I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this. There's a caravan of thousands of migrants from Honduras which picked up members in Guatemala, crossed into Mexico, and is trying to make the US border. The governments of Guatemala and Mexico both failed to stop the caravan crossing into their territory, and Trump is threatening to send troops to the border. The Atlantic has two interesting recent articles on this by conservative writers.
Reihan Salam, executive editor of the National Review, points out that Nicaragua recently rejected a radical proposal by economist Paul Roemer (who just won the Nobel Prize in economics) to establish a charter city, a special autonomous region in Nicaragua which would have been partially governed by Canada and Mauritius. Charter cities are an idea I've supported for awhile, but a combination of the governments of developed countries being wary of the "colonialism" angle and developing countries having unstable leadership which never lets them get established means that every attempt Roemer has made to start one has been defeated so far.
David Frum, meanwhile, points out that not only does the caravan play into Trump's hand, but the reaction of many Democrats to essentially embrace the caravan may cost them in the upcoming midterms.
I'm not sure that Democrats have any really good political solution here. Support Trump's calls to prevent them from entering via military means, and you may have a rally-round-the-flag effect, similar to the one W saw after 9/11. Support their right to enter as refugees and you play into Trump's hands. Do nothing and you look weak. I don't think the Democrats have any really good political option here; which means that for once the only real question is what is the right thing to do.
Allowing refugees to force the borders through strength of numbers will encourage more of them to try it. It also potentially breaks the power of the coyotes if it works, which makes traveling to the US safer for migrants, but almost certainly leads to a long-term nativist backlash. I read recently that Canada is having a backlash of its own because of illegal migrants crossing unguarded entrances to the US, and Canada is far less nativist than the US already. It rankles people when foreigners are allowed to break laws.
Alternatively, we can block the border and insist that these migrants remain in Mexico and apply for asylum there. Immigrants in Mexico have been the subject of targeted violence, and it also presumably requires these immigrants to live off their own savings, unless Mexico grants them work permits. But the strength in numbers and visibility may protect them. I think that the right thing to do is probably to insist that they remain in Mexico while their applications are processed, while also helping Mexico support them, a situation similar to that Europe negotiated with Turkey for Syrian refugees.
But I can't really see Trump agreeing to cooperate with Mexico on this; it's in his interests to have the situation as adversarial as possible. And in light of that, I think that either the caravan ends up in US detention centers, or we have some horrifying footage as US forces use force against refugees trying to cross the border. I suppose, in light of this false choice I expect Trump to force on us, the rule of law should prevail and Democrats should insist that the migrants apply for asylum in Mexico, while also proposing cooperating with Mexico on accommodating these migrants and on the enforcement of the Mexican-Guatemalan border, knowing that Trump will never actually go for the latter. But it doesn't feel like a good choice. It's a tragic and frustrating situation all around.