Immigration and Migration

Sharone Tobias and Will Piekos look at the top five stories in Asia this week. 1. China released a white paper on defense on Tuesday. The 2013 National Defense White Paper blamed Japan and the United States for the rise in tensions in the region (in so many words). It complained about neighboring countries for “making trouble over the Diaoyu islands,” referring to Japan. It also referenced the United States, saying, “some country has strengthened its Asia-Pacific military alliances, expanded its military presence in the region, and frequently makes the situation tenser.” The white paper omitted any reference to a “no-first use” policy on nuclear weapons for the first time, a possible change in China’s nuclear policy. It is unclear what the significance of this omission is, though, as experts have questioned China’s commitment to this policy in the past. 2. Shifts in North Korea policy? China’s special envoy on North Korea, Wu Dawei, will travel to Washington, DC, next week for “an in-depth exchange of views” on the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” The announcement comes after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Beijing and urged China to help convince the North to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Kerry has also indicated a readiness to talk with North Korea, as long as it takes steps toward denuclearization. Meanwhile, Pyongyang announced its own preconditions for resuming talks with Washington and Seoul, demanding the withdrawal of UN sanctions and the end of U.S.-South Korea military drills. North Korea’s willingness to discuss even the possibility of dialogue hopefully signals a desire to deescalate the tensions that have plagued the Korean Peninsula. 3. China GDP growth slows to 7.7 percent. New economic data in the first quarter of 2013 showed slower-than-expected growth that surprised analysts, who had forecasted growth of around 8 percent. It’s possible that even that number is inflated, given that there are strong incentives for local government officials to inflate their numbers for promotions; the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics only takes two weeks to compile its data, compared to six weeks in Hong Kong and eight weeks in the United States. For years, China’s stated goal was to secure 8 percent GDP growth, in a policy called “bao ba (保八),” or “protect the eight,” on the premise that the country needed that level of GDP growth to maintain domestic stability. 4. Bird flu fears increase. The numbers keep rising, as China has now confirmed ninety-one cases of H7N9 and raised the death toll to seventeen. Meanwhile, fears of human-to-human transmission have intensified—the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that 40 percent of people who have tested positive for H7N9 had no recent contact with poultry. Still, such fears seem premature, and the World Health Organization has stated that there is “no evidence of ongoing human-to-human transmission.” 5. Chinese national killed in Boston bombing. Lu Lingzi, a graduate student at Boston University from Shenyang, was confirmed as a victim of the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing issued visas to her parents, as well as to the parents of a second Chinese student injured in the attack. China’s new ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, stated that “We strongly condemn such an act of terror targeted at innocent civilians. We stand with the United States. We are ready to further our cooperation with the United States in fighting terror.” Bonus: Rodman to return to North Korea, says Kim Jung-un just needs a hug. The basketball star is planning his second “diplomatic” visit to North Korea. Dennis Rodman claims that the most recent increase in tensions is because “[Kim] just wants to be loved. He just wants to sit down and talk. That’s all.” The Worm, as Rodman is affectionately known, also says he’s been approached by the FBI for insider information into the North Korean regime. In unrelated news, North Korea recently released its most hilarious propaganda video yet, claiming that Americans drink coffee made out of snow and that North Korean aid workers hand out cakes in the streets. Watch it here, dubbed in English. (Update: the video is a hoax, but the comedic factor remains. Enjoy!)

