I visited and spoke with migrants in Mexico's interior and on the border at El Paso and with those who worked with them twice in the past few years. (Sometime before that I evaluated, documented or wrote positions on thousands of asylum claims involving dozens of countries over 20 years.) The Central American stories described a sort of a "Ukraine lite," where people were killied individually as opposed to by bombs. We accept Cubans who ducktail and run to come here because we consider that country so bad that it doesn't matter if bombs are used. We gave asylum to Poles who fled a crackdown by the Soviets, Nicaraguans who fled a leftist government, Salvadorans who fled death squads, and Guatmalans who fled mass murder. Despite a clear bias towards those fleeing leftist governments, all of them claimed that they met the definition of a refugee as it is described in international and US law. Many did and were granted protection. I may be ignorant of current conditions in all the countries mentioned here, but I know something of refugee law, and can say with certainty that the extreme situation in Ukraine is not the prerequisite condition for establishing refugee status.
Finally, your insult to the people of Central America is noted. As history might tell you, the shit holes you see and the government's you disparage often were set up and supported by the US back in the day, which actions, motivated by unthinking anti-communism, held back development. Apply the suggestions you make about what Central Americans should have done with respect to their governments are in the area of absurdity of asking the same of Cubans under Castro, for example. Many of them are being persecuted precisely because they don't accept the status quo.