The Mexican Presidency, 2006-2012: Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and Electoral Politics ||...

Migration and Borders: Present and Future ChallengesAuthor(s): Olivia RuizSource: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Mexican Presidency, 2006-2012:Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and Electoral Politics (Mar., 2006), pp. 46-55Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647916 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin AmericanPerspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.48 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:13:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647916?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Migration and Borders

Present and Future Challenges

by Olivia Ruiz

The principal issues regarding international migration and borders facing the 2006 presidential campaigns include remittances, a guest-worker pro

gram, relations with the Mexican immigrant population in the United States,

Mexico-United States relations, national security, human rights, and Central

American immigration. These issues point to a larger debate concerning the

course of social and economic development in Mexico and, more specifically, to the failure of more than 20 years of neoliberal economic policy.

Keywords: immigration, border areas, social and economic development, remit

tances, guest-worker program, Mexico-United States relations

Mexico's future president faces a migration problem of growing propor

tions and complexity. Today only a handful of the country's municipios (the

rough equivalent of a North American county) remain outside the radius

of international migration. According to one estimate, an average of over

620,000 people headed for the United States each year between 1993 and

2000 (Corona and Santib??ez, 2004). In their path they increased the propor tion of households with ties to the United States, which in some states

(Zacatecas, for example) amounts to well over half (Corona and Santib??ez,

2004). Given the size and unabated momentum of these population move

ments and their territorial breadth, it should come as no surprise that migra tion, especially in border areas, lies at the heart of debates about national

social and economic policy, including inequalities between rich and poor,

poverty, national security, relations with the United States, and human rights.

Therefore, it will necessarily dog the campaign trails of all candidates for the

presidency in 2006.

Olivia Ruiz, a cultural anthropologist, works at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Her research

interests include international migration in Mexico's northern and southern border areas and the

link between risk and migration.

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 147, Vol. 33 No. 2, March 2006 46-55 DOI: 10.1177/0094582X05286084 ? 2006 Latin American Perspectives

46



Ruiz / MIGRATION AND BORDERS 47

In Mexico, migration and borders are inseparable. On the one hand, bor

ders define human mobility along the country's perimeters. Mexico's bound

aries are often the most demanding stretches of the route north, where many

men, women, and children have lost their lives in the deserts and mountains between Mexico and the United States. On the other hand, migrations have also shaped the country's borders. The departure of large numbers of people for northern Mexico in the first part of the twentieth century, for example, spawned urban growth in the region, which was part and parcel of a maquil adora industry conceived as a form of regional and eventually national

development.

Mexico's migration issues are complex. In the list of nations registering the largest emigrations in the world today, the country ranks first. Yet, Mex

ico does not only expel people. Official silence on the matter notwithstand

ing, it also receives migrants, from Central America, for example, and serves

as a region of transit for still others who have left their homes in other parts of

Latin America as well as the rest of the world. As a nation that has historically sent people across the border but only recently and reluctantly come to view

itself as a place of transit and destination, Mexico faces a backlog of social,

economic, political, and cultural issues stemming from this skewed under

standing of its role in the making of the continent's population movements.

Indeed, adherence to a one-sided view of Mexico has focused attention on

the northern border, excluding the nation's southern boundary with Central

America and the rest of Latin America from the purview of ongoing debates

about migration. Even today, Mexico's politicians and experts on the subject often refer to the southern boundary as la frontera olvidada (the forgotten border), an allusion to its absence in discussions about human mobility and

borders.

Of all the issues associated with migration in recent years, remittances,

referred to colloquially as migrad?lares, have attracted increasing attention.

The statistics are impressive. Among all nations receiving remittances from

citizens living abroad, Mexico receives the largest amount. Between 1960

and 2003 earnings sent home grew at an average annual rate of almost 13 per

cent, reaching close to US$13.3 billion in 2003 and over US$16.6 billion in

2004 (Business Frontier, 2004; Canales and Montiel Armas, 2004: 151). In

2004 they were the largest source of foreign exchange (No? Ar?n Fuentes,

personal communication). By all indications they will continue to grow. The

Banco de M?xico has noted that between January and June of 2005 they shot

up almost 18 percent above the rate registered during the same period the year before (Bolet?n Consulta Mitofsky, 2005). While most of this money ends up as discretionary income for family members in Mexico, it has invoked im

ages of an economic windfall in the minds of the country's leaders, especially



48 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

the Fox administration (Canales and Montiel Armas, 2004: 148,150). Under

the auspices of the Secretar?a de Desarrollo Social the three-for-one program,

for example, promises to triple with matching funds any investment of migra d?lares in Mexico, thus encouraging citizens living abroad to reinvest their

gains in their home towns.