In anticipation of my talk next Tuesday in Los Angeles, I wrote the following piece for Zocalo’s Public Square: As my plane touched down at Benito Juárez airport in early 1994, I didn’t know that it was the start of a twenty-year relationship with Mexico. I was coming to work at a boutique investment bank, the first paying job I was offered that would allow me to live in Latin America. I wasn’t an obvious choice for the city or for the profession—a liberal arts degree holder who grew up in the rural Midwest. Still, there I was, playing international banker in this teeming city of twenty million. I dove into the hubris of it all, poring over balance sheets and building financial models to pass judgment on Mexico’s publicly traded companies. I followed global financial markets, trying to match our traders’ exuberance as they lobbed Cetes and Tesobonos, Mexico’s peso- and dollar-denominated bonds, back and forth. Being a foreigner in Mexico in the 1990s had its advantages. My status as a novelty—both a professional woman and a foreigner—opened doors that would have remained shut for most twenty-two-year-olds elsewhere. I was able to meet the CFOs and CEOs of the companies I was covering and to attend high-powered meetings and meals. And I could pretend not to speak Spanish when pulled over for a bribe. But my peculiarity also had its downsides. I was frequently the only professional woman in the room. I quickly learned not to wear black suits, so as not to be confused with the edecanes—the young women at meetings and conferences whose job it is to circulate microphones and coffee. Mexico’s social scene revolved around couples, forcing me to go along with some odd match-ups in order to fit in. Then, just short of my one-year anniversary of living and working in Mexico, the peso crisis hit. Unless you’ve lived through one, it’s hard to understand what a currency meltdown in an emerging market is like. There is nothing gradual about the erosion of hope and stability as the speculative capital heads for the exits. And the financial tsunami touches all aspects of life. In 1995, Mexico entered one of its worst recessions on record, restaurants and shops closed seemingly overnight, and millions lost their jobs. The financial trendsetters—those with the first mortgages and car loans—were battered by interest rates that reached the triple digits. Equally devastating was a widespread sense of deception, as my Mexican colleagues and friends had believed the promises of President Carlos Salinas’ government—that this time things were different, that Mexico’s boom-and-bust cycles were a thing of the past. The crisis gave us fortunate few paid in dollars an opportunity to use our sudden windfall (our paychecks went a lot further in pesos) to travel widely, and have the run of the country. From Playa del Carmen to San Luis Potosí, San Cristobal de las Casas to Zacatecas, Aguascalientes to Guanajuato, I crisscrossed Mexico, trying to see as much of my new home as possible. Still, despite the country’s undeniable allure, the day-to-day grind, the sadness of so many pushed back into poverty, and the escalating crime in Mexico City made life difficult. I, like many others, was held up at gunpoint, a milestone that turned my leisurely walk across a park to work into a dreaded gauntlet, as I tried to forget the feeling of hard metal pressed against my chest. At work, I began to realize that banking was not my long-term calling. So, when offered a job in New York to cover Latin America more broadly, I jumped. While living in the middle of the economic, social, and political turmoil, it was hard to see what was happening. It was only when I returned to live in Mexico five years later that the permanence of the shifts became apparent. Having left banking for academia, I came back as a Fulbright scholar, based at the ITAM, a private university on the edge of the cobblestoned Mexico City neighborhood of San Angel. I delved into the impacts of the economic changes that followed the crisis, particularly what the privatization of Mexico’s social security meant for financial markets, Mexico’s larger economy, and workers. Once back in Mexico, the most immediately noticeable change was the air itself. Where smog had obscured the city’s basic contours, government regulations on factory relocation and car use meant you could finally see, even on bad pollution days, at least one block ahead. Politics had also changed, partly in reaction to the 1995 peso crisis, which dealt a blow to the long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) credibility. By 2000, Vicente Fox, Mexico’s first non-PRI president in seven decades, occupied Los Pinos, Mexico’s White House. The economy had recovered, and policy changes had put an end to the self-inflicted crises of the past. Mexico’s streetscapes also were different. On the roads, the numerous jalopies were in much shorter supply, and the previously ubiquitous Volkswagen Bug taxis had been replaced by Nissan Tsurus and Dodge Neons. U.S. retail stalwarts Walmart, Starbucks, and Office Depot occupied many of Mexico’s busiest corners, and their corporations’ annual reports attested to the rising disposable income of their Mexican clientele. After buying an old 1994 Honda Civic from a departing journalist, my husband and I hit the roads on weekends, revisiting my favorite haunts—many now transformed by bustling new commercial centers and housing developments. The rows and rows of neatly appointed starter homes began along the main roads and disappeared over the horizon. Not everything was rosy. Basic services—telephone and Internet—cost more than what we had paid in the United States. The divide between the “haves” and “have-nots” persisted, with grinding poverty coexisting alongside the shoots of new prosperity. And interactions with Mexico’s bureaucracy and corrupt traffic cops remained both maddening and (only in retrospect) entertaining. Today I am a frequent visitor to Mexico, and a close watcher of U.S.-Mexico relations. The country—the vibrancy of the capital, the beauty of the smaller cities and towns, the bustle of markets, stores, and factory floors—continues to draw me. The changes in the physical landscape, the workplace, and the freer media are undeniable evidence of the transformation of Mexico over the last three decades. It’s hard not to be optimistic about the country’s future prospects when you see the roofs of the cement-block houses that fill working-class neighborhoods. Look up, and, more often than not, you will see rebar sticking out—attesting not just to the owners’ desire but their expectation that soon they will be building a second (or even third) floor. But there is also desolation in the burnt-out buildings in Ciudad Juárez and other towns, scars attesting to the extortion and violence wrenching the country. It is hard to miss the hushed conversations and tight faces of those who lost their loved ones, either to a bullet or to the unknown. I remain frustrated by how unfair the system can be, especially to the poor and unconnected. I wonder, with so many others, why Mexico’s governments can’t seem to get things together, or to take on powerful vested interests. Of course, I no longer have to go to Mexico to see it. Mexico is right here in the United States. Mexicans, their families and communities, once limited to a few border state outposts, now span the nation, to places such as Charlotte, North Carolina and Frankfort, Indiana. The economic links between the two countries are deeper, and visible in the vegetables on our tables, in the parts in our cars, in the care of our young and old, in the energy that powers our transportation, and in the drugs sold on our streets. Millions of U.S. jobs now depend on workers to the south, as parts move back and forth—often more than once—before the washing machine, cellphone, computer, or car is fully assembled. This movement of people, production, and goods has brought the two countries together, blurring what was once distinctly foreign and different. Still, we struggle to understand one another.

