Abstract
The purpose of the chapter is to review Mexico’s responses to out-migration from Mexico—traditionally destined for the USA—since the early 1940s. The term “changing fortunes” alludes to the successes and failures of past Mexican responses to Mexico–US migration. By doing so, the chapter hopes to shed some light on current dilemmas in migration management. From today’s vantage point, Mexico’s responses to migration constitute a mixed record, sometimes successful but at other times disappointing. Although the review focuses on Mexico, US responses are touched upon as well. The first part briefly covers the period from the “Bracero Programs” to the enactment of IRCA (from 1942 to the 1980s). The second section reviews a period that experienced important episodes of bilateral cooperation in migration management, including its most salient episodes, the North American Free Trade Agreement (starting in 1994) and the bilateral migration negotiations in 2001 (which ended abruptly and almost immediately after the events of September 11). The third part reviews the main responses and positions adopted in the post-9/11 era. The chapter concludes by considering ways to encourage Mexico and the USA to explore novel and innovative approaches to deal with and manage this phenomenon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This process has been described as “the convergence-hypothesis” (see Cornelius et al. 1994).
- 2.
The Mexico–USA migration system started to develop much earlier than most other contemporary systems that are generally related to contemporary development and globalization phenomena.
- 3.
Commission on Immigration Reform and Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Binational Study on Migration Between Mexico and the United States. Mexico, 1997.
- 4.
The rising anti-immigrant sentiment has been considered as part of widespread neo-isolationist tendencies in the USA (Chua 2009).
- 5.
Neither the responses vis-à-vis immigration into Mexico nor the responses vis-à-vis the increasing phenomenon of migrants in transit through the country are discussed in this chapter.
- 6.
Since the 1970s, a relatively small program of temporary migrant workers from Mexico to Canada has been in effect. In 2007, some 15,000 migrants participated in it.
- 7.
Mexican migration to the USA has been an almost continuous phenomenon since the 1840s, when Mexico’s Northern Territories became the US Southwest.
- 8.
The Ministry of Foreign Relations (Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores: SRE) was the main Mexican negotiating agency in crafting these agreements, which might explain its leading role in the most recent policy responses regarding Mexico–USA migration.
- 9.
Mexican labor legislation required that transportation, housing, and other facilities be provided to the migrant workers.
- 10.
The Border Industrialization Program consisted of the establishment of in-bond plants to assemble imported components from the USA to then be exported back to the USA as integrated products.
- 11.
The role of this program regarding the dynamics of Mexican migration to the USA is a matter of debate. Some authors contend that this industry acted as a pulling force of migrants to the border as a first step in their final journey toward the USA.
- 12.
IRCA was adopted after years of public discussions, congressional debates, and several failed attempts—in 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985—to pass similar legislations. The migration issue was seen in the USA as a response to “the loss of border control,” particularly along its southern border.
- 13.
US policies toward undocumented flows have not been exclusively designed to modify Mexican flows, but since Mexican workers compose the majority among participants in these flows, they are the most directly affected.
- 14.
As a result of IRCA, approximately 2.8 million people regularized their situation in the USA; about 2.1 million were Mexican nationals.
- 15.
The Mexican response has been seen as a good example of the model developed by the Mexico–US Binational Study on Migration (Weintraub 1998).
- 16.
In the 1980s, Mexico was a leader in advocating and drafting international rules to protect basic human rights for all migrant workers. The UN adopted these rules in 1990 during the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
- 17.
Expectations of lesser migratory pressures, as a result of trade liberalization, played a key role in the acceptance of NAFTA, particularly among the US political class (Alba 1993a).
- 18.
Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development (1990).
- 19.
- 20.
“We want to export goods, not people” is a sentence attributed to President López Portillo (1976–1982); later on, it was reiterated by President Salinas (1988–1994), one of the main architects of NAFTA.
- 21.
IIRIRA was a main element in the legislative strategy designed to create more difficult conditions for unauthorized immigrants. Other legislative pieces that came into effect in 1996, permeated by the same restrictive attitude regarding immigration, were the Anti-terrorism and Death Penalty Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, a law that reformed social welfare policy).
- 22.
Even before NAFTA’s enactment, skepticism abounded regarding the realization of the assumed migratory outcomes of trade liberalization Various econometric exercises showed the difficulty to significantly change the established migratory trends, at least within a meaningful time horizon, given the considerable economic asymmetries between the two countries, the entrenched labor market interlinkages, and the numerous social and entrepreneurial networks that had been consolidated over more than half a century of migration (Hinojosa-Ojeda and Robinson 1992; Alba 1993a, b; Garcia y Griego 1993).
- 23.
The dissuasion policy, which intended to prevent border crossing, was blamed for an increasing a wave of deaths along the border (Cornelius 2001).
- 24.
Program name and other changes are related to the essence of the various approaches taken by the State, Federation, and Municipality regarding relative financial contributions.