In the words of the "Declaraci?n de Cuernavaca" (2005), a pronounce

ment on migration in Mexico by a leading group of scholars, this has led to an "extractive mentality" at the local and national levels of government and

among international organizations and financial institutions, which seem

exclusively interested in "optimizing what could be called the remittance

industry ...

making sure that the asymmetric system which generates migra

tion and remittances remains in place." Furthermore, economic policy, which

uses the financial gains of migrants in the United States to spur economic

growth at home, places the burden of failed development on the shoulders of

the most vulnerable members of society. Again quoting the "Declaraci?n de

Cuernavaca," "Remittances are not investment capital for long-term solu

tions to critical structural problems, such as unemployment, low salaries,

housing shortages ... in short, prevailing socioeconomic inequalities."

Similar debates have surfaced with regard to a guest-worker program,

another golden calf. President Fox began his six-year term promising to set

up a temporary worker agreement with the United States. While the events of

September 11 destroyed any immediate possibility of such an arrangement,

they did not erase it from the minds of Fox and his like-minded cohorts. As

revealed by recent talks, nor did the Bush administration abandon the idea.

Rather, negotiations were put on hold to await a more politically favorable moment. Judging from renewed murmurings in both countries, that day may have arrived. Still, despite the recent spate of talks and the press they have

received, a guest-worker program faces grueling rounds of debate in the

United States and Mexico before it becomes law. In Mexico it has won the

backing of some politicians and, according to polls, significant public sup

port both at home and among Mexicans living abroad. It also has opponents, however, who, mindful of the Bracero Program's (1942-1964) failed prom ises, remain committed to blocking the proposal.

As in the case of remittances, at the bottom of the debate lie different

approaches to national development. Those who support a guest-worker pro

gram claim that it will create a safe way for Mexican workers to travel to the

United States and get jobs. Of no less interest, it will likely encourage and

enlarge the fund of remittances to Mexico. Lastly, though acknowledged

only begrudgingly, it will ease the social frustration brought about by years of

entrenched unemployment, underemployment, and high levels of poverty as

well as cutbacks in social services?consequences, recognized with diffi




culty if at all by most proponents of a guest-worker agreement, of over 20

years of neoliberal economic policy.

Those opposed to such a proposal couch their arguments in terms similar to those levied against political strategies promoting remittances. A guest

worker program, they argue, cannot replace genuine development. Nor

should it displace efforts to rewrite social and economic policy in Mexico or silence discussions about the failure of neoliberalism. The nation's politi

cal and economic leaders, not migrant workers, they insist, are responsible

for Mexico's sustainability, for providing jobs and opportunities for its citi zens. Mexicans should not have to leave their country to find work and make a living for themselves and their families, and the nation's leaders should not

design policy that encourages them to do so. Furthermore, the type of pro

gram under discussion does not include full amnesty and legalization in the

United States, and without these assurances Mexican workers will remain a

highly vulnerable labor force of second-class citizens, subject to the whims

of employers and the volatility of economic cycles. These are issues that all

those who aspire to the presidency will have to address.

Discussion of remittances and a guest-worker program highlights the

growing presence of migrants, in particular those living in the United States, in Mexican society and politics. The election of Andr?s Berm?dez, who

made his fortune north of the border, as mayor of Jerez, Zacatecas, in 2001

attests to the potential role Mexico's North American compatriots might one

day play in the country's future. For years the possibility that still others

might enter national politics galvanized political debate in Congress about

whether to permit Mexicans living abroad to vote, an issue referred to as el

voto en el extranjero (the vote abroad). While the proposal passed this year, it

is an administrative maze. These potential voters, hovering now around 4

million, will vote by mail in a feat of electoral acrobatics involving the coun

try's embassy, consulates, and the Internet as well as the U.S. and Mexican

post offices. According to regulations established by the Instituto Federal

Electoral (Federal Electoral Institute?IFE), the federal organ in charge of

elections in Mexico, candidates for the presidency and their political parties cannot campaign abroad, though IFE guidelines also state that the Mexican

government has an obligation to provide all its citizens with the information

they need to make an educated choice. These restrictions have already shaped

the race for the presidency; in accordance with them, Andr?s Manuel L?pez Obrador, the candidate for the PRD, has cancelled a campaign trip to the

United States.

