/human rights

• Institutional strength:

  • Checks and balances

  • Rule of law

• Societal prerequisites:

  • Security
    Social and economic equality

• Tensions between:

  • U.S. liberal democratic model

  • Latin American needs and realities
    
    

III. Cultural Relativism vs. Normative Universalism

• U.S. democracy as a universal ideal?

• Latin American preferences:

  • Communitarian values

  • Strong leadership > individual liberties

• Safety vs. human rights debate
  
  

IV. Populism in Latin America

• Key features:

  • Personalized, charismatic leadership

  • Anti-elitism, anti-institutionalism

  • Appeals to the "people"

  • Resistance to liberal constraints

• Tactics:

  • Bold promises, rapid implementation

  • Loyalty-based appointments

  • Weakening of checks and balances

• Left-wing populists: Aristide, Chávez, López Obrador

• Right-wing populists: Fujimori, Bolsonaro, Bukele

V. Populism’s Impact on Democracy

• Short-term empowerment of the majority

• Long-term risks:

  • Authoritarian tendencies

  • Erosion of fair competition

  • Undermining judicial and legislative institutions
    
    

VI. Case Study: Honduras 2009 Coup

• President Zelaya:

  • Elected democratically, drifted toward authoritarianism

  • Sought constitutional reforms (re-election, like Chávez)

• Opposition reaction:

  • Viewed reforms as unconstitutional

  • Congress and military forced him into exile

• Outcome:

  • Neither side acted democratically

  • Congress assumed power (military overstepped)

• International response:

  • OAS and UN condemned it as a coup

  • U.S. hesitant—balancing values vs. strategic interests

  • ALBA is seen as hypocritical (supportive of Chávez) why support democracy in Honduras but nowhere else?
    
    

VII. Role of the U.S.

• Balancing act: democracy promotion vs. national interest

• Criticism of U.S. actions:

  • Inconsistency (Wiarda)

  • Undermined credibility

• What should the U.S. do?

  • Promote democracy through development, partnerships

  • Limit coercion (e.g., avoid overreliance on sanctions/force)

  • Respect Latin American sovereignty

VIII. Role of the OAS

• Successes:

  • Monitoring elections

  • Diplomatic pressure

• Challenges:

  • Limited enforcement capacity

  • Handling deep-rooted issues like corruption, inequality

• Relation to U.S. influence:

  • Platform for U.S. democracy agenda

  • But perceived as biased by some

Human Rights

I. Concept of Human Rights

• Origins & Philosophy

  • Rooted in Western political liberalism and secularism

  • Emphasizes individual rights as universal principles

  • Proclaimed widely, but inconsistently upheld in practice

• Tensions within the concept:

  • Individual vs. collective rights

  • Freedom from (negative liberty—e.g., torture, censorship) vs. Freedom to (positive liberty—e.g., education, housing)

    • Freedom from = enforceable, judicial clarity

    • Freedom to = aspirational, state must act (more subjective)

• Contradictions:

  • Liberal rights vs. socio-economic rights

  • Idealism vs. political limitations in real-world contexts

II. Human Rights in International Relations

• Evolution of norms:

  • Shift from state-centric to transnational systems

  • Human rights violations no longer considered “internal affairs”

• Tensions with state sovereignty:

  • Sovereignty as pacification mechanism (Hobbesian peace)

  • But sovereignty now morally constrained by human rights

  • Rising transnational pressures (NGOs, international law, civil society)

• Latin America's major dilemmas:

  • How to address past human rights violations from dictatorships?

  • Trials vs. amnesty vs. truth commissions?

III. Human Rights vs. Democratic Stability (Lessa et al.)

• Post-authoritarian challenges:

  • Military often retains de facto power (control over arms)

  • Amnesty laws often used to protect transition stability

• Tensions:

  • Justice vs. Stability

  • Moral obligation vs. Political prudence

• Consequences of prosecutions:

  • May destabilize fragile democracies

  • Risk of authoritarian backlash

• Dictators’ incentives:

  • Stay in power to avoid trial

  • Amnesty gives them a reason to leave peacefully

• Timing paradox:

  • Moral urgency highest when wounds are fresh

  • Political feasibility increases over time—but perpetrators may die unpunished

IV. Transitional Justice in Latin America

• Argentina:

