Immigration and Migration

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann gestures beside Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential debate in Ames (Courtesy Reuters). As primary election season gets underway, the Republican hopefuls have had little to say about Latin America. But there have been a few hints though from the leading candidates as to what they see when they look south – particularly with regard to Mexico. Michele Bachmann is the most cut and dry so far. She opposes  immigration and the legalization of undocumented migrants, and calls for the deployment of troops in south Texas. The Minnesota congresswoman wants to wall the border off completely, saying “As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border.” When Bachmann felt the need to strengthen her foreign policy chops last spring, she flew to Colombia and Mexico with the House Intelligence Committee – her first trip abroad to a country other than Israel (which she has visited multiple times courtesy of pro-Israel interest groups). Upon returning, she expressed strong support for the drug war. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have more nuanced takes – in part because they have more extensive experience in and with the region. Romney has a long history working in Latin America, as his firm Bain Capital invested extensively in Central and South America. On the campaign trail, he lauds those governments with business friendly policies, pointedly contrasting them to those with less open markets (e.g. Venezuela and Cuba). During the 2008 electoral race Romney became increasingly tough on immigration , and even tougher on border enforcement, running ads attacking John McCain for his “soft” stances. His hardened views have caused somewhat of a family drama as many of his relatives (no, not from the Huntsman branch) live in northern Mexico and have openly criticized him, saying that “I don’t think Mitt understands the causes of illegal immigration.” Rick Perry, the newest addition to the field and the now front-runner has little interest in Latin America, but does have a long history with Mexico. On immigration, the Texas governor is considerably more progressive than many of his peers.  Perry’s record suggests that he supports the DREAM act and similar reforms, given that he approved a law allowing undocumented high school graduates in Texas to pay state tuition. He has even thrown his weight behind a guest worker program for Texas. But Perry is increasingly vocal and tough on border security. Among the most outspoken critics of Obama’s border policy, he has repeatedly raised alarm bells about violence spilling over from Mexico into the lone star state, and asked for the deployment of military troops and predator drone in response. Unlike Bachmann, Perry has remained firmly opposed to the border fence, calling the idea “ridiculous on its face.” This early in the season, most candidates and campaigns are focused on domestic issues. Those foreign policy issues at the forefront – Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria – aren’t necessarily a club Latin American nations would want to join. But many do bemoan the lack of interest and understanding of the rest of the Western Hemisphere by these presidential hopefuls. Latin America should  in fact matter more. The region is among the U.S. fastest growing trading partners, creating American jobs with each purchase. With over half a trillion dollars worth of goods going back and forth, Latin America is second only to Asia – and growing much faster - in terms of total trade with the United States. Its largest nations play important roles in multilateral organizations from the G20 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), helping the United States and others resolve difficult global challenges. And finally, according to the latest census 50 million Americans – 1/6 of the population – are descendants of these nations, many still with close ties to their original homes. Ignoring Latin America or alienating Latin Americans only adds up to a missed opportunity, both for the Republican Party and for the country.  