While much of the justification for these rulings draws on debates about

the definition, rights, and obligations of citizenship and the safeguarding of

sovereignty, the present administrative maze most likely speaks more to




competing political interests at stake behind the new legislation. Those in

positions of power remember the mobilizations for Cuauhtemoc C?rdenas

and against the PRI in many Mexican communities in the United States in

1988 and detect similar leanings in recent shows of support for L?pez Obrador.

At the heart of the matter lies the relationship between Mexicans in Mex

ico and those living abroad, mainly in the United States. Though slow to

respond, Mexico's leaders have taken steps to address some of the migrant

population's concerns. In 1998 the Zedillo administration passed a law, referred to as no p?rdida de la nacionalidad, which allowed those settled across the border to apply for U.S. citizenship without jeopardizing their sta

tus as Mexican citizens at home.1 The law also allowed those who had given up their citizenship (often relinquished in order to become U.S. citizens) to

recover it, thus paving the way for dual citizenship. The change in legislation also drew on the hope that dual citizens residing abroad might in this way become advocates for Mexican policy in the United States. The more recent

legislation could potentially extend the migrant population's influence in

Mexican affairs. With or without the vote, however, it appears that the

migrant population will likely play a greater role in Mexico's future.

The vote abroad casts light on a permanent fixture of Mexican reality?

the relationship with the United States. Since the implementation of opera tions Gatekeeper, Safeguard, and Rio Grande, the United States has made

clear its intent to exert greater control over migration across its southern bor

der. This has led to what one expert describes as an unyielding focus on bor

der enforcement in addressing immigration, to the exclusion of alternative

approaches such as "employer sanctions" (Cornelius, 2004). It also ignores the root causes of immigration?Mexico's underdevelopment and the eco

nomic asymmetry between the two countries.

More recently, though less publicly, the United States has also attempted to influence Mexican policy regarding the nation's border with Central

America. According to one observer, North American geopolitical interests

have transformed Mexico into a vertical border for the United States, a strate

gic filter set up to contain the traffic of drugs, arms, and human beings as well as (especially since September 11) to combat terrorism (Rigoni and Flor

Mar?a, 2002: 22-23; 1999). Recent migration policy along Mexico's south ern frontier?Plan Sur and Plan Centinela, to name two?reproduces the

militarized tactics that distinguish the North American approach to its south ern and, increasingly, northern borders. Likewise, the Arreglo para la Re

patriaci?n Segura y Ordenada de Extranjeros Centroamericanos (Arrange ment for the Secure and Orderly Repatriation of Central Americans) follows

almost to the letter an earlier agreement between Mexico and the United




States, the Memorandum of Understanding for Safe Repatriation (Proceso, 2004; Prensa Libre, 2005). The decision to put the Instituto Nacional de

Migraci?n (INM), which handles immigration affairs, under the aegis of the

National Security System in Mexico also replicates North American policy

(L?pez, 2005; Bolet?n INM, 2005). In the coming elections, candidates for

the presidency will have to decide whether or to what extent they will con

tinue to adopt U.S. migration and border concerns as their own and include

them in the national agenda.

Mexico, of course, faces its own security issues. Along with its neighbor to the north, the country struggles with an illegal and well-organized traffic

in drugs, arms, and human beings, some of it in the hands of international

gangs. Not surprisingly, all three activities are national priorities. As matters

that involve international groups and organizations, they have drawn atten

tion to the nation's borders, both north and south. Controlling this traffic,

consequently, requires joint efforts, multilateral discussions with leaders of

nations affected by this trade. Mexico will have to develop measures to

address these issues in ways that are consistent both with national interests

and those of other countries, many of which are neighboring states.

Other deeply troubling issues beset Mexico's borders. The rising death

toll in the deserts and mountains between Mexico and the United States,

approximately 3,600 at this writing, has placed migration squarely in the

spotlight of human rights.2 Because of the work of human rights organiza tions in both countries and of Mexican consulates throughout the southwest ern United States, Mexico's leaders are well aware of the risks the country's

migrants face and the ever-present potential for tragedy. Yet, while the

nation's leaders speak out in defense of their compatriots and in indignation at the mistreatment Mexican migrants endure north of the international line,

similar abuses take place along the border with Guatemala. Every day in

southern Chiapas hundreds of migrants from Central America and other

regions of the world face the possibility of extortion, assault, robbery, rape,

and murder.3 This tangled reality underlines what one expert describes as the

"international nature of 'vulnerability' "

of migrants?in this case, on Mex

ico's northern and southern borders?who find themselves caught between

the bulwarks of national sovereignty and limited observance of international

human rights legislation (Bustamante, 2001: 30). As many of Mexico's poli ticians have themselves acknowledged, the country's leaders cannot demand

respect for the human rights of Mexicans living and working in the United

States while simultaneously turning a blind eye to similar abuses to the south.