For today’s ask an expert feature on cfr.org, I answered the question: "After immigration reform, how would the large and newly legal Hispanic population influence U.S. politics?" You can read my thoughts here or below. Immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship would have sweeping effects on the lives of the estimated eight million undocumented Hispanics living within the United States. But it would not have an acute, immediate effect on U.S. politics. This is mainly because it would likely take over a decade before any former undocumented immigrant could apply for U.S. citizenship and thus gain the ability to vote. And even then it is unclear how many Hispanics would actually naturalize. If history is any guide, only one third of eligible Mexicans (by far the largest immigrant group) have applied for citizenship in the past decade. For potential voting power and political heft, the quicker and more substantial changes will come from U.S. demographic trends—where Latinos are the fastest growing group in the United States. Going forward, eight hundred thousand Latinos will turn eighteen each year, and by 2030 there will be some sixteen million more Hispanics eligible to vote—more than double today’s numbers. Comprehensive immigration reform would likely lower the vitriol in the public debate concerning immigrants and Hispanics more generally. By resolving the highly contentious issue of immigration policy, U.S. politicians of all stripes could more easily focus on wooing the growing Latino electoral base—turning to issues of economics, healthcare, schooling and the like, which polls show are at the top of Latinos’ priority lists.

As the U.S. Congress looks to embark on immigration reform soon, many things have changed since the last try in 2007. One of the most important is the role of business—which is increasingly vocal and organized. The most recent announcement comes from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who has just launched FWD.us along with backers Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, and Ruchi Sanghvi of Dropbox, to advocate for immigration reform and, in particular, for more high skilled immigrants. They join AOL founder Steve Case in the public debate, as well as Laurene Powell Jobs, who engineered the website “The Dream is Now,” that lets dreamers (undocumented youth) tell their own poignant stories. More traditional business too has come to the table, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which describes itself as representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses) and the AFL-CIO (the largest U.S. federation of labor organization) reaching an agreement on the number and make up of new guest worker visas—an issue that many say sunk the 2007 legislation. Yet as these private sector leaders jump into the fray, they shouldn’t focus only on high tech, high skilled, internet-savvy workers. As baby boomers retire and our economy picks back up, we will need workers of all skills (and especially at the ends—both high and low). According to a study by Barry Bluestone and Mark Melnik of Northeastern University, the sixty million Generation Xers will have a difficult time filling the positions boomers are leaving behind, leaving approximately five million open jobs by 2018—jobs that are likely to be filled by immigrants. Even with the focus on workers, comprehensive immigration reform should not throw out family reunification as a goal and central category. Strong families are vital for happy, productive workers, benefiting businesses. And social networks for those newly arrived are important for the communities in which they will live and for the United States more broadly. With the last major immigration overhaul now almost thirty years old, it is time for another round, to help fix the problems in today’s system and help prepare for tomorrow’s needs. And for this, no single category or individual reform will do.