A customs officer is handed a passport by a motorist at the San Ysidro border crossing (Fred Greaves/Courtesy Reuters). The U.S. debates over Mexico’s drug war increasingly focus on spillover violence. Border state governors Rick Perry and Jan Brewer insist that Mexican cartels are hitting their states hard, portraying the border as a lawless “war zone” in which the drug cartels and illegal Mexicans incite “terror and mayhem” on a daily basis. In stark contrast, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Alan Bersin and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano contend that the border has never been safer. The statistics bear out the latter position. A recent study based on FBI figures shows that violent crime in cities within 50 miles of the border is consistently lower than state and national averages. The robbery rate in the Texas border region, for example, remained at least 30 percent lower than the state average for every year in the past decade. The data also show that the number of kidnapping cases in border areas dropped by more than half since 2009.  This doesn’t mean that bad things don’t happen – they do. But they happen less frequently along the border, on average, than in other parts of the United States. Despite local politicians’ concerns and rhetoric, the border is more secure than in the past, and in fact safer than the rest of the country. But the downward trend in border violence does not mean that the Mexican drug war hasn’t had spillover effects on the United States. Among the most troubling is corruption. Local newspapers recount the stories of public officials engaged in foul play; from the South Texas county Sheriff Conrado Cantú, who took bribes from drug traffickers, to Columbus, New Mexico Mayor Eddie Espinoza, charged with operating a gun smuggling ring in connection with Mexican cartels. Available data also show a rise in corruption within the ranks of the border patrol. Since the reopening of the Homeland Security Bureau’s internal affairs unit in 2003 – in and of itself a reflection of the increased risk of corruption within the agency – cases of corruption against law enforcement officials on the border have more than doubled. Tales of CBP agents turning a blind eye to, and sometimes actively aiding drug traffickers smuggling narcotics, arms and migrants across the border abound. The increase in corruption reflects the lure of drug money and the CBP’s institutional weaknesses. Doubling the border patrol’s numbers in less than a decade made it more vulnerable to corruption, diluting the once highly disciplined force with less experienced and committed newcomers. The border patrol administers lie detector tests to only 10 percent of applicants, more than half of which fail -- raising serious concerns about the capability, and even intentions, of many of its new hires. Other spillover effects are positive for the United States – namely increasing economic activity. Seemingly every day new restaurants, stores, and private schools are opening in border towns, serving clients that once traveled further south. Many attribute Texas’ strong real estate market to the influx of Mexican citizens eager for greater peace and stability. In the spring of 2008, when foreclosures hit record highs across the United States, real estate agents in El Paso reported steady sales of houses and apartments worth more than $100,000. The President of the Greater El Paso Association of Realtors, Dan Olivas, attributed the stability of the El Paso market to “a substantial number of people from Juarez coming over to buy properties for security reasons, for fear of kidnappings, extortion, and cartel violence.” This El Paso trend has continued, and spread more broadly. Not only do Mexicans buy homes, but many are bringing their businesses north. Immigration consultants say  inquiries from Mexicans for EB-5 investor visas – which cost $500,000, and require that applicants’ create at least 10 jobs in the U.S. within two years – have doubled in recent years.  Mexico has quickly risen the ranks to become one of the top recipients of these visas. Mexico’s drug war is indeed affecting the United States – but mostly in ways that politicians overlook, misunderstand, or (more cynically) choose not to recognize. The current policy prescriptions - a higher and longer border wall, more boots on the ground and predator drones overhead – won’t slow seeping corruption, nor bolster the beneficial economic ties. Unfortunately, the wrong diagnosis means also the wrong policy prescriptions, hurting both countries in the process.

While last week Damien Cave’s great New York Times piece highlights the positive economic factors keeping Mexicans at home, this week the Wall Street Journal adds border crossing dangers to the reasons for a downward trend in undocumented migration. This holds doubly true for Central Americans. A recent RAND study shows that while fewer Mexicans are coming to the United States, fewer are leaving as well, even with the economic downturn. Its authors suggest that this is due to the “target earner hypothesis,” which holds that migrants will not return to their home country until they have earned a prefixed level of savings. I’d add that the increasing costs and dangers of returning must also affect migrants’ calculation.

Reformers say never to waste a crisis -- or a scandal. They certainly have found one with the ATF’s Fast and Furious program, in which bureau officials allowed hundreds of firearms to “walk” across the border, straight into the hands of Mexican drug traffickers.