Despite talk of clamping down on human rights abuses, many problems re

main, as is highlighted by crackdowns on personnel at the INM involved in

human trafficking (Guti?rrez, 2004).




Mexico, likewise, is home to a growing population of foreign migrants, many of them Central American. Most arrive intending to go to the United

States, but many find work in Mexico and eventually settle in the country, in

the southern states of Chiapas and Tabasco, for example. As in the case of

Mexicans in the United States, Central Americans play a critical role in the

region's economy, supplying labor for big agriculture in rural areas and for

the construction industry in towns and cities. While many cross the border

with permits granted by the INM, many more do so clandestinely. Migratory status notwithstanding, a large and growing number of Central Americans

now has roots in Mexico and has begun to pressure for changes in the laws

ruling immigration, permanent residence, and naturalization.

Along Mexico's borders a little-observed variant of migration, transmi

gration, occurs daily. It consists of people who work on one side of the border

and live on the other side. While few studies have focused on these border

crossers, referred to locally as "commuters," those that do suggest that this

group, a small proportion of the workforce, plays an important role in the

economies and societies of Mexico's border towns. This is especially true of

people who live in Mexico and work in the United States. In Tijuana, for

example, commuters make up only 8 percent of the labor force, but they earn

20 percent of all income from salaries of the city's residents (Alegr?a, 2002:

40). Therefore their consumer spending, often greater by virtue of their

higher incomes, plays a role in determining the health of the local economy as well as local tastes in consumption.

For those concerned with the well-being of the nation's households and

workforce, international migration presents a demographic gauntlet. Today

over 96 percent of the country's municipios have some tie to migration

(Delgado Wise and Manan Garc?a, 2005: 8). Areas that until recently had lit

tle connection to these population movements are sending people off to the

United States at increasing rates. Furthermore, traditional sending regions

do not show signs of recuperating from the loss of their members. Thirty one percent of the country's municipios are losing population, and many of

these areas now register zero growth (Delgado Wise, 2005). These realities

attest to the failure of development, to the expanding swath of states hard-hit

by neoliberal economic policy, and to high levels of poverty throughout the

country.

Changes in Mexico's migration demographics, of course, also correspond

to shifts in the regional demand for labor in the United States. Though Cali

fornia and Texas continue to draw workers to their fields and cities, other

states in the south, northeast, and midwest, long seen as outside the network

of migratory flows, now attract large numbers of people. Indeed, in a way

reminiscent of the role Mexican migrants played in the economic take-off of




the North American Southwest in the early twentieth century, Mexican labor

appears to be contributing to the most recent restructuring of the U.S. econ

omy. As Delgado Wise and Manan Garc?a (2005) point out, the new migra

tory flows are following the routes taken by investment capital. The relationship between the economic restructuring of the United States

and the demographic drain to that country in turn raises troubling questions in Mexico about the effects these population movements may have on the

nation's future development. First, by all accounts, Mexico will continue to

export one of its most valuable resources?its labor force?for years to

come. More specifically, it will continue to lose more and more of its working

people in their most productive years and for longer periods of time, if not

permanently. Second, in a bit of sad irony, migrants have become an arm in

bolstering the competitive edge that North American businesses have over

their Mexican counterparts?in agriculture and the textile industry, for ex

ample (Delgado Wise, 2005). In other words, while sustaining their families at home on wages earned abroad, migrants have helped revitalize the U.S.

economy, unwittingly enabling it to remain consistently more productive and

competitive than its rivals, to the detriment of Mexico's own (Delgado Wise,

2005).

Beyond the effects migration has had on the country's politics, economy, and labor force, some of which have been described above, it also presents enormous social and cultural challenges that any aspirant to the presidency

will have to face. The uprooting of thousands of adult men and, in increasing numbers, women as well has wreaked havoc on many families. Indeed, the

country has begun to register an alarming rise in the number of households

headed by a single adult, 60 percent by one account, most often a woman

(Camacho, 2000). Reliance on a solitary adult renders these households

prone to financial crisis and less able to recover from it. The children of these

economically hard-pressed families are especially at risk and have begun to

contribute to that cross section of Mexico's most vulnerable youth, hard-hit

by truancy, drug use, teenage pregnancy, depression, and suicide. Not sur

prisingly, the difficulty of attaining legal residence in the United States and

the risks of crossing the border make the return of those who leave less likely; thus family members in Mexico may remain in single-parent households for

many years. In the end, more and more children will grow up with only one

parent or, if both parents leave, with grandparents. These families will likely continue to place new and complex demands on the country for education,

housing, and health care.