  • 1980s: Military prosecuted → backlash → pardons issued

  • 2000s: Stronger democracy → Congress overturned amnesty laws

• Chile:

  • Truth commissions (e.g., Rettig Report)

  • Exposed abuses, named perpetrators—without prosecuting

  • Civil society (lawyers, NGOs) pushed for justice

  • Legal loophole: Disappearance = ongoing crime → prosecution possible

• Key takeaways:

  • Strong civil society enables justice efforts

  • Military power inversely related to prosecutorial ability

  • Long-term accountability can emerge even after initial pardons

V. Universal Jurisdiction (Roht-Arriaza, Fowler)

• Definition:

  • Certain crimes (e.g., genocide, torture, crimes against humanity) affect all of humanity → any country can prosecute

• Advantages:

  • Circumvents domestic legal/political blockages

  • Symbolic and legal reaffirmation of justice

• Challenges:

  • Jurisdictional confusion (legal gray areas)

  • Risk of political manipulation

  • Potential backlash from powerful states (e.g., U.S.)

• Pinochet Case (1998):

  • Arrested in London on Spanish warrant

  • There were no Spanish victims? He was not in Spain? He wasn’t Spanish. He was prosecuted under universal jurisdiction

  • Sparked international legal debate

• Political fallout:

  • UK caught in diplomatic storm

  • Chile insisted on sovereign right to decide

  • Example of idealism vs. realpolitik

VI. U.S. Role & Foreign Influence

• U.S. actions and contradictions:

  • Publicly supports human rights

  • But resists international courts (e.g., ICC immunity agreements)

  • "Triple C" policy under Bush = coerced countries to exempt U.S. personnel from ICC prosecution

• Lessa, Olsen:

  • U.S.-based actors can support trials via:

    • Diplomatic pressure

    • Funding and advocacy for civil society

    • Sanctions and conditional aid

• Risks of foreign involvement:

  • Undermining sovereignty

  • Political backlash

  • Selective justice (going after enemies, not allies)

VII. Key Theoretical Questions & Interpretations

• How do we explain differences in transitional justice across countries?

  • Most important factor: Strength of civil society

    • Independent courts, NGOs, lawyers, public pressure

• What maintains or undermines amnesty laws?

  • Political will

  • International and domestic pressure

  • Institutional strength (legislature, judiciary)

• Should justice come before stability—or vice versa?

  • Categorical principle: Always prosecute (human rights as non-negotiable)

  • Pragmatic consequentialism: Choose what maintains peace

• Can universal jurisdiction replace domestic courts?

  • Sometimes necessary when domestic paths are blocked

  • Must be used cautiously, respecting rule of law and avoiding political overreach

1. Is it better to prosecute or pardon post-authoritarian regimes?

Prosecute to uphold justice and prevent impunity—but timing matters. Immediate trials risk backlash in fragile democracies, while strategic delay can allow institutions to stabilize first.

2.  Should justice be local or transnational?

Ideally local, but transnational justice is a vital backup when domestic systems are unwilling or unable to act. It reinforces accountability but risks sovereignty tensions.

3. Can fragile democracies afford justice?

Not always immediately. Justice must be balanced with democratic consolidation—rushed prosecutions may destabilize, but long-term impunity undermines legitimacy.

4.  Does universal jurisdiction undermine sovereignty or promote global justice?

Both. It promotes justice when states fail, but it challenges traditional sovereignty. Its success depends on legitimacy, restraint, and multilateral support.

5.  Should countries like the U.S. be immune from international prosecution?

No. Equality before the law is central to human rights. Immunity for powerful states undermines credibility and reinforces double standards in global justice.

6.  Should a figure like Pinochet be prosecuted abroad or only at home?

If the home country won’t act, international justice is justified. Crimes against humanity are global concerns, and justice shouldn't depend on geography.

7.  Are human rights truly universal, or culturally relative?

Universal in principle, but often applied inconsistently. Cultural contexts matter, but they shouldn't be used to excuse repression or abuse.

8.  Is civil society the key to accountability? If so, how can it be strengthened?

Yes—strong civil society drives justice and transparency. It can be strengthened through legal protections, international funding, and alliances with NGOs and media.

Immigration

1. Legal Issues & Political Feasibility

Key Point: Unauthorized immigration exposes people to exploitation and undermines legal systems.

• Argument: The U.S. system is dysfunctional and requires bipartisan legal reform through Congress.

