Immigration and Migration | Council on Foreign Relations

Crossing the Darién Gap

Hundreds of thousands of migrants risk their lives each year to cross the Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama. Images from along the journey show the dangers they face.

by Diana Roy and Sabine Baumgartner Jul 22, 2024

Tough New Immigration Rules Risk Empowering the Cartels

Tight restrictions on asylum and parole will drive migration further underground, where criminal groups profit.

Blog Post by Will Freeman Jan 16, 2024

Acts of Privation

Feeling stuck and unheeded, young Nigerians are increasingly resorting to all manner of desperate measures.

Blog Post by Ebenezer Obadare Jan 18, 2024

Immigration and Migration

Illegal Immigration and the 2012 Campaign

I wrote a piece for CNN Global Public Square entitled “Illegal Immigration and the 2012 Campaign,” which highlights the role illegal immigration plays in the 2012 U.S. presidential race. In it I discuss how the rhetoric does not always match up to current immigration realities, and how the Hispanic vote will affect the upcoming election. Here is a brief excerpt: As the country begins to turn to the general election next November, immigration remains a difficult issue for both political parties. During the early Republican primary debates, candidates talked enthusiastically about mass deportations and expanding, doubling, and even electrifying the U.S. southern border fence to keep people out. As the field has narrowed, the leading contenders have continued with a hard-line. Romney in particular, though widely seen as a centrist candidate, has taken an unyielding stance on immigration, supporting Arizona’s and Alabama’s restrictive laws and aligning himself with their architect - well-known anti-immigrant official Kris Kobach. The tone got so strident in the lead up to the Florida primary on January 31 that Florida Senator Marco Rubio (who many say is a potential candidate for Vice President) chastised the Republican candidates for “harsh and intolerable and inexcusable” anti-immigrant rhetoric. The Democratic Party’s discourse has been more measured. Though all condemn illegal immigration, most speak of immigrants as “folks ... just trying to earn a living and provide for their families,” no different from so many forebearers. But in concrete terms, President Obama has little to show immigrants - and more importantly Hispanic voters - from his three plus years in office. I look forward to your feedback via twitter, facebook or in the comments section.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil February 16, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
Sub-Saharan Africa

Guest Post: Johannesburg’s Undocumented Immigrants

This is a guest post by Melissa Bukuru, CFR Africa program intern. Last week, the UNHCR released a report claiming that one thousand five hundred would-be African migrants to Europe drowned or went missing while attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. The episode reinforces the common perception that throngs of Africans are knocking on Fortress Europe’s door every day with varying degrees of success. It also reinforces the notion of victimhood – that these immigrants are fleeing unlivable conditions, and that they are at the mercy of their adventure north. But the reality is that most African immigration is intra-continental. Johannesburg, where I spent last month as a participant in Democracy and Diversity Institute at the University of Johannesburg, is one example that challenges these notions. In recent years the city has come to be defined by its immense immigrant population, with migrants coming from as close as Zimbabwe and as far as Mali. In 2009, when Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was asked how many illegal migrants live in South Africa, she said, "I don’t know. If somebody’s here illegally, how do I know they are here? I do not know, that’s an honest answer." This response suggests that there is something covert about the lives of these immigrants. Yet at least in Johannesburg it is actually quite easy to get an estimate of their numbers, and a sense of their lifestyles. During my stay in Johannesburg, I visited the Central Methodist Church in the Central Business District, home to as many as three thousand immigrants from Zimbabwe, and Yeoville, a mostly West African neighborhood. Central Methodist functions as a makeshift shelter, where people stay for as little as a night and as long as a few years. They set up mattresses all over the building, some tenants even spending the night on the staircases. Understandably, the church has received much attention as it wavers between assuming the role of an ad-hoc response to South Africa’s turbulent neighbor Zimbabwe or a more permanent haven, even opening a high-performing school for the children of the center. Whatever it is, Central Methodist challenges the notion that Johannesburg’s “illegal” migrants are invisible. Bishop Paul Verryn, who runs the church and is its most public and passionate advocate, refers to its presence as “confronting” various spheres of South African society, in particular the Church, the government and certain civil society groups. The squalor and decay of the church are a visual reminder that the South African government has yet to act decisively on immigration policy. When I visited Yeoville, my tour was cut short by an impromptu thunderstorm. I sought shelter in front of the Yeoville community board, a mosaic of hundreds of classified ads, some even advertising a place in a bed. A Yeoville resident and student in urban planning told me that every first of the month, all the ads are snatched off the wall and everyone moves, only to repeat the dance the following month. When I asked him why this happened, he replied that often people just weren’t getting along with their roommates or realized that the squatter lifestyle was not a sustainable arrangement. The instability of their accommodation is worrisome, but the bustling streets, the lively market and the proactiveness with which Yeoville residents lead their lives is a stark contrast to the victimhood the church paints of its “tenants.” On the surface, yes, we will remember from these snapshots a crisis, perhaps in housing, perhaps in immigration control and services. But at the heart of these issues is the re-negotiating of the identity of a city that was built by migrants. It is unclear and depends on whether this city has anything left to offer them. What is certain is that these migrants are defining their own terms and adapting to a quickly changing Africa.