Dear friends, I’m excited to announce that Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead is now available from Oxford University Press. As many of you know, I have lived, worked, and traveled extensively in Mexico and care deeply about the future of U.S.-Mexican relations. I have seen, firsthand, how much Mexico has changed and wanted to tell a story, thirty years in the making, that belies the grim narratives that tend to dominate the headlines. What I reveal in Two Nations Indivisible is a more hopeful Mexico—a globally competitive economy, a rising middle class, and increasingly influential pro-democracy voters. A country the United States should see as a partner, not a problem. Working with Mexico—for the good of both countries—will require not just a new set of policies (though these too are needed), but a larger conceptual shift toward forging a true partnership. But we can only form a stronger connection if we know the forces that shape our neighbor. It is vital that the United States understands the post-PRI, post-NAFTA, post-9/11 global Mexico to strengthen the good and limit the bad from such a close, but still unequal relationship. My aim is to expand this necessary understanding in an engaging way. You can purchase the book at Amazon or at your favorite bookstore. I invite you to share your thoughts in the comments section or on my Facebook page, post a review at Amazon, or tweet your reaction to @Shannonkoneil. Thank you in advance for helping me spark constructive conversations about the biggest overlooked foreign policy challenge of our time—U.S. relations with our southern neighbor. With gratitude, Shannon

Mexico and the United States are linked closer than ever through trade, bi-national communities, security concerns, and a shared democratic vision. In this interview with Emerging Markets, I spoke with Antonia Oprita about what the challenges and opportunities are for the relationship and why it matters so much for both countries. For a more in-depth analysis, check out my new book, Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead. When it comes to Mexico, people usually think about the security issue, and that’s what much of the news coverage has been. But underneath that, behind the headlines, we have seen a transformation of Mexico’s economy over the last couple of decades: it has moved from a very closed, inward-looking economy, one whose exports were dominated by oil, to an economy that is one of the most open and increasingly competitive in the world. In measures like trade to GDP, Mexico outpaces not just the United States or places like Brazil, but it outpaces China. It is quite an open and competitive economy now. A big part of that is due to its deepening ties to the United States. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed almost twenty years ago, we have seen the creation of regional supply chains for a myriad of different types of industries and companies. For every product that is imported from Mexico in the United States, on average 40 percent of it would actually have been made in the U.S. It has become a very symbiotic relationship, and it has become an integrated economy in many ways and in many sectors, and particularly in manufacturing. There, we see almost seamless integration in some companies, where production happens on both sides of the border. What it means is these economies, companies and industries are now not only intimately tied, but permanently tied at this point. To read the full interview, click here.

The Council on Foreign Relations released a new policy innovation memorandum today by American University professor Bob Pastor. The paper, “Shortcut to U.S. Economic Competitiveness: A Seamless North American Market,” puts forth a plan for the United States’ economic recovery that depends on America’s neighbors and closest economic partners—Mexico and Canada. Instead of looking for trade partnerships on more distant shores, Pastor makes a case for why the United States should streamline economic relations nearby, working to create a seamless North American market. He emphasizes the need for closer cooperation on issues including antitrust, immigration, and energy, as well as for more coordination and investment in infrastructure and transportation. With the framework already in place from NAFTA, the memo explains why deepening North American integration is not only an easier path for improving U.S. competitiveness and economic prowess—it is also the best. To read the full memorandum, click here.