• Example: Lack of legal pathways leads to labor abuse and insecurity.

• Debate:

  • Pro-legal reform: Essential to protect migrants and uphold rule of law.

  • Counter: Political gridlock makes reform hard; some favor stricter enforcement only.

2. Historical Background

Key Point: U.S. immigration policy has fluctuated between openness and restriction.

• Trends:

  • Pre-1924: openness

  • 1924: Chinese Exclusion Act and racial quotas

  • 1965: LBJ’s civil rights reforms ended discrimination, prioritized family reunification

  • Recent decades: rising migration from Global South + tougher laws

• Impact: Greater diversity, but also rising controversy and politicization.
  
  

3. Theoretical Approaches to Latin American Immigration

Realism

• Argument: States must control borders; immigration is a national security issue.

• Example: War on Terror heightened scrutiny post-9/11.

• Debate:

  • Pro: Sovereignty and security must come first.

  • Con: This view ignores humanitarian needs and economic realities.

Radicalism (Delgado Wise)

• Argument: Migration is driven by structural inequality and neoliberal policies.

• Example: NAFTA hurt Mexican farmers, leading to migration.

• Debate:

  • Then: Migration seen as brain drain, pressures US society

  • Now: Emphasis on migrant rights, remittances, and systemic reform.

• Case Study: Delgado Wise and dependency theory.

Liberalism

• Argument: Migration, like trade, is mutually beneficial in a global market.

• Example: Migrants fill labor gaps and revitalize aging populations.

• Debate:

  • Pro: Promotes growth and freedom.

  • Con: Risks ignoring distributional impacts on lower-income U.S. workers.

Idealism

• Argument: Moral duty to protect asylum seekers and refugees.

• Example: Refugees fleeing violence in Central America.

• Debate:

  • Pro: Upholds human rights.

  • Con: Critics fear abuse of the asylum system.

Transnational Politics

• Argument: Migrants connect societies culturally and economically.

• Example: Remittances, binational identity, stronger U.S.-Latin America diplomacy.
  Debate:

  • Pro: Fosters understanding and global ties.

  • Con: Some fear it weakens national cohesion.

4. Costs and Benefits of LA Immigration to the U.S.

Economic

• Benefits: Fills labor shortages, supports aging society, brings innovation.

• Costs: Raises housing prices, pressures wages, public services strain.

• Debate: Who bears the cost—recent vs. long-established immigrants?

Cultural

• Benefits: Enhances diversity, brings new cultural perspectives.

• Challenges: Risk of social fragmentation or cultural clash.

• Debate: Integration vs. identity preservation.

Legal Compliance

• Concern: Undocumented migration may erode trust in legal institutions.

• Debate: Enforcement vs. providing legal pathways.

5. Controversy in U.S. Politics & U.S.–LA Relations

• Changes in migration: More undocumented arrivals, Global South origins.

• U.S. changes: Polarization, demographic shifts, rising populism.

• Political dynamics: Immigration used as a wedge issue; historical U.S. intervention in Latin America fuels mistrust.

6. Delgado Wise on Economic Integration

• View: NAFTA deepened inequality, displaced Mexican workers.

• Theory: Dependency theory—migration as a result of U.S.-driven neoliberalism.

• Assessment: Convincing; explains structural roots of migration beyond individual choice.

7. Kerwin & Warren on National Interests

• National Interests Identified:

  1. Legalization of undocumented immigrants

  2. Reforming legal immigration system

  3. Strengthening border and workplace enforcement

• Debate: Better to address all three together—comprehensive reform creates balance.

8. Obstacles to Immigration Reform

• Structural: Polarization, institutional gridlock (e.g., filibuster).

• Political: Conflicting interest groups, partisanship, media influence.
  
  

9. Possibility of Compromise

• Outlook: Negotiation is possible but difficult.

• Hope: Bipartisan reforms like Reagan’s 1986 IRCA offer precedent.

• Barrier: Entrenched divisions, primary election pressures, fear of backlash.

10. Personal View on U.S. Immigration Policy

• Middle-ground approach:

  • Combine strong border enforcement with legal pathways.

  • Offer citizenship to long-term undocumented residents.

  • Emphasize fairness, sustainability, and economic contribution.

• Balance: Align humanitarian responsibility with national interest.

Goal: Politically viable and morally grounded reform.