Blog Post by John Campbell February 8, 2012 Africa in Transition
Immigration and Migration

Campaign 2012: Latin America

Below is a video interview I did for the Council on Foreign Relations’ Campaign 2012 series. In it I talk about the three big issues in U.S.-Latin America policy facing the next presidential term: security, immigration and economic relations. I look forward to your feedback in the comments section. http://youtu.be/3srS9tUMITo (To watch the video on Youtube, click here.)

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil February 3, 2012 Latin America’s Moment

Immigration and Migration

Debating Amnesty and Immigration Policy

Yesterday I had an exchange with my CFR colleague, Ed Husain (who has a fantastic blog, "The Arab Street,"), about my last post on Mitt Romney’s "self-deportation" plan. I wanted to post it here, to add to the lively debate on the issue of amnesty, and immigration reform more generally, and he graciously agreed. Below is our conversation: From: Ed Husain Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:19 PM To: Shannon O’Neil Very bold stance in your blog yesterday on undocumented immigrants and how they are, essentially, part of the U.S. social fabric. From: Shannon O’Neil Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:20 PM To: Ed Husain Thanks - I guess bold is good. And it is true: millions are parents, spouses, or siblings of U.S. citizens. They are not going to leave even if it is hard to get a job... From: Ed Husain Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:27 PM To: Shannon O’Neil I prefer bold any day over ’weighing options’ -- taking a stance is more compelling to this reader rather than presenting alternate arguments. My hunch is to agree with you: it’s a very humane and morally obliging argument. Not to mention economically more viable. I struggle with its logical conclusion, though: an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and thereby encouraging others to break the law and migrate in the hope of future amnesties. From: Shannon O’Neil Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:36 PM To: Ed Husain The difference is this. Especially for Mexican migrants, given the combination of absolute number caps on legal visas combined with the large number of Mexican family members here, parents, kids, and siblings have to make the choice of growing up (for years potentially) apart waiting for a legal family visas, or coming illegally. So do you want to wait and do the paper work and hope you get to see your 4 year old when he/she is 8-9 years old? Or do you bring them illegally? That is an inhumane law, and should be changed. If you can bring your kid within months, then I think people would wait. Same with parents that are illegal. Do you send them back, meaning they won’t see their kids for 10 years (at least), at least here in the United States? Yes they are illegal, but in part because of the dysfunction of current laws. So laws in my view need to be changed to reflect realities. From: Ed Husain Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:54 PM To: Shannon O’Neil Not much of a choice between obeying the law and parting from one’s family for an indefinite amount of time. Thanks for explaining. I come to this with a European bias where we have a mess with consequences of legal and illegal immigration and no ’solution’ in sight. The US seems better suited to absorb immigrants (legal or otherwise). In Europe, we’re wrestling intensely with identity, race, multiculturalism, and what it means to be ‘European’. In contrast, immigrants here integrate into the United States and adopt the U.S. Constitution and history as their own. Any other readers who would like to weigh in should feel free to do so in the comments section. I look forward to your feedback.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil January 27, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
Immigration and Migration

