The 2024 presidential debate showcased the persistence of xenophobic rhetoric in U.S. politics, revealing deeper systemic issues about the treatment of Latin American immigrants. Donald Trump’s incendiary claims, suggesting that immigrants were being released from prisons and mental institutions or that they were even committing outlandish acts such as eating pets, were not merely attempts to sway voters. Rather, they are part of a larger historical and ideological project aimed at perpetuating fear, division, and ultimately control. Additionally, these claims serve to divert attention from the structural policies that exploit and marginalize the Global South for the economic benefit of the Global North, reframing the migrant crisis not as a product of such exploitation, but instead as an issue caused by the migrants themselves. These kinds of statements are rooted in a long-standing tradition of framing the immigrant as the “other,” a tactic used to deflect attention from the failures of the state and reinforce hierarchical power structures. This demonization of immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, echoes the colonial narrative of the subjugated being framed as inherently inferior and dangerous. This moment is reflective of the broader political landscape where immigration is weaponized not as a policy issue, but also as a cultural and ideological battleground. Trump’s rhetoric is an attempt to revive and perpetuate a politics of fear, one that constructs immigrants as a threat to national security and social order, while simultaneously masking the structural violence that drives immigration in the first place.
As we consider the immigrant crisis highlighted in the presidential debate, it is essential to remember that this crisis did not arise in isolation, nor is the poverty of Latin American countries an inherent condition. The dire circumstances that drive millions to migrate are deeply rooted in a history of economic exploitation, foreign intervention, and policy decisions that have systematically disadvantaged the region. The demonization of immigrants seen in political rhetoric today ignores the historical context that has shaped Latin America’s economic instability and forced displacement.
The migrant crisis is deeply intertwined with the economic legacies of neoliberalism, a doctrine that, under the guise of promoting development, reinforced dependency and inequality in the Global South. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, Latin American nations were pressured into adopting neoliberal reforms that prioritized deregulation, privatization, and market liberalization, all of which opened local economies to foreign capital but devastated public services and social safety nets. In countries like Mexico, the consequences of these reforms have been particularly severe. The collapse of the colonial treasury system created fiscal chaos, while the introduction of structural adjustment programs mandated by international financial institutions, such as the IMF, forced governments to reduce public spending and privatize key industries. These reforms, while intended to promote economic growth, instead created a cycle of debt dependency, driving the poorest populations into further destitution. The imposition of austerity measures and the privatization of state-owned enterprises led to the weakening of state institutions, further entrenching inequality. Neoliberal policies exacerbated the social and economic marginalization of vulnerable populations, particularly immigrants, and contributed to a public perception that immigrants were responsible for economic instability rather than victims of global economic restructuring.
The United States, as a leading force behind the implementation of neoliberal reforms in Latin America, has been instrumental in fostering the very conditions that have led to the contemporary migration crisis. Neoliberalism, as propagated by U.S. policies and international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, mandated trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization, all under the banner of economic development. These policies benefited transnational corporations and foreign investors, particularly those from the Global North, while wreaking havoc on local economies. For instance, trade liberalization allowed for the influx of cheap foreign goods into Latin American markets, undercutting local industries, displacing workers, and exacerbating unemployment. By advancing economic policies that destabilized Latin American economies, the U.S. ensured a continuous cycle of dependency, poverty, and displacement while simultaneously tightening immigration policies, effectively creating a controlled and exploitable labor force. This economic paradox—where borders are open to goods, capital, and investment, but closed to human mobility—has exacerbated the socio-economic divides both within Latin American countries and between Latin America and the United States.
