Reinstatement of "Stay in Mexico": a new humanitarian challenge at the border.

The debate over migration in the United States has gained new momentum with the possibility of reinstating the "Remain in Mexico" program, a project that, under the Trump administration, became one of the cornerstones of its immigration policy. This program, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their applications were processed, has faced criticism for its humanitarian impact, a situation that looms as a new challenge in the current migration context. Initially implemented in 2019, "Remain in Mexico" affected more than 71,000 migrants, who were forced to stay in border areas of the neighboring country, often in precarious and dangerous conditions. Human rights organizations have denounced that this policy exposes migrants to violence and a lack of access to basic services, raising considerable concern for the safety and well-being of these individuals. The recent stance of Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota and future Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has fueled the debate. Noem has expressed her support for the restoration of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), suggesting that this will be an essential component of Trump's strategy to address irregular migration. This statement resonates with the approach that characterized the Trump administration, focused on strict measures to contain migratory flows. From the Mexican side, the response has been clear and firm. Juan Ramón de la Fuente, Mexico's Foreign Minister, has emphasized that the MPP is a unilateral decision by the United States and that the country does not share this policy. While acknowledging the right of the United States to implement such measures, the Foreign Minister has stressed the need to seek alternatives that mitigate the impact on migrants and Mexican territory. This could open the door to negotiations between both governments, although the future remains uncertain and complex. The Mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Sheinbaum, has also entered the debate, stating that her administration will not accept the reinstatement of the program. Instead, she has proposed opening channels of communication with Trump's team, seeking alternatives that do not place migrants in vulnerable situations. One of the pillars of her strategy is the CBP One application, which allows migrants to manage their asylum requests without having to wait at the border, a tool that could be threatened by the return of the MPP. The possibility of "Remain in Mexico" being re-implemented raises concerns about the conditions migrants would face on the Mexican side of the border. Many of them encounter significant challenges in accessing resources, medical care, and, in general, a dignified life while their applications are processed. Insecurity in border areas, especially in states like Tamaulipas, remains a pressing concern that could further complicate the situation. The previous experience with the program left a deep mark, and human rights organizations continue to warn about the risks of forcing migrants to remain in a hostile environment. The reinstatement of the MPP not only represents an issue of U.S. domestic policy but also has profound repercussions on the social and humanitarian fabric of the region. As time progresses, the international community watches closely how these dynamics between the United States and Mexico unfold. Managing migration is not just a political issue; it is a matter that affects human lives and requires a compassionate and humanitarian approach. The voices of migrants, which often go unheard in the process, must be listened to in order to find effective and fair solutions. The future of "Remain in Mexico" and its possible reinstatement will continue to be a hot topic in discussions about migration in the coming months. With new administrations at play, it is crucial for both countries to find a path that respects human rights and guarantees the safety and dignity of those seeking asylum. Recent history reminds us that immigration policy should reflect humanitarian values and not just restrictive measures.