What’s Wrong With Romney’s “Self-Deportation” Plan

During Monday’s Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney put forth his plan for dealing with illegal immigration: self-deportation. Here is how the exchange went: Debate Moderator Adam Smith: Governor Romney there’s one thing I am confused about, you say you don’t want to round people up and deport them but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries, and then apply for citizenship. So if you don’t deport them, how do you send them home? Governor Romney: Well the answer is self-deportation, which is people decide that they could do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here. Will this work? Unlikely. Lessons from Mexican migrants, which comprise more than half of the unauthorized population and, the country closest and presumably the least costly for “self-deportation,” suggest otherwise. Studies show that during the 1970s and early 1980s, roughly one of every two migrants returned home within a year – and seventy-five percent left within two years – meaning most did in fact “self-deport.” The vast majority of Mexicans came not to settle, but to earn enough money to better their and their families’ lives at home. But this pattern – called circular migration by scholars – starting changing in the late 1980s (also when the United States began hardening its southern border). Today, fewer than one in ten immigrants return each year to Mexico. Thirty odd years ago Romney’s policy of self-deportation occurred regularly, today it does not. Romney says adding stronger enforcement at the workplace (through E-Verify and other mechanisms), would encourage self-deportation again. He explained this part of his strategy: We have a card that indicates who’s here illegally, and if people are not able to have a card and have that, through an e-verify system determine that they are here illegally then they’re going to find they can’t get work here, and if people can’t get work here they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work. Analyzing migration trends also cast doubt on these expectations. First, while the economic downturn has slowed those coming to the United States from Mexico, it hasn’t done much to send more home. This hints at the underlying reality for millions of America’s undocumented immigrants – they have deep roots in American society that go far beyond their jobs . As spouses, children, siblings, neighbors, customers, homeowners, and worshippers, they are intricately intertwined in America’s social fabric. They won’t voluntarily leave behind their families and their lives. Instead, the only way to change the status quo is through an immigration policy that sees unauthorized migrants for what they really are: an integral part of America’s social fabric.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil January 25, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
Homeland Security