- 25.
The OECD has championed a migration to development approach to improve the conditions of the countries of origin of migrants. See, Policy Coherence for Development. Migration and Developing Countries, OECD Development Center, 2007.
- 26.
Once Vicente Fox was elected president in 2000, he declared himself in favor of an “open border” policy between the three NAFTA signatory countries. One major aim behind this move was to reach an agreement that would liberalize the flows of Mexican workers, particularly towards the USA. The initial reactions of the Canadian and US governments were unenthusiastic, if not overtly antagonistic, to this initiative. However, the proposal opened up avenues to reconsider the migratory issue between Mexico and the USA.
- 27.
Chapter XVI of NAFTA was meant to liberalize the mobility of technical and administrative personnel, reflecting a view of the complementarities between the liberalization of the markets for goods, capital, technology, and labor.
- 28.
Davidow, the US ambassador to Mexico at the time, holds that it was a “negotiation that was not a negotiation as such.” See Davidow (2004), particularly “The Negotiation That Wasn’t” (pp. 217–232).
- 29.
Partnership for Prosperity. The Guanajuato Proposal, February 16, 2001.
- 30.
On the importance of this change, from the defense of abstract principles to the search of specific goals, see Alba (2003).
- 31.
The issues in the negotiations reflected main components of a proposal by the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel 2001, Mexico-U.S. Migration: A Shared Responsibility, Washington, D.C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, 2001. This panel was specifically designed to offer the two new administrations—Fox’s and Bush’s—a series of guidelines for a bilateral policy on the matter.
- 32.
It is a matter of speculation what might have happened had the 9/11 events not occurred. Certainly, arriving at any agreement was still a long way ahead. The US Congress was barely involved in the various points of the agenda discussed by the executive branches.
- 33.
The anti-immigrant (anti-Mexican and anti-Latino) offensive undoubtedly found support in some of Samuel Huntington’s works: specifically in “The Hispanic Challenge,” Foreign Policy, 2004, March/April, pp. 30–45; and more generically in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, Touchstone, 1996.
- 34.
Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon was presented to the public opinion in October 2005. This document was the product of a working group of government officials, lawmakers, and migration experts (members of academia and representatives of civic organizations).
- 35.
In this context, and to facilitate their coming out of the shadows, the Mexican government undertook an active promotion (particularly in the USA) of the “matrícula consular,” an ID card that would better protect migrants. Nearly one million “matrículas” were issued in 2003.
- 36.
“Concurrent Resolution” adopted on February 16th, 2006 by both, Mexico’s Senate and Chamber of Deputies.
- 37.
A Message from Mexico about Migration was published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Chicago Tribune, among other newspapers.
- 38.
The Calderón government initiated a “desmigratizacion” of Mexico–USA relations (namely, not to center the bilateral relation on the migration issue). The term was not well understood, and perhaps not the most politically correct one; thus, it was dropped completely from public discourse. However, the new orientation is essentially correct, in my view.
- 39.
There were expectations that the administration might pursue more “pro-active labor or employment policies” that could, eventually and indirectly, deactivate emigration. President Calderón, when running as candidate, pledged to become the President of employment creation.
- 40.
“The First Employment Program” was intended to facilitate job creation and the hiring of workers by covering the employers’ part of the social security contributions during a specified period of time. As of 2009, the program has not proved significant in creating additional formal employment (“Juzgan planes para impulsar primer empleo,” Reforma, Oct. 17, 2011; “Un fracaso el programa de primer empleo, considera la Coparmex,” La Jornada, January 13, 2008). In any event, the program did not make any specific reference to the migration phenomenon.
- 41.
Over the years, Mexico has made several attempts to improve the professionalization of migration personnel and to modernize its main migration agency.
- 42.
In early 2002, Mexico and the USA signed a Smart Border Agreement.
- 43.
Although, de facto, a “restrictive response” has been taking shape and hold since 9/11.
- 44.
The process of factoring in “migration deactivation purposes” on the design of economic and social public policies (see Alba 2009).
- 45.
The Calderón administration seemed to be aware that US policy was unlikely to change, even more so given the recession and high unemployment in the USA.
References
Alba, Francisco. 1993a. La migración mexicana a Estados Unidos y la iniciativa del Tratado de Libre Comercio: el juego de las expectativas. In Liberación económica y comercio libre en América del Norte: consideraciones políticas, sociales culturales, Coord. Gustavo Vega, 273–289. México: El Colegio de México.
———. 1993b. El Tratado de Libre Comercio y la emigración de mexicanos a Estados Unidos. Comercio Exterior 43(8, August): 743–749.
———. 1999. La migración mexicana a Estados Unidos. Un rompecabezas difícil de armar: relaciones entre políticas de desarrollo, libre comercio, integración económica y migración. Este País, No. 105, December, pp. 32–37.
