Trump says US will ‘permanently pause migration’ from ‘third world countries’ – BBC

Report on Proposed US Migration Policy and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

This report analyzes the recent announcement by the President of the United States to “permanently pause migration” from developing nations. The policy, framed as a measure for national security and economic recovery following a violent incident in Washington D.C., has profound implications for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposed actions directly challenge the principles of international cooperation, equality, and economic opportunity enshrined in the 2030 Agenda, particularly impacting SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

2.0 Policy Developments and Rationale

2.1 Presidential Announcement

The administration has proposed a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. Key elements of the announcement include:

• A “permanent pause” on migration from all nations classified as “third world countries.”
• The termination of all federal benefits and subsidies for noncitizens.
• The stated objective is to “allow the U.S. system to fully recover” from perceived strains caused by previous immigration levels.

2.2 Precipitating Events and Immediate Actions

The policy announcement followed a sequence of events and administrative actions:

1. An Afghan national was accused of a fatal shooting in Washington D.C.
2. The U.S. subsequently suspended the processing of all immigration requests from Afghanistan, citing a review of security protocols.
3. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initiated a re-examination of green cards issued to individuals from 19 countries, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Somalia, and Venezuela.

3.0 Analysis of Impacts on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

3.1 SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The proposed policy directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries. Specifically, it undermines Target 10.7, which calls for facilitating orderly, safe, regular, and responsible migration.

• Increased Inequality Among Nations: By creating a discriminatory barrier based on a country’s development status, the policy exacerbates global inequalities, limiting opportunities for individuals from less developed nations.
• Violation of Non-Discrimination Principles: The policy institutionalizes discrimination based on national origin, conflicting with the core SDG principle of “leaving no one behind.”

3.2 SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The policy framework and its justification have significant implications for SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and effective, accountable institutions.

• Erosion of Justice and Due Process: The suspension of legal immigration processing and the re-examination of existing legal statuses based on a single criminal act challenge the principles of individual justice and due process, weakening the perceived integrity of immigration institutions.
• Undermining Social Cohesion: The rhetoric linking migration from developing countries to “social dysfunction” and security threats can undermine social cohesion and peace within the host country, contrary to the goal of fostering inclusive societies (Target 16.1).

3.3 SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The migration pause directly impacts SDG 8 by restricting labor mobility, which is a key driver of economic growth and development for both sending and receiving countries.

• Restriction of Economic Opportunity: The policy denies individuals from developing nations the opportunity to seek decent work and improve their economic standing, a fundamental aspect of SDG 8.
• Impact on Global Economic Flows: Halting migration can reduce the flow of remittances, which are a critical source of income for millions of families in developing countries and contribute significantly to their national economies, thereby impeding progress towards sustainable economic growth.

3.4 SDG 1 & SDG 17: No Poverty & Partnerships for the Goals

The policy’s effects extend to the foundational goals of poverty eradication and global partnership.

• Poverty Alleviation (SDG 1): By closing a key pathway for economic advancement and reducing remittances, the policy may indirectly contribute to sustaining or worsening poverty in the affected countries.
• Global Partnerships (SDG 17): The unilateral nature of the decision undermines international cooperation and multilateral agreements on migration management, which are essential for achieving the comprehensive 2030 Agenda.

4.0 Conclusion

The proposed U.S. policy to halt migration from developing nations represents a significant departure from international development norms and poses a direct challenge to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. While presented as a domestic security measure, its implementation would have far-reaching negative consequences for global efforts to reduce inequality, promote peace and justice, and foster inclusive economic growth. The policy conflicts with the interconnected and universal nature of the 2030 Agenda, which recognizes migration as a key component of sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues related to immigration policies, national security, and the rights of migrants and refugees. Based on these themes, the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are addressed:

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article directly discusses policies that create and exacerbate inequalities. The proposed plan to “permanently pause migration” from “third world countries” and the re-examination of green cards for individuals from specific nations (Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, etc.) are actions that discriminate based on national origin, directly contradicting the goal of reducing inequality.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is relevant due to the focus on security, crime, and the legal status of immigrants. The article centers around a violent crime (a shooting) allegedly committed by an immigrant, which is used to justify sweeping changes to immigration and security protocols. The suspension of immigration processing and the re-examination of legal statuses (green cards) touch upon the principles of justice and the functioning of institutions responsible for migration and law enforcement.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article connects immigration to economic conditions. President Trump’s statements about immigration policies eroding the “gains and living conditions” of Americans, his vow to remove anyone “who is not a net asset,” and the plan to “end all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens” directly relate to the economic inclusion and rights of migrant workers.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific targets under the identified SDGs are relevant to the article’s content, primarily by highlighting actions that work against these targets.

• Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
  • Target 10.7: “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” The article discusses actions that are the antithesis of this target. The proposal to “permanently pause migration,” the suspension of processing immigration requests from Afghans, and the imposition of travel bans represent a move away from well-managed migration policies towards restrictive and exclusionary ones.
• Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
  • Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The article is precipitated by a violent event: the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington DC, one of whom died. This event is cited as the justification for the subsequent policy announcements, linking violence directly to the discussion of institutional response.
  • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The decision to suspend immigration processing for Afghans and re-examine green cards issued to individuals from 19 countries raises questions about due process and equal access to the legal and immigration systems for these individuals.
• Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
  • Target 8.8: “Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers…” The rhetoric about removing anyone who is “not a net asset” and ending federal benefits for non-citizens directly threatens the economic security and rights of migrant workers, creating a precarious environment contrary to the spirit of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official SDG indicators, but it provides specific information that can serve as de facto indicators to measure the implementation of the discussed policies and their impact on the SDG targets.

• For Target 10.7 (Migration Policies):
  • Implied Indicator: Number of countries whose nationals are subject to a migration pause or travel ban. The article mentions “all Third World Countries” and specifically lists Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Somalia, and Venezuela as part of a group of 19 countries whose migrants’ green cards will be re-examined.
  • Implied Indicator: Status of immigration processing for specific nationalities. The article explicitly states that the US “suspended processing all immigration requests from Afghans.”
• For Target 16.1 (Reduce Violence):
  • Implied Indicator: Number of violent deaths related to specific incidents. The article provides a clear metric for the inciting event: the death of one National Guard member (“Sarah Beckstrom succumbed to her injuries”).
• For Target 8.8 (Migrant Worker Rights):
  • Implied Indicator: Number of non-citizens receiving federal benefits and subsidies. The plan to “end all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens” implies that this number could be used as a metric to measure the policy’s impact.
  • Implied Indicator: Policy criteria for determining if an individual is a “net asset.” The vow to remove anyone who does not meet this criterion suggests a new metric for evaluating the economic status of immigrants.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.com