Faster, Safer, and Smarter: A Modern Visa System for the United States

Introduction The U.S. visa system is still not effectively focusing resources on those who pose a threat to our country. More than a decade after 9/11, foreign tourists, business travelers, students, and temporary workers presenting low security risks face the same cumbersome and unpredictable procedural hurdles as high-risk applicants. Despite commendable efforts by the State Department to speed up visa issuance, only modest progress has been made in translating the tremendous technological advances in homeland security to the visa system to ensure that accurate determinations are made in a timely manner. Poorly designed visa security procedures coupled with a record high volume of visa applicants have resulted in chronic procedural delays in the largest sending countries, including China, India, and Brazil, though increased staffing and other initiatives have helped reduce interview wait times in recent months. These delays cost the United States tens of billions of dollars annually in lost tourism and foreign investment, and hurt U.S. diplomacy by discouraging people from seeing U.S. society and culture firsthand. The United States is competing with other countries for these same visitors, and the price of an inefficient U.S. visa system is high. The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security should utilize existing technologies to implement better visa procedures at lower cost. Computerized screening has been developed for identifying potentially risky goods imported into the United States; the same capabilities can be used for sorting people wishing to travel here. These technologies will decrease the government's dependence on human vetting of visa applicants through face-to-face interviews and manual background checks. Low-risk travelers—the vast majority of visa applicants—would be processed quickly, freeing up consular officers for vetting higher-risk travelers. The result would be a system that better protects security while welcoming millions of people. The Issue Visa delays result primarily from a system that depends on consular officers vetting visa applicants through face-to-face interviews and manual background checks. These officers must act as human lie detectors—leafing through documents and asking probing questions with the goal of uncovering mendacity. Since 9/11, the United States has layered additional consular-related security measures on top of the traditional interview screening. These measures include biometrics, expanded checks against terrorist watch lists, enhanced screening for prior immigration violations, and more background investigations under the Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) process. For visa applicants, the result is a process that is unpredictable, nontransparent, and occasionally capricious. An Improved Visa Screening System The visa challenge is identical to that of any screening system—to separate high risks from low risks. Such separation improves both security and efficiency, because scarce resources can be dedicated to scrutinizing higher-risk goods or people, while allowing rapid passage for lower-risk goods and people. Some U.S. agencies have made significant advances in screening. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Automated Targeting System identifies high-risk cargo shipments and passengers on overseas incoming flights. Using data on shippers, goods, and individual passengers, as well as intelligence assessments of changing threats, DHS generates a risk score for inbound traffic as a tool for targeting its inspection capabilities. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a similar system, known as PREDICT, which ranks imported shipments of food and drugs according to public health risk. Risk targeting in the visa process is unsophisticated in comparison. Applicants are checked against a consular lookout database that is name-based and subject to a high degree of false positives. Those who "hit" against this system, or are identified based on crude profiles (nationality, technical expertise, or other characteristics), then have their applications reviewed through the SAO process. Many applicants—about three hundred thousand of the roughly eight million who apply for a U.S. visa each year—face time-consuming manual background checks. Only a small fraction is denied visas, but many face delays of months or even years. Computerized systems could do the initial screening for all visa applicants far more efficiently. U.S. government pilot projects of new screening systems have resulted in fewer false positives, while still identifying all the threats captured under the existing procedures, along with some that were missed. The systems can be constantly updated with the latest threat information. The small number of genuine potential threats can either be denied immediately or referred for the in-depth SAO review procedure; consular officials would retain discretion to require more detailed checks for any applicant. Random checks could be used to check on the integrity of automated screening. Yet the Obama administration has not fully implemented the new system, perhaps because of concerns over congressional reaction. The key committees in Congress have pressed for more DHS personnel at overseas consulates to increase human vetting rather than encouraged the use of technology to streamline the system. Such redundancy made sense a decade ago, but has been made unnecessary by improvements in technology. Both the administration and Congress need to recognize that, with current capabilities, visa delays now produce significant economic costs for no security benefits. New Overstay Tracking Capabilities A new security screening system would not, however, address the immigration-related issue of visa overstays. A primary function of the consular interview is to assess the likelihood that the applicant will violate the terms of his or her visa. A new automated capability developed by the government to identify overstays could reduce the current dependence on consular interviews for performance of this function, and ensure that qualified travelers receive their visas more expeditiously. In 2011, the Obama administration used this new automated process, based on airline passenger arrival and departure records, to run a computerized search on what it thought could be as many as 1.6 million overstays who had arrived since 2004. In fact, half of those had already left the country; of the remainder, only a small number (about three dozen) were deemed to represent security threats that justified further investigation. Soon the government will have the capacity to identify most overstays as soon as they occur, and to calculate overstay rates on a country-by-country basis. This will be a powerful tool. Individuals who overstay will be identified, may be tracked down and deported, and would likely be denied visas if they attempted to return to the United States in the future. It will also be possible to create identifiable patterns among overstays, and to develop risk scores for overstaying, much as can be done for security. Instead of relying purely on the intuition of consular officers, there will be real data available to assess the likelihood that a visa applicant will overstay. The Obama administration should supplement these new overstay tracking capabilities with a simple notification procedure. All visa holders should be required to maintain a working email address, and would receive notification of a pending visa expiration that warns of the serious consequences of overstaying. Such proactive contact with visa holders would further reduce violations. Once automated security screening and an effective system for tracking overstays are in place, Congress should lift the current mandatory interview requirement. Consular interviews should be reserved for those who fit known patterns for overstaying or raise security concerns. Expanding the Visa Waiver Program As patterns of security and immigration risk are better identified, the Obama administration should expand the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which permits visa-free travel to the United States. The government has already created a screening system—known as the Electronic System of Travel Authorization (ESTA)—to vet travelers from VWP countries, mostly in Europe. While the visa requirement is helpful in countries where visa travelers are more likely to overstay, for security screening the visa system offers no advantages over the much faster ESTA. Individuals are checked against the same intelligence information, and potential threats are similarly identified. Indeed, when new countries are added to the VWP, security is enhanced because these governments must then share security and criminal intelligence information with the United States. And the U.S. government retains absolute discretion to deny ESTA permission to any traveler and require a visa instead. Expanding visa-free travel to countries where the risks of visa overstays are low would further reduce the load on the overburdened visa system, improving both security and efficiency. The major hold-up on VWP expansion has been legislation requiring the government to first implement a biometric exit system, analogous to the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) entry system. While the new biographic exit capability developed by the Obama administration does not fully meet the biometric standard, it does provide accurate information on the vast majority of overstays, and it should be accepted by Congress as adequate to resume expansion of the VWP. Conclusion These three elements—a fully automated security screening system, accurate tracking of overstays, and expansion of the VWP—would largely solve the visa delay problems that have been so costly for the United States over the past decade, and would do so in a way that enhances security. The Obama administration and Congress should move quickly to implement a system that responds to the genuine economic and security challenges of twenty-first–century travel.

Policy Innovation Memorandum by Edward Alden and Liam Schwartz January 19, 2012 Renewing America

Elections and Voting

Video Brief: Immigration

Immigration reform remains a hot topic in the 2012 presidential race, but the winner will have to move beyond an enforcement-only approach in dealing with illegal immigrants, says CFR’s Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow Edward Alden, in a video issue brief.

Explainer Video with Edward Alden January 4, 2012
Immigration and Migration

What to Watch in 2012: The End of Latino Immigration?