Venezuelan President Chavez looks on as his Brazilian counterpart Lula da Silva speaks during their meeting at Miraflores Palace in Caracas in July, 2010 (Jorge Silva/Courtesy Reuters). Jorge Dominguez’s recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere gives an overview of Latin America’s progress toward democratic consolidation in recent history, and the role the international community has played in this slow, but steady, march. Time and America’s Quarterly have two good pieces on Mexico’s state level elections last weekend. While both rightly focus on the PRI’s strength coming out of the election, it didn’t win everywhere. The party lost nine municipalities it previously held in the state of Hidalgo, due in large part to successful alliances between the PAN and PRD. Meanwhile, the PRD mayor of Mexico City urges that these ties must become stronger to give his party and its allies a fighting chance in the 2012 presidential elections. A recent New York Times article looks at the current state of  illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S., highlighting how changing dynamics within both countries dissuade Mexicans from crossing the border illegally. This discussion addresses issues I raised in the past, namely changing demographics and new economic realities, including the rise of the middle class in Mexico and the region more broadly. Lastly, for readers worried about Brazil’s overheating, this Economist graph won’t calm your fears.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent checks an area under a bridge crossing between the United States and Mexico (Eric Thayer/Courtesy Reuters). Starting today, at the end of each week I will post a weekly roundup of articles, reports and other analyses on developments in Latin America and U.S. relations in the region that I have found particularly interesting. Please feel free to add  your takes on these “reads of the week” in the comments section! Good summary by my CFR colleague Ted Alden and co-author Bryan Roberts of what we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know to develop a better U.S. border policy. Interesting analysis on how drug cartels evolve, and the role Calderón’s security strategy has played in accelerating this process. At the Central American Security Conference (SICA), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s calls on Central America’s elites to step up their contributions to the region-wide fight against violence. Article illuminates why high growth and voter discontent co-exist in Peru.

President Obama delivers remarks on immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso (Jim Young / Courtesy Reuters). Framed by sunny El Paso skies, President Obama put immigration back firmly on center stage yesterday.  In his speech he called on Congress to “put politics aside” and find “common ground”  in order to reform a broken system. His justifications are similar to those of the past – immigration reform is both an economic and moral imperative, as important for the future competitiveness of our country as for our understanding of ourselves as Americans. The basic outline for reform is also similar to the last legislative round in 2007 - tougher penalties against businesses employing undocumented workers; temporary worker programs; a path to citizenship for those living in the shadows requiring applicants to pay penalties, taxes, and learn English; legal status for American college graduates hoping to start businesses here; and citizenship for young people brought to the U.S. as children who go on to college or serve in the military (the so-called DREAM Act). What is different this time around is that in reopening the debate, Obama explicitly called on a constituency that remained decidedly quiet during the last polarizing round: business. In his speech, he singled out and quoted as many businessmen as immigrants. Alongside the voices of immigrants serving in the U.S. marines and navy, Obama added those of Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch. He went on to mention some of the largest corporations founded by immigrants - Google, Intel, Yahoo and Ebay –which add billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy. An eloquent speech in and of itself will change few minds, particularly as the 2012 Presidential election season nears. But if it would open the deep pockets of the private sector, it could perhaps make a difference. Of any constituency business has a cross-cutting power to pressure for the necessary reach across the aisle. And openness to immigration reform seems to span the private sector – from agriculture to high tech, from small businesses to the largest corporations, from the coasts to the center. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – a consistent Obama critic – agrees with the President on the issues and has been pushing these types of reforms for a decade. Comprehensive immigration reform is a long shot. The hostility of a vocal portion of the electorate will still likely hold the political process hostage, at least until after the 2012 election. But involving the quite powerful groups sitting on the sidelines is the way to give reform its best chance.

