Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Child abduction across borders inflicts profound harm on vulnerable children, and the Hague Convention provides an essential legal framework for their protection. When countries fail to enforce this treaty, the US has both the right and responsibility to use diplomatic leverage to encourage compliance. Similarly, corruption and narcotrafficking destabilise entire regions and fuel violence. Visa restrictions targeting individuals complicit in these harms represent a measured response that respects American sovereignty whilst pursuing accountability and protecting the most defenceless.

The case against

Whilst child abduction and corruption are serious concerns, unilateral visa restrictions raise fundamental questions about sovereignty and whether the US should be the ultimate arbiter of compliance with international conventions or judge of governance in other nations. Such measures risk damaging diplomatic relationships necessary for genuine cooperation on these issues, and visa restrictions alone are unlikely to change systemic behaviour in countries with weak institutions. There are also concerns about due process, the targeting of family members, and whether the administration's characterisation of these situations is accurate or influenced by geopolitical considerations. Sustainable solutions require partnership and addressing root causes, not punitive measures that can breed resentment.