Central American immigrants await a train departure to the north of Mexico, on top of a freight train in Arriaga, Chiapas (Jorge Lopez/Courtesy Reuters). Looking ahead to the new year ahead of us, these next two weeks I want to look at important developments affecting Latin America that are worth keeping a close eye on in 2012. The first is the changing nature of immigration. The flow of immigrants from Latin America to the United States, a constant and often accelerating trend of the last three decades, slowed in 2011. The most prominent was the change from Mexico. New arrivals fell off a cliff, with apprehensions at the border hitting their lowest levels in seventeen years. The drop is so great that Doug Massey, head of the Mexican Migration Project (a long term survey of Mexican emigration at Princeton University), claims that for the first time in sixty years, Mexican migration to the United States has hit a net zero. Though Mexico is the single largest source of migrants to the United States, providing roughly a third of all newcomers, they weren’t the only change. Anecdotal evidence at least suggests that many Brazilian migrants – which once numbered around one million – started heading home as well. Unemployment fell to all time lows, and numerous articles pointed out the labor scarcities both for high and low skilled workers. There are many reasons behind these trends, some general, some country specific. Many point to the Obama administration’s rather tough immigration policy as one reason for the decline. A record-breaking 400,000 immigrants were deported last year, and immigration prosecutions increased almost eighty percent along the U.S-Mexico border in the last four years. For Mexico, others speculate that the rise of organized crime and violence along the border may deter some from contemplating the journey (though studies, such as that done by Jezmin Fuentes et al., suggest this may be less of a deterrent than many claim). An important factor is the weak U.S. economy. With unemployment rates hovering at just over eight percent, there are fewer jobs for natives and migrants alike. This has occurred at a time when many of their home countries are growing steadily – at a decent 4 percent regional average clip, and much more in particular countries and economic strongholds. Better job opportunities in the region broadly -- but particularly in Brazil -- encouraged many to return home, and kept others from leaving at all. Looking ahead, a U.S. economic recovery would recreate the pull north for Latin Americans seeking to improve their lot. If the Chinese economy stumbles this too could slow returns, or push more migrants north (especially from Brazil, which counts China as its largest trading partner). Meanwhile, flows from Central America are likely to continue as long as economic opportunities there remain scarce. The real question is Mexico. There, demographics have already shifted, with fewer Mexicans coming of age and entering the work force each year. As a result, the Mexican immigration boom of the 1990s and early 2000s is unlikely to be repeated ever again.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil January 3, 2012 Latin America’s Moment
Sub-Saharan Africa

Congo Elections: It’s Looking Bad

A Belgian riot policeman argues with a man as they stand near a placard reading "Kabila go away" during a demonstration in support of Congolese opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi in Brussels December 5, 2011. (Francois Lenoir/ Courtesy Reuters) The election commission is supposed to announce the results of Congo’s presidential elections on December 6, but already officials are warning of a postponement. Meanwhile, there are many stories of gross electoral malfeasance. The head of the electoral commission, seen as an ally of incumbent president Joseph Kabila, is saying that the president has a substantial lead in the votes counted thus far. The chief opposition candidate, Etienne Tshisekedi has already issued threats of violence by his supporters if early returns favoring Kabila are not reversed. The Catholic Bishops on December 4 warned that “in the current situation, the image we’ve given is that a high-speed train going straight toward a wall.” Bishop Nicolas Djombo called “on all political actors, on all leaders to break the train….” The highly respected non-governmental organization International Crisis Group has placed Congo on its “conflict risk alert” – along with Syria. According to the press, South Africa president Jacob Zuma has telephoned Kabila, Tshisekedi, and a third presidential candidate, Vital Kamerhe, to try to lower the temperature, and that the ambassadors from Russia, Gabon, and a representative of the UN met December 5 with both Kabila and Tshisekedi. I suspect there have been other diplomatic approaches that have not made the media. Meanwhile, the press reports well-to-do residents of Kinshasa are seeking refuge in Brazzaville, across the Congo river. Kabila changed the constitution earlier this year to eliminate the runoff provision if any of the candidates failed to receive a majority of the votes. With the power of the incumbency, it still seems likely that Kabila will get more votes than any of the other ten candidates. But, there seem to be enough voting irregularities that any of the presidential candidates can claim that the elections are not credible. The international community – and many Congolese – are afraid that the contested elections and refusal to accept the results could re-ignite Congo’s civil war. Already there have been demonstrations and fights amongst Congolese factions in Brussels and Pretoria.