An employee seals a stack of yuan banknotes at a branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China in Huaibei, Anhui province on April 6, 2011. (Stringer/Courtesy Reuters) China has long acknowledged that it has a problem with its best and brightest leaving the country to study and not returning. According to the Chinese Ministry of Education, only around a quarter of the 1.4 million Chinese students and scholars who have left the country since it opened up to the outside world in the late 1970s have returned. Now with its rapidly growing GDP and burgeoning state coffers, Beijing is in a position to try to turn the situation around. In 2008, it launched its “1000 Talents Program” designed to bring top notch global talent to China. By providing strong financial and research incentives to the some of the world’s leading lights scholars, the program has had some notable successes. It is too early to tell, however, how well these returnees—or foreign talent—will be able to adapt their talents from abroad to the political culture that many of them fled a decade or more ago. Having made a head-start in addressing one of its problems of human capital, Beijing must now gird itself to address another. Even as China seems to be importing back its top academic talent, it appears to be on the brink of losing its top wealth-making talent. According to the Global Times, the 2011 Private Wealth Report, published by China Merchants bank and Bain & Company, indicates that nearly 60 percent of Chinese who have at least 10 million yuan ($1.53 million) in individual assets are either completing the process of emigration or are considering it. Even more surprising, of those Chinese who have profited most from staying home—earners with at least 100 million yuan ($15.3 million) in investment assets—27 percent have already left China and an additional 47 percent are thinking about it.  The stated reasons behind their departure include education for their children, pensions, and general insecurity. These Chinese may not be taking to the streets, but they are still voting with their feet—or perhaps more accurately, with their pockets.

Fireworks over Mexico City's Zocalo during its bicentennial anniversary of independence in September 2010 (Daniel Aguilar/Courtesy Reuters). Mexico’s Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, or CIDE, released its latest study, “Mexico, the Americas, and the World.” This is now its fourth version (the previous surveys were done in 2004, 2006, and 2008) and provides a fascinating glimpse into Mexicans’ views (both from its leaders and the general population) toward politics, policies, and, in particular, international relations. There are several interesting takeaways. On the domestic front, there are strong differences of opinion between elites and the masses. Mexico’s leaders are quite dissatisfied with the progress made in terms of social inclusion, economic development, and peace and security.  This negative view confirms what one hears in the halls of congress and reads on the editorial pages of its leading newspapers. In contrast, Mexicans in general are much more positive about their country’s advancements. A fairly strong majority are satisfied with the steps forward in terms of social inclusion and economic development.  Just under a majority (compared to one-third of leaders) are satisfied with the progress made regarding peace and security. Economically, the main difference is that elites lead a general trend. Overall, Mexicans view globalization increasingly favorably. A relative majority - some 43 percent - believe globalization has been good for Mexico (outweighing the 28 percent that see it as bad). This positive view is up from 34 percent in 2004 - climbing despite the 2008-9 global economic crisis. Mexico’s leaders are way out in front – with nearly three-quarters in favor of globalization. A strong majority of all Mexicans support free trade and foreign direct investment (though not in the state-run oil sector), and believe that trade and investment have brought benefits to their country and to them personally.  Riding this wave of enthusiasm, two- thirds want to integrate economically with the rest of Latin America – likely an impetus behind the free trade accord scheduled to be signed between Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Peru in Lima next week. Though increasingly looking outward economically, fewer Mexicans seem to be moving. The number of Mexicans reporting family members abroad fell from 61 percent in 2004 to 52 percent last year. This matches fairly closely with U.S. immigration statistics, which report 2004 as the height of Mexican immigrant inflows.  Moreover, slightly less than half of Mexicans think migration is good for their families, their communities, or for Mexico. Elites are even more pessimistic about its benefits – for anyone other than the country receiving their fellow citizens (e.g. mainly the United States). Looking northward, Mexicans generally feel warmly toward their neighbor. The public ranks the United States a very close second to Canada (Mexico’s leaders put the U.S. further down the rankings, next to China) in their affections.  Many more "admire" the U.S. than disparage it, and while still somewhat wary of their neighbor, "confidence" has improved significantly - up 5 points since 2008.  In fact, for the first time, a majority sees being neighbors as a distinct advantage for Mexico, rather than a problem. Both Mexico and the United States are headed into presidential elections seasons. In the past, elections have often brought out the worst in the bilateral relationship, as politicians point fingers for short-term electoral gains. Yet this CIDE survey shows that Mexicans now hold more goodwill than not toward their northern neighbor, and favor a closer relationship with the United States than ever before. Let’s see if politicians truly read the polls, and appeal to this now broad constituency.