An 'Americas First' agenda

As a result of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro's ceaseless human rights abuses and authoritarian crackdowns of political opponents, over 1.5 million poverty-stricken citizens have fled the country since 2014. This outflow has become so extreme that yesterday, Ecuador's foreign ministry declared a state of emergency in three of its northernmost provinces – Carchi, Pichincha, and El Oro – as they are unable to cope with a reported 4,200 daily Venezuelan migrants streaming across the border from Colombia. While these dire circumstances should serve as a reminder to the world of the repeated failures of socialism – which is more important now than ever before – it should also remind us of the obligation the United States has to step in and lend assistance to our South American allies. Although it is true that this Wednesday, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, did announce that we would be giving another $9 million to Colombia to help – totaling $46 million so far – significantly more must be given, to other countries as well, in order to assist effectively.

To help contextualize the sheer scale of the issue at hand, when President Obama declared that the Mexican children border crossings were an "urgent humanitarian situation" back in 2013 and spent billions trying to remedy it, it was because the number had reached nearly 25,000 apprehended in a year. Ecuador, Colombia, and other surrounding countries take in that amount – as per the above numbers – in less than two weeks. The world still refuses to acknowledge this problem, leaving inexperienced and underfunded countries to scramble for resources in their valiant effort to save millions. Assistance to countries that border Venezuela boldly empowers and incentivizes Venezuelans to "vote with their feet" and move, demonstrating to them that America supports their fight for freedom and opportunity. Ilya Somin – a law professor at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute who has written much on the topic – explains in a recent paper just how powerful foot-voting can be, in that it offers both country and citizen a choice: if a government chooses dangerous policy à la Venezuela, the people can then choose to leave to find better opportunity elsewhere, robbing the former of its most important economic resource: people. This is not a mere theory – we have seen evidence of this happening even in America, with ample data regarding interstate movement involving increasing numbers of people moving away from high-tax states toward low-tax locales like Texas. Such an action poses a troubling question to rulers like Maduro: what good is a Socialist Paradise if there is no one left to live in it? The positive effects from aid like this would not end at the border. By enabling nearby countries to better absorb the migrant influx, those émigrés can more quickly put their talents to work, boosting the economies of their host countries and even America's, as it could further expand our opportunities for trade. The Western Hemisphere – minus Canada and Mexico – makes up over $500 billion of our goods and services trade. Bolstering that amount has the potential to be fruitful for our economy. Clearly, aid would not only weaken Venezuela's harmful agenda, but serve as an investment in the economies of countries that have long stood behind us and what we stand for. Taking decisive action – in addition to greatly helping those in need – would also send a message to an international community that has become increasingly critical toward America: that when push comes to shove, the U.S. – unlike the U.N. – gets things done. The U.N. has repeatedly decried the actions of Maduro but, to date, has only "suggested the International Criminal Court could become involved." The U.N. not made any effort to actually stop the crisis, instead drafting a five-page angry letter expressing how "deeply disturbed", "grave[ly] concern[ed]," and "alarmed" members are at measures taken by the U.S., the E.U., and others. Their solution? "Urg[ing] States to resolve their differences through dialogue and peaceful relations." This is an excellent chance to expose the U.N's ineptitude, slamming it for the comments it made about poverty in the United States less than two months ago. Perhaps – and more selfishly – deciding to send aid could act as a redemption arc of sorts for the Trump administration, especially in light of the scathingly harsh criticism it received in response to its family separation policy. Demonstrating that they actually care about what happens south of the border would be valuable for a Republican Party entering midterm season at a strong disadvantage. Convincing uneasy moderates could serve as a dam against an impending "blue wave." Aside from the above reason, just as we have done countless times in the past, the United States needs to lead by example and show the world that, yes, America is still an unparalleled force for good. Millions are counting on what we can do for them in these coming months, and America needs to step up to the plate.