Blog Post by John Campbell December 6, 2011 Africa in Transition
Immigration and Migration

Enrique Peña Nieto’s Campaign Book

Mexican Gov. Enrique Pena Nieto answers reporters' questions at the National Press Club in Washington (Molly Reilly/Courtesy Reuters). It seems the campaign book so popular in the United States has headed south of the border. After a recent tour through Washington, DC, and New York, former governor and likely PRI presidential candidate Enrique Peña Nieto just released Mexico, the Great Hope. An efficient state for democracy with results. Arguing that the successive PAN administrations have left the country worse for the wear, Peña Nieto lays out his vision for a government based on guaranteeing citizens’ basic rights (such as security), getting the economy growing at its full potential, and reaffirming Mexico’s leadership as an emerging power on the world stage. He calls for a number of economic reforms, including opening Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) to private investment (still maintaining state ownership), as well as widening the tax base and simplifying the tax code. On security, he favors a more comprehensive strategy geared first and foremost to reducing the violence. Most of his positions are quite sensible. Mexico needs to (and is already starting to) focus on lowering the escalating levels of violence, as opposed to concentrating on taking down drug kingpins. Economically, opening up PEMEX would increase foreign investment and improve Mexico’s overall competitiveness, boosting jobs and growth in the process. Reforming the tax code would also go a long way to enhancing and diversifying government revenues and hopefully make it easier to start up businesses. But these two reforms are also politically difficult -- having been on the legislative table for years now, and repeatedly stymied by Peña Nieto’s own party. If he wins, perhaps the former governor will be Mexico’s equivalent of a “Nixon in China” – able to change the dynamics precisely because of his party’s ties to PEMEX’s union – but that remains to be seen. Much will also depend on the United States. For Mexico to reach its economic potential, the United States will have to grow as well, as the economies today are indelibly intertwined. A U.S. immigration reform – if it happens -- also could change things for Mexico. For all its big vision, the book makes clear that there is much that needs to happen during the next presidential term in Mexico to fulfill this “great hope.”

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil November 22, 2011 Latin America’s Moment
Immigration and Migration

Read of the Week: SBInet and Failed Border Technologies

U.S. Border Patrol agent Celso Ramos (R) looks at surveillance camera video from cameras looking at the U.S. - Mexico border May 2, 2006. (Rick Wilking/Courtesy Reuters) The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a detailed report last week that criticizes attempts to patrol the Arizona-Mexico border using high-cost technologies. The report comes ten months after the cancellation of SBInet, Boeing’s “virtual” fence project that started in November 2005 and eventually cost the United States over one billion dollars. While the project in theory required less manpower and provided 24/7 patrols of the border using surveillance towers and software platforms, in practice the results were dismal. Criticism of SBInet ranged from outright technological failures, to poor oversight, to few measurable success metrics. Although the Department of Homeland Security ended SBInet’s expansion, the GAO report makes clear that the broader emphasis on such technologies has hardly waned. The flawed SBInet system will actually continue to operate along 53 miles of Arizona’s 387-mile border with Mexico, and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) estimates spending $36 million dollars to continue that project through 2012. The successor to SBInet, the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, will be a mixture of different surveillance technologies and platforms, with funding requests totaling $427 million over the next two years. The GAO report indicates that the new systems also lack quantifiable metrics or thorough cost-benefit analyses; some of the same problems that plagued SBInet. To many, “virtual” fence technologies seem like an answer to immigration issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. But, like other attempts to wall-off Mexico from U.S. border states, they simply haven’t worked.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil November 11, 2011 Latin America’s Moment
Immigration and Migration

Mexico on the Road to 2012

Peña Nieto, outgoing Institutional Revolutionary Party governor in the State of Mexico, is silhouetted against the national flag before delivering his sixth and final state report in Toluca (Courtesy Reuters). I had the pleasure of speaking at and moderating a panel last Thursday at the Council of the Americas/Americas Society with Claudio X. González, Chairman of the Board of Kimberly-Clark de Mexico and on the board of a number of top Mexican corporations, as well as Alberto Ardura, Managing Director and Head of Capital Markets for Latin America at Deutsche Bank. Some of the most interesting issues raised were the relationship between security and the economy, and the future of the energy sector. Overall, the political and economic outlook was quite positive, despite the formidable challenges the next administration will face. Mr. González highlighted that Mexico presents something of a paradox – despite increasing insecurity, the economy is picking up. He credited this in large part to orthodox economic policies that have kept deficits and inflation low, leading to GDP growth in the realm of 4-5 percent (outpacing current market estimates). Mr. Ardura echoed this view, saying that the fifteen plus years of fiscally responsible policies have made Mexico’s economy the healthiest in the hemisphere, with some of the best macroeconomic fundamentals in the world (certainly among emerging markets). Still, both panelists remained concerned about Mexico’s future competitiveness and growth. Despite its macroeconomic prowess, it has fallen behind Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and even less orthodox Argentina. The main holdups are security, the closed energy sector, education, and the concentration within so many sectors of the Mexican economy. They felt that if the government could tackle a few of these major issues, it could pick up the speed of annual growth to five or six percent -- transforming Mexico in the process. The speakers were quite optimistic about the PRI, both on its ability to get things done if it wins the presidency (particularly if it wins a majority in Congress, ending legislative gridlock), and on substance -- especially the possibility of opening the energy sector. But some in the audience doubted the positive momentum, particularly the veracity of the new, more modern PRI that looks set to capture Los Pinos next July. Many (at the podium and in the audience) remained skeptical about whether the “dinosaurs” of the party would stand down, allowing these more comprehensive reforms to strengthen Mexico’s public institutions and jump-start its economy.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil October 31, 2011 Latin America’s Moment
Immigration and Migration

