The Root Causes Strategy is the Biden administration’s attempt to address the root causes of migration from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. In July of 2021, the administration announced this strategy via executive order to use the private sector, US diplomacy, and foreign assistance programs to work with governments and local organizations in the Northern Triangle. The strategy is made up of five pillars:
- Addressing economic insecurity and inequality,
- Combating corruption and advancing the rule of law,
- Respecting human rights,
- Preventing crimes and criminal organizations, and
- Combating gender-based violence.
This policy is in response to the rise in migration from the Northern Triangle, evidenced by the rising Central American-born population in the US which has grown tenfold since 1980. The increase in recent years has been attributed to government corruption, violence, and natural disasters in the region. The Trump administration attempted to curtail this increase in migration through asylum bans, the “Remain in Mexico” program, metering, and the detention of migrant families at the border. Biden’s plan aims to shift away from the criminalization practices and address the root issues of migration using this $4 billion program.
Recently, the administration released an update on the Root Causes Strategy on April 19, 2022. Vice President Kamala Harris created the Call to Action initiative, which brings together private sector leaders, and generated $1.2 billion in commitments from companies like Microsoft, Nespresso, and Mastercard who plan to launch projects across the Northern Triangle. Furthermore, the US has sent vaccines, given humanitarian assistance, created the Anti-Corruption Task Force, supported human rights defenders, assisted in increasing security, and supported initiatives for women and local organizations.
Arguments in Support of the Root Causes Strategy
Supporters of the Root Causes Strategy argue that relief alone does not curb migration. The COVID-19 pandemic and weather have exacerbated root causes like corruption, violence, and consequences of climate change, and alleviating the effects of these problems alone does not solve them. Others also say that the use of the private sector allows for more economic opportunity in the region. They claim that US and international investment boosts economic activity and forces regional govts to create conditions to attract investment. This ultimately improves conditions for citizens.
Arguments Against the Root Causes Strategy
However, some critics say that the US avoids discussing state-sponsored violence, US intervention, the negative effects of neoliberalism, and historical land inequality when tackling root causes. Therefore, they denounce the program’s dependence on private sector investment, citing that this structure has not worked in the past. Instead, the strategy should focus on labor rights, benefits, and better wages for people instead of corporations. Additionally, they contend that Biden and Harris need a more localized approach. Often, when money goes to local and national governments in the Northern Triangle, which are usually corrupt, it does not end up helping people. Therefore, these critics argue that more money must go to grassroots, faith-based, and local organizations as they are best positioned to curb the root causes of migration.
On the other hand, other critics insist that the Root Causes Strategy focuses too much on the “push” factors of Central American migration, like limited women’s rights and climate change, instead of the “pull” factors. For example, they argue that assistance to single-parent households in Central America incentivizes men to migrate to the US, and that combating climate change is a waste of money because most migrants come for economic reasons. They recommend policies that strengthen border security and migrant detentions. They also claim that the US government can only make modest changes to the root causes of poverty because Central Americans must change social attitudes about education and corruption. Furthermore, they argue that giving money to community organizations is not the most effective because these groups are unelected, unmonitored, and cannot be held accountable.