Further, the privatization of state-owned enterprises dismantled key sectors of Latin American economies, severely limiting their ability to provide essential services such as healthcare, education, and welfare programs. In transferring control of these industries to private, often multinational corporations, the ways by which privatization clearly prioritizes profit over public welfare are clearly shown. This shift led to reduced accessibility and affordability of these critical services, as private companies focused on maximizing returns rather than maintaining equitable service provision. Consequently, local governments lost crucial revenue streams and oversight, destabilizing the economy, increasing unemployment, and leaving millions vulnerable to extreme poverty without adequate social safety nets. The consequences of this economic instability were clear: many Latin American citizens, unable to sustain themselves in increasingly precarious economies, were forced to migrate in search of better opportunities. Ironically, the very policies that opened Latin American economies to foreign capital and integrated them into the global market created the conditions for mass displacement. The U.S., benefiting from this process, has maintained a system where these displaced workers become part of a flexible, low-wage labor pool, particularly in sectors like agriculture, construction, and domestic work. Migrants, many of whom are undocumented, are highly vulnerable to exploitation due to their precarious legal status, which limits their bargaining power and makes them susceptible to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and labor abuses.
U.S. foreign policy in Latin America from the 1960s to the 1990s also played a pivotal role in exacerbating the political and economic instability that has driven the region’s mass migration. Under the guise of combating communism during the Cold War, the United States actively supported authoritarian regimes and right-wing governments. These interventions, while framed as efforts to contain the spread of leftist ideologies, had devastating consequences for Latin American societies. U.S.-backed governments in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua perpetuated widespread violence, repression, and human rights abuses, often targeting civilians, trade unions, and peasant movements. U.S. military aid, covert operations, and the training of paramilitary forces further fueled these abuses, resulting in the mass displacement of populations who found themselves trapped in violent conflicts.
Economic interests aimed at maintaining control over Latin American markets and resources also motivated U.S. foreign policy. During this time, upholding a regional order that protected the interests of multinational corporations and preserved the flow of capital was a priority for the U.S., though this was often to the detriment of democratic movements and regional economic stability. The Nicaraguan Contra war, for instance, where the U.S. funded rebel groups to destabilize the Sandinista government, stands as a clear illustration of how U.S. foreign policy fostered environments of violence and uncertainty. These destabilizing efforts forced many to flee their homes, as violence, state repression, and economic collapse left few options for survival.
The direct impact of these interventions on migration patterns cannot be overstated. The mass displacement of people from countries like Guatemala and El Salvador was a direct consequence of the conflicts instigated and sustained by U.S. foreign policy. As civil wars raged, entire communities were uprooted, with many fleeing northward to escape persecution, poverty, and violence. The destabilization of these nations created conditions where seeking refuge in other countries, particularly the U.S., became a matter of survival. This legacy of intervention directly links the U.S. to the contemporary migrant crisis, as the displacement and violence of the 1980s continues to reverberate through generations of Latin Americans who have been forced to flee their homelands.
Moreover, the structural adjustment programs tied to loans from international financial institutions disregarded the unique socio-economic contexts of debtor nations, offering one-size-fits-all solutions that deepened inequality and led to social unrest. The militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border compounds this issue. Policies such as Operation Gatekeeper were designed not only to control immigration, but also to criminalize and dehumanize migrants. Border militarization has subjected migrants to extreme social injury, including death, exploitation by criminal organizations, and dehumanization at the hands of the state. These policies force migrants into increasingly perilous crossings through deserts, leading to thousands of deaths and countless injuries each year. This militarized response does nothing to address the root causes of migration, but instead treats migrants as commodities to be controlled and discarded. The economic conditions created by U.S. policies continue to fuel the migration crisis, while the border militarization strategies exacerbate the suffering of those fleeing for a better life.
Understanding the current migrant crisis requires us to move beyond simplistic narratives and to instead focus on the economic systems that drive displacement. The connection between neoliberalism, economic dependency, and migration is clear: the migrant crisis is not a natural consequence of poverty, but a direct result of policies designed to exploit and marginalize the Global South while benefiting the economic interests of the Global North. In this context, blaming migrants for economic instability becomes a convenient political tool to distract from the real causes of inequality and social unrest. By framing the immigration debate around these historical and economic realities, we can begin to challenge the misconceptions that fuel anti-immigrant rhetoric and advocate for policies that address the root causes of migration, rather than merely punishing its victims.
***
This article was edited by Alexa Davidson.