Can the GOP Win the Latino Vote – and Does It Matter?

First lady Michelle Obama attends a Hispanic Heritage event at Lamb Public Charter School in Washington (Yuri Gripas/Courtesy Reuters). At last week’s Republican presidential debate a member of the audience provocatively reminded the candidates that not all of the Latinos in the United States are illegal, and then asked them, “What is the message from you guys to our Latino community?” Nearly everyone on stage dodged the question, saying that they didn’t have a specific message for Hispanic voters because “they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants” such as a healthy economy and access to affordable health insurance. That may be true, but the exchange raises the broader issue of whether the Republicans can connect with the growing number of American citizens with links back to Latin America. Finding a good answer to this question is more important than ever. Some 50.5 million people – or one in six Americans – fall under this moniker. In every single state of the union, the Latino population grew over the past decade – including in swing states such Florida, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina. What the presidential frontrunners have done quite vocally is attack one another for “soft” immigration stances and lashed out against “illegals”. Herman Cain ratcheted up the rhetoric to an all time high, suggesting electrifying the border fence and killing anyone who tried to cross into the United States from Mexico. A wave of harsh immigration laws – requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is undocumented, punishing landlords that rent to those without papers, and even checking immigration status at schools -- have passed in states including Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. With the economy in the doldrums and unemployment near historic highs, blaming illegal immigrants for many of America’s ills has gained traction, particularly within the Republican Party. Though technically not directed at U.S. Latinos, many feel the rising hostility targets them all the same. While it may be awhile until the full economic effects of these laws are clear (a recent study by the Council of the Americas suggests that the restrictive laws hurt rather than help local employment), the political impact is more immediate. How the polarization will play out in the primaries –will it further energize a strongly anti-immigrant conservative base, or mobilize Latino and other pro-immigrant groups (along the lines of the coalition that defeated an English-only bill in Nashville, Tennessee in 2009) – remains to be seen. But in the general national election, it is hard to imagine how it helps its proponents. At the Western Republican Leadership Conference/CNN debate Rick Santorum was the only Republican presidential candidate who seemed to recognize what other prominent party leaders (such as Karl Rove and Jeb Bush) have been saying now for awhile: the Republicans cannot afford to alienate this huge and growing demographic. They also don’t have to. The Republican Party has the opportunity to connect with Latinos on a number of issues, including family values, faith-based views, and an emphasis on entrepreneurship and small businesses. But if Rick Santorum is the only Republican hopeful that understands the importance of reaching out to Latinos, then the party is in trouble. President Obama won a whopping 67 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, and preliminary counts suggest that this demographic will only be more important this time around. History suggests that minorities, while often punching below their electoral weight, tend to turn out for national presidential (as opposed to midterm) elections. In 2012, they will represent over a third of the voting age population -- an all time high. To compete, the Republicans have to come up with a better answer, or they risk losing America’s fastest growing electorate.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil October 25, 2011 Latin America’s Moment
Immigration and Migration