As things stand in Mexico, migration will remain a reality for most of its

citizens long into the future. A recent poll concluded that among those

actively seeking employment, 44 percent considered migrating to the United




States, up from 35 percent two years ago (Parametria, 2005). These percent

ages will most likely continue to rise as long as the asymmetry between the

two countries persists and the distribution of Mexico's wealth follows its

unequal course. As points of international entry and departure, the nation's

perimeters will continue to struggle with the unresolved problems that give rise to migration and follow in its wake. In this light, the movement of people across the country's borders appears to be not only an integral part of

the domestic life of a large and increasing number of families but a driving force in society. Whoever occupies the presidential chair following the elec

tion of 2006 will necessarily face the growing complexity of this reality, for it

points directly to some of the most urgent and troubling questions about

Mexico's future.

NOTES

1. The law applied to all citizens residing outside the country's borders. It pertained most to

Mexicans in the United States because there are more of them.

2. This is according to the Office of Human Rights at the Casa del Migrante, Tijuana, Baja

California, Mexico, and the Stop Gatekeeper Organization-California Rural Legal Assistance

Foundation Border Project, which has been monitoring deaths along the Mexico-U.S. border

since 1995.

3. The state's coastal area is the principal route for migrants entering Mexico from Guatemala.

REFERENCES

Alegr?a, Tito

2002 "Demand and supply of Mexican cross-border workers." Journal of Borderlands Stud

ies 17 (1): 37-55.

Bolet?n Consulta Mitofsky 2005 "Remesas." 4(133).

Bolet?n INM

2005 "El gobierno federal toma una posici?n de control y persecuci?n frente al fen?meno

migratorio." May 19.

Business Frontier

2004. No. 1. http://www.dallasfed.org/research/busfront/bus0401.html (accessed August

10, 2005).

Bustamante, Jorge A.

2001 "Proposition 187 and Operation Gatekeeper: cases for the sociology of international

migrations and human rights." Migraciones Internacionales 1(1): 7-34.

Camacho, Laura

2000 "Sin la figura de pap? o mam?." Reforma, April 28.




Canales, Alejandro I. and Israel Montiel Armas

2004 "Remesas e inversi?n productiva en comunidades de alta migraci?n a Estados Unidos:

El caso de Teocaltiche, Jalisco." Migraciones Internacionales 2 (3): 142-172.

Cornelius, Wayne A.

2004 Controlling 'Unwanted' Immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993-2004.

Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego, Working

Paper.

Corona, Rodolfo and Jorge Santib??ez

2004 "Migrantes internacionales datos generales por entidad." MS.

"Declaraci?n de Cuernavaca"

2005 "Declaraci?n de Cuernavaca sobre migraci?n y desarrollo: los migrantes no son

f?bricas an?nimas de d?lares." Masiosare, supplement to La Jornada, no. 389, June 5. http://

www.jornada.unam. mx/2005/jun05/050605/mas-migrantes.html(accessed June 16,2005).

Delgado Wise, Ra?l

2005 "Migraci?n, pol?tica p?blica y desarrollo." Paper presented to the seminar "Procesos

socioculturales del fen?meno migratorio," San Crist?bal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico,

June 9-10.

Delgado Wise, Ra?l and Oscar Ma??n Garc?a

2005 "Migraci?n M?xico-Estados Unidos: eslab?n cr?tico de la integraci?n." http://www

.migracionydesarrollo.org (accessed June 16, 2005).

Guti?rrez, Alejandro 2004 "Polleros con licencia." Proceso, no. 1448 (August 1), 36-40.

L?pez, May?lo 2005 "Ingresa migraci?n a seguridad nacional." Reforma, May 18.

Pa rame tr?a

2005 "Migraci?n como alternativa al desempleo." Parametr?a, February. http://parametria

.com.mx/escartaprint.php?id_carta=88 (accessed June 16, 2005). Prensa Libre

2005 "Acuerdo para deportar." May 29. http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2005/mayo/29/ 115418.html (accessed June 16, 2005).

Proceso

2004 "Albazo migratorio." No. 1432 (April 11), 44^6.

Rigoni, CS. and P. Flor Mar?a

1999 "M?xico entre sus fronteras: unos apuntes del Sur." Migrantes 5 (3). 2002 "Frontera Sur: vertiente de ma?ana." Migrantes 7 (2).



Date post:	15-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	olivia-ruiz
View:	217 times
Download:	3 times

The Mexican Presidency, 2006-2012: Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and Electoral Politics ||...

Documents