Fears of Central American caravans and Saharan smugglers keep European and U.S. leaders up at night. Desperate to manage migration, they turn to short-term fixes, which include blocking borders and supporting authoritarian leaders to contain people—their own citizens and others—before they get close to Europe or the United States. This bit of political theater appeals to some, but has limited effects in overall numbers. The long game consists of addressing root causes so people no longer feel compelled to move at all. But this too will do little to prevent migration north. If anything, it will encourage more people to move.

It is time to recalibrate how we look at migration. It is not only the result of poverty and persecution. It is also a way for people to cope with precisely the kinds of challenges aid and national development cannot address.

Hard and Soft Power

Over the past decade, both the United States and Europe have mobilized a full portfolio of hard and soft power to reach deep into other countries to control migration. In attempts to let others cast the net for them, the United States has pushed border control south through elaborate deals with the Mexican government. Although Mexico often denies working for the United States, it has sought funding for U.S. migration management initiatives and said it would invest US$30 billion on Central American development to slow migration to the United States.

Europe, along with African political elites, has also extended its reach thousands of miles away from its own borders through bilateral agreements with an ever growing number of countries. In doing so, both Europe and the United States have developed proposals or programs that strengthen state security mechanisms. In some cases, this means supporting undemocratically elected or authoritarian leaders. In almost all cases, it means destination countries support the use of violence against poor migrants.

But will these strategies work? Historically, enhanced border controls and support for authoritarian leaders have a limited effect on the numbers of people migrating. As Kathryn Sikkink recently pointed out, strengthening authoritarians to prevent movements will do little to deliver on promises of economic or physical security. Governments that persecute their populations do not encourage them to stay. Such efforts are akin to punching a tetherball, only to have it circle around and hit us from behind. The results will be more intense stress on natural resources, political instability, and populations with greater ambitions to move away.

Getting Around Tightened Border Controls

Instead, tightening border controls tend to lead people to create increasingly elaborate mechanisms to subvert such controls. A kind of arms race between states and smugglers emerges, with increasing collusion between the two. This is what we have seen for years along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Libyan slave markets illustrate these dangers. Within Sudan, Niger, and elsewhere, state and state-like authorities are also forming profitable smuggling partnerships. Whether it is the business interests keen to sell walls, hardware, or technology, the American and European military and security industry also have skin in this game.

The Long Game

But what about the development aid to Central America or African countries? The United States is now investing elsewhere to slow migration. At the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, former President Bill Clinton said that “as the benefits of economic growth are spread in Mexico … there will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home.” Across the Atlantic, the German “Marshall Plan with Africa” intends to generate the “substantial socioeconomic transformation” needed to absorb millions of people threatened by environmental, political, or economic risks.

Investments in vocational training, reproductive health facilities, and other economic enterprises will strengthen environmental and economic resilience, but these are investments with an ulterior motive. Those depending on government funds for their development work  will increasingly be asked to justify their initiatives by showing how they are creating means to prevent mobility. Whatever their benefits, these efforts will not stop migration.

Central American and African countries are poor for multiple and complex reasons, many of which have to do with governance and insecurity, problems likely exacerbated by aid for authoritarians. Others are rooted in structural inequality, environmental degradation, and a global system that increasingly concentrates wealth in particular sites. These are problems that cannot be readily overcome through even the most progressive aid policies. Given the demographics of many source countries, the number of young people far outnumbers the available jobs. Across much of sub-Saharan Africa, creating the growth to absorb all that surplus labor would likely take decades.

Development Spurs Migration

Disconnecting southern economic development into national rather than global supply chains and labor markets will not enable people to build a future in their country. Instead, it will trap them in areas that are economically not viable. This will not only mean sustained poverty, but also intensify practices that further denude agricultural lands and forests. And if they are able to attain some degree of wealth and education, they will likely seek opportunities to capitalize on those resources elsewhere. Indeed, until countries reach a relatively high level of income, development is more likely to spur migration than curb it. The ability to move and maintain multi-local livelihoods can also help mitigate risk and foster development for migrants themselves and for their places of origin.

We need to rethink what it means to manage migration and how human mobility can foster global development, security, and environmental resilience.  One need not throw open the borders to recognize that moving is part of how people cope with crisis and maximize returns on their education, skills, and entrepreneurial drives. This is precisely why American and European citizens move more than almost anyone else in the world. While no one should be forced to move, opening possibilities to do so increases people’s ability to address environmental, economic, and political uncertainty. The quest for self-betterment and to create opportunities and security for loved ones is a fundamental drive. Stifling that pursuit through policies aimed to rein people in undermines what it means to be human.