Revitalizing the Border Governor’s Conference

Governors (L-R) Jose Guadalupe Osuna Millan of Baja, Humberto Moreira Valdes of Coahuila, Texas Governor Rick Perry, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jose Natividad Gonzalez Paras of Nuevo Leon, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and Eduardo Bours Castelo of Sonora pose as characters from the movie "Terminator" at the 26th Border Governors Conference (Courtesy Reuters). This week the Mexican state of Baja California will host the two-day Border Governor’s Conference. Started nearly two decades ago, the annual meeting brings together governors from all four U.S. and six Mexican border states to discuss the issues directly affecting their states and citizens. At its height in the early 2000s, the governors and their ministers met not just with each other but also with representatives from Commerce, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other departments and agencies to influence border-centered debates in both Washington, DC and Mexico City. But in recent years the conference has fallen on hard times, a victim of polarizing politics. The 2009 session hinted at the divides, as the governors of Arizona, California and Texas failed to make it to Monterrey due to “scheduling conflicts.” It hit its nadir in 2010 in the wake of Arizona SB 1070. The Mexican governors wrote a letter calling the law “discriminatory [and] racist” and announced their plan to boycott the meeting if hosted, as planned, by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in Phoenix. Brewer cancelled the conference in retaliation. In the end, Governor Richardson of New Mexico held the meeting, but no other U.S. governors attended, leaving the future of this consultative mechanism in limbo. The conference also has suffered from a sprawling agenda and size. With its initial successes the agenda items grew, as did the number of participants. In recent years there have been some 25 working groups on topics ranging from wildlife to science and technology. The influx of hundreds of staffers and activists has made the process much more cumbersome, and reduced the intimacy and spirit of cooperation that guided the conference in the past. Reduced in large part to the signing of agreements and photo opportunities, many governors (particularly from the United States), began skipping the event. As the United States and Mexico search for common ground and mutual solutions to pressing problems, it is time to revitalize this mechanism. It should refocus on practical problems facing the border states and their residents. Rather than covering the gamut, the agenda should be streamlined to emphasize a few vital issues. It must enable leaders to actually meet and discuss the serious challenges facing their states and constituencies, re-energizing the consultative element of the event. Most pressing today is security, where policy so far has been guided from the center, even though the effects are concentrated on the border. Once refocused, the border governors need to organize better to influence their respective governments, shaping policies that in turn shape the border. One potential model is the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), which brings together state legislators, governors, civil society and businesses to lobby the federal government and strengthen U.S.-Canada border security and the region’s economic competitiveness. Another is scaling up the San Diego Association of Governments’s (SANDAG) annual binational conference, which brings together local leaders in California and Baja California to address just one broad agenda item at each meeting – such as the economic impact of wait times at shared border crossings. As Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano repeatedly said that one of her closest day-to-day working relationships was with Sonora Governor Eduardo Bours. This reality – that cross-border issues and events strongly affect border state residents’ daily lives -- hasn’t changed. Revitalizing the Border Governor’s Conference is one means to address these shared challenges, and reincorporate regional problem-solving strategies into larger U.S.-Mexico debates.

Blog Post by Shannon K. O'Neil September 27, 2011 Latin America’s Moment
Sub-Saharan Africa

African Immigration and the United States

African immigrants watch a Carnavale parade in Tapachula February 28, 2009. After months of travel from African nations including Somalia and Ethiopia, the U.S. bound immigrants present themselves to Mexican authorities where they are held and processed for two weeks. (Daniel Leclair/Courtesy Reuters) There is now a significant African-born population in the United States-- about four percent of 38.5 million immigrants. It is newer, younger, and better educated but also poorer than other immigrant groups, as Kristen McCabe from the Migration Policy Institute notes in her fascinating article “U.S. in Focus: African Immigrants in the U.S.” (It should be noted that her statistics include North Africa and she does not discuss undocumented aliens.) It seems likely to me that their relative poverty reflects their recent arrival; other immigrants include significant numbers who have established themselves in the United States for a long time. Some highlights: from 1980 to 2009, the African-born population in the United States increased from two hundred thousand to 1.5 million, with most immigrants from east and west Africa. Almost half have arrived since 2000. The top countries of origin were Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Ghana, and Kenya. Very few have come from southern or central Africa. About one-third live in New York, California, Texas, and Maryland, and about a quarter live in the greater metropolitan areas of New York and Washington. Their English skills and advanced educational levels are generally higher than those of other immigrant groups. In addition, McCabe reports that there are 3.5 million self-identified members of the African Diaspora, a figure that also includes those who are American born. With the U.S. population more than three hundred million (only China and India are larger), the relative size of the African immigrant community is not large. Nevertheless, as African immigrants become U.S. citizens and the Diaspora grows, they may add a distinctive voice to American discourse on international affairs, especially where they are concentrated in specific electoral districts. That could encourage greater American sophistication and understanding of African issues and developments.

Blog Post by John Campbell September 7, 2011 Africa in Transition