———. 2000. Migración internacional. Consolidación de los patrones emergentes. Demos, 2000, No. 13, pp. 10–11.
———. 2003. Del diálogo de Zedillo y Clinton al entendimiento de Fox y Bush. In Mexico-United States-Canada 1999-2000, Coord. Bernardo Mabire, 109–164. México: El Colegio de México.
———. 2008. The Mexican economy and Mexico-U.S. migration: a macro perspective. In Mexico-U.S. migration management, ed. Agustin Escobar and Susan F. Martin, 33–59. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
———. 2009. Migración internacional y políticas públicas. In Las políticas públicas ante los retos de la migración mexicana a Estados Unidos, Coords. Paula Leite and Silvia Giorguli, 23–45. México: Conapo.
Andreas, Peter. 2006. Politics on edge: managing the U.S.-Mexico border, Current History, February: 64–68.
Chua, Amy. 2009. Which way do we go? The New York Times Book Review, October 25, p. 27.
Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development. 1990. Unauthorized migration: an economic development response. Washington, DC.
Commission on Immigration Reform and Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. 1997. Binational Study on Migration Between Mexico and the United States. México.
Cornelius, Wayne A. 2001. Death at the border: unintended consequences of US immigration control policy. Population and Development Review 27(4): 661–685.
Cornelius, Wayne A., Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield. 1994. Introduction: the ambivalent quest for immigration control. In Controlling immigration. A global perspective, ed. Wayne A. Cornelius, Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield, 3–41. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Davidow, Jeffrey. 2004. The bear and the porcupine, The U.S. and México. Markus Wiener Publishers.
Escobar, Agustín. 2008. Mexican policy and Mexico-U.S. migration. In Mexico-U.S. migration management, ed. Agustín Escobar and Susan Martin, 179–215. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
García y Griego, Manuel. 1988. Hacia una nueva visión del problema de los indocumentados en Estados Unidos. In México y Estados Unidos frente a la migración de los indocumentados, Coord. Manuel García y Griego and Mónica Verea Campos, 123–152. México: UNAM-Coordinación de Humanidades and Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
———. 1993. La emigración mexicana y el Tratado de Libre Comercio en América del Norte: dos argumentos. In Liberación económica y libre comercio en América del Norte, Coord. Gustavo Vega, 291–304. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.
García Zamora, Rodolfo. 2006. El programa 3X1 y los retos de los proyectos productivos en Zacatecas. In El Programa 3X1 para Migrantes ¿Primera Política Transnacional en México?, Coord. Rafael Fernández de Castro et al., 157–170. Miguel Ángel Porrua, UAZ, ITAM.
Givens, Terri E., Gary P. Freeman, and David L. Leal (eds.). 2009. Immigration policy and security. U.S., European, and Commonwealth perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gómez Arnau, Remedios. 1990. México y la protección de sus nacionales en Estados Unidos. México: CISEUA, UNAM.
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl, and Sherman Robinson. 1992. Labor issues in a North American free trade area. In North American free trade: assessing the impact, ed. Nora Lustig, Barry P. Bosworth, and Robert Z. Lawrence, 69–108. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Leal, David L. 2009. Stalemate: U.S. immigration reform efforts, 2005 to 2007. People and Place 17: 1–17.
Martin, Philip. 1993. Trade and migration: NAFTA and agriculture. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone. 2002. Beyond smoke and mirror. Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
McCain, Johnny M. 1970. Contract labor as a factor in United States Mexican relations, 1942–1947, Doctoral Dissertation, Universidad de Texas, Austin.
Meissner, Doris M., Robert D. Hormats, Antonio Garrigues Walker, and Shijuro Ogata. 1993. International migration challenges in a new era. New York, NY: Trilateral Commission.
Mohar, Gustavo, and María Elena Alcaraz. 2000. U.S. border controls: a Mexican perspective. In The wall around the west, ed. Meter Andreas and Timothy Zinder, 139–150. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
New York Times. 2001, July 23. Editorial: Rethinking Mexican Immigration.
OECD, 2007. Policy coherence for development. Migration and developing countries. Paris: OECD Development Center
Partnership for Prosperity. The Guanajuato Proposal, February 16, 2001.
Rico, Carlos. 2002. Migration and U.S.-Mexican relations 1966-1986. In Western hemisphere immigration and United States foreign policy, ed. Christopher Mitchel, 221–283. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel. 2001. Mexico-U.S. migration: a shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace & Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México.
Weitraub, Sidney. 1998. IRCA and the facilitation of U.S.-Mexico migration dialogue. Migration Between Mexico and the United States 3: 1229–1233.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alba, F. (2016). Changing Fortunes: Mexico and Mexican–US Migration. In: Leal, D., Rodríguez, N. (eds) Migration in an Era of Restriction and Recession. Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24445-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24445-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24443-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24445-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)