Moving Beyond the Policy of No Policy: Emigration from Mexico and Central America

Latin American Politics and Society, Winter 2004 by Rosenblum, Marc R

A second set of questions sought respondents' opinions about U.S. policy. Perhaps surprisingly, few respondents cited more migration as a policy preference, and those who did raised the issue only in terms of replacing existing undocumented flows. More generally, regardless of respondents' perspectives on migration per se, almost everyone in the sample believed that undocumented flows raise the costs of emigration (higher smuggling fees, more human rights abuses, greater difficulty maintaining cross-border links) and limit its benefits (lower wages, higher transaction costs). Many respondents viewed the juxtaposition of economic integration and restrictive migration policies in the 1980s and 1990s as cruelly ironic and as evidence that undocumented migration is a policy problem, not a structural one. Beyond these commonalities, however, respondents' specific policy concerns varied by sending state.4

Third, how does migration fit into broader bilateral relations? The modal response to this question was well summarized by an adviser to Mexico's foreign minister in 1998: "Immigration is the touchiest issue, from Mexico's perspective, in bilateral relations-more so than drugs or trade. . . . The impact on the overall bilateral relationship is huge." This characterization was confirmed by the president of the Chamber of Deputies Committee on Foreign Affairs, who estimated that "if you look at the number of questions and times spent discussing issues [during the mid1990s], you will see that of all Mexico's foreign policy issues with the whole world-trade, etc.-at least 50 percent of the time was dedicated to the issue of Mexican migrants." Similarly, as El Salvador's liaison to the U.S. Congress explained, "Immigration is certainly one of our most important issues. For the current government, it is probably the highest priority."

As these statements suggest, Mexican and Central American officials interviewed considered migration at least as important as trade. While the economic benefits of trade and migration are comparable, migration likely has greater political impact because so many voters have personal or family migration histories.

Two sets of questions from 2001 allowed this observation to be quantified. First, informants were asked to name up to three "most difficult bilateral issues" between their country and the United States. As table 3 summarizes, almost two-thirds of valid respondents (27 out of 44) identified immigration as their country's most difficult bilateral issue, and only six people failed to identify migration as one of three difficult issues. In contrast, only seven people identified trade and other economic issues as most difficult, while drugs and crime rated a distant third.5 Conversely, as table 4 shows, trade and other economic issues clearly stood out as cooperative areas, while immigration ranked third among cooperative issues behind development assistance.

Variation in Responses

Figures 1 and 2 depict variation by sending state in respondent opinions about the pros and cons of migration.6