With the United States quickly approaching its Friday sequester deadline, the federal government is bracing for cuts. Much of the $85 billion in spending cuts will hit domestic programs and services—everything from wildlife reserves to childcare services. But the reverberations will also be felt in Latin America and the rest of the world. Tourists and immigrants will likely feel the most immediate effects. Smaller consulate and customs budgets will mean longer lines and turn-around times for visas, as well as lengthier security screening waits at the airport. Some immigrants already in the United States have already been affected, as over the past few weeks hundreds of non violent illegal immigrants were released from jails (although they remain under close prison supervision) as officials looked for ways to save soon-to-be scarcer resources. Foreign governments will also feel the sequester pinch, as security assistance flows take a hit. Needing to cut some $500 million in worldwide security aid to meet the new budget terms, Secretary of State John Kerry has specifically mentioned that funds destined for disrupting drug networks in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean will be some of the most severely hit. On a more macro level, Latin America’s economies may be adversely affected. Economists predict that half a point of growth will be shaved off the U.S. economy due to the cuts. Particularly for those countries most closely tied to the United States—Mexico especially, but also most other countries in Central America and the Caribbean—declining American demand could have big consequences. A January 2013 World Bank report estimates that Latin America’s total GDP growth could be reduced by 1.2 percent as a result of the United States’ fiscal uncertainty. The full effects of sequestration will become apparent in the weeks after the cuts go into effect, but one thing is for sure—they won’t only be the United States’ problem.

South Africans often assume that since the end of apartheid, and the coming of democracy in 1994, there has been a huge wave of migration into South Africa from the rest of the continent. Stories abound of entire Johannesburg neighborhoods that are now Nigerian or Congolese–and that immigrants have taken over certain crime syndicates. There have been xenophobic riots against Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa who, with the benefit of higher education standards in their home country, are seen by township dwellers as competition for scarce jobs. The Human Sciences Research Council withdrew its earlier estimate that there are four to eight million undocumented migrants in South Africa. Those numbers nonetheless still make their way into the press—and the public consciousness. Statistics South Africa estimates undocumented persons in South Africa to be in the range of five hundred thousand to one million. The South African Department of Home Affairs recently released administrative statistics for 2008/9 that tend to dissolve the myth of a wave of migration. Also, using other demographic data, the Forced Migration Studies Program (FMSP) at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg has produced the following statistics. Between 1994 and 2009, the cumulative total of recognized refugees migrating to South Africa was 47,596. In 2009, there were 223,324 new applicants for refugee status. Of those, 4,567 were approved and 46,055 rejected—more than ten times the number approved. In addition, 172,702 were added to the backlog of pending cases. In 2007/8 individual work permits were issued to 32,344 economic immigrants. In the same year, 312,733 were deported. FMSP’s bottom line is that the overall foreign population ranges from 1.6 to 2 million, or 3-4 percent of the total population. It also estimates that there are between 1 and 1.5 million legal and illegal Zimbabwean immigrants in South Africa. Because of its stability, highly developed infrastructure and first-world amenities, many elites from Nigeria, Congo, and other African countries travel to South Africa, and the wealthiest often have houses there. They are a population of high visibility. So too are the receptionists and others, born in Zimbabwe, who deal with the public. But, South Africa has a total population of more than fifty million, and the numbers of high profile migrants are relatively small. The FMSP data seems to indicate that most of South Africa’s cross border migrants are from Zimbabwe, and not further afield. For sake of comparison, the Center for Migration Studies just published its conclusion that 3.7 percent of the U.S. population is undocumented migrants, while 7.9 percent is documented migrants. Together they make up approximately 11 percent of the total U.S. population. Both South Africa and the United States are historically countries that welcome immigration. But, the percentages are far greater in the United States than in South Africa.  

Four tons of cocaine confiscated by U.S. authorities off the California coast; 35 bodies dumped by the side of a busy Veracruz highway in broad daylight; an attack by gunmen on a birthday party in Ciudad Juárez killing 14, many of them teenagers: tragedies like these, all of which occurred over the past two years and were extensively covered by the media, are common in Mexico today. Prominent Mexican news organizations and analysts have estimated that during the six-year term of Mexico’s last president, Felipe Calderón, over 60,000 people were killed in drug-related violence, and some researchers have put the number at tens of thousands more. Mexico’s crime rates are some of the worst in the Western Hemisphere. According to Latinobarómetro, an annual regionwide public opinion poll, over 40 percent of Mexicans say that they or a family member has been the victim of a crime at some point in the last year. Hidden behind the troubling headlines, however, is another, more hopeful Mexico—one undergoing rapid and widespread social, political, and economic transformation. My recent article, “Mexico Makes It,” in Foreign Affairs looks at these changes, and why Mexico matters increasingly more for the United States. You can read the article at this link here (free for the next month) or purchase my book, Two Nations Indivisible, for a more in-depth discussion and analysis (available here). I look forward to hearing your thoughts.