Selected news coverage of

CIS Panel on Mexican Immigration After 9/11

Reuters
United Press International (UPI)
The News (Mexico)
 


Mexico-U.S. Immigration Deal Unlikely Soon, Analysts Say
Reuters, August 6, 2002

(WASHINGTON) Security concerns and an upcoming overhaul of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service mean Mexico is unlikely to get an agreement on immigration with Washington any time soon, analysts said on Tuesday.

President Vicente Fox of Mexico wants an immigration deal with the United States that would allow migrant workers to work legally and make more immigrant visas available for Mexicans.

Fox is the only foreign head of state Bush will receive during his August vacation in Crawford, Texas. No agenda has been announced so far, although in the past Fox has made immigration the top issue in bilateral relations.

The two countries were close to a deal until the Sept. 11 attacks, when U.S. officials grew concerned that more lenient immigration legislation could weaken border security.

Almost a year after the attacks, Fox is still unlikely to get much from Bush now, as the administration works to overhaul the INS, transferring some of its border-control functions to a proposed Homeland Security Department.

Given these changes, an agreement with Mexico "would seem imprudent and irresponsible," said Robert Leiken, a guest scholar at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

This means a deal with Mexico was a low priority at this time, he said.

In the past, Leiken has advocated easing entry requirements in exchange for Mexico better policing its northern border.

Now, however, he says an agreement should wait until "we first put our house in order," referring to the INS shake-up.

Leiken spoke at a presentation titled "Mexican immigration after 9/11, new and old challenges," jointly organized by the Center for Immigration Studies, which generally espouses more restrictive immigration legislation, and the Nixon Center.

Fox, facing growing criticism from Mexican immigrants in the United States, named a new cabinet level council on Tuesday to promote the rights of Mexican immigrants abroad.

But immigrant groups oppose the new council, saying it will be ineffective, and in a recent flurry of criticism they derided Fox's failure to bring about real reform in U.S. immigration policy for Mexicans.

U.S. security concerns have overridden all other considerations on immigration. Speakers estimated the number of illegal immigrants at 3 million to 4 million, spawning a counterfeit document industry that could be used by terrorists to perpetrate attacks on the United States.

Analysts said making immigration easier could reduce what Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, called a "spider web of people that facilitate illegal crossings" that terrorists could use.

However, the specialists wanted to see the INS better prepared to handle immigrants first. Leiken said the INS has been unable to keep tabs on the 350 million people entering and leaving the United States every year, in addition to chasing the 300,000 who overstay their visas.

An agreement with Mexico would further aggravate the INS shortcomings. "During a hurricane, you don't turn on the sprinklers," Leiken said.

Mexico and the United States could work on a deal in about a year, said Leiken, although political support would be mixed, especially among Republicans, divided in their desire to show themselves more lenient on immigrants in an effort to woo the Hispanic vote, while at the same time stopping the flow of illegal immigrants for national security reasons.

********

Experts Debate U.S.-Mexico Immigration
United Press International August 8, 2002

Since Sept. 11, existing U.S. immigration policy towards Mexico has come to be viewed as a potentially dangerous to national security, but experts at a recent think tank symposium disagreed on what changes should be made in order to fix the problem.

Robert Leiken, a guest scholar at the conservative Nixon Center, believes that a Mexican government proposal to grant legal immigrant status to currently illegal Mexican workers in the United States, along with other related reforms, are the wrong steps to take in light of the security problems associated with the Mexican border.

"Given current threat assessments, probably all of these (security) mandates have higher priority than a policy to deal with nine million illegal aliens, as important as that may be," said Leiken during the Aug. 6 panel discussion on Mexican immigration policy sponsored by the Nixon Center and the Center for Immigration Studies.

Before Sept. 11, Mexican President Vicente Fox and other Mexican officials had requested that the United States increase the annual legal quota for legal Mexican immigrants from 75,000 to 250,000. They also proposed establishing an amnesty program for the millions of illegal workers currently residing in the United States.

The administration of President George W. Bush continues to show interest in this plan, despite the fact that since last fall, the administration has toughened its approach to border security in the southern United States, increasing the budget for next fiscal year and placing more emphasis on developing a stronger security presence along the Mexican boarder.

Leiken and other policy experts believe that proposals to liberalize U.S. policy toward illegal Mexican immigrants are the wrong tactic given current security risks.

But some critics of current U.S. policy believe that although security problems exist, it is only through open engagement with Mexico the country that the U.S. government can reduce the security threat.

"Mexican immigrants are not a direct threat to homeland security," said Leiken. "The real problem is that a large illegal population creates an active market for illegal documents."

Leiken and others say that because of this and other side effects of the large pool of illegals, the focus of U.S. immigration policy should be on improving Mexico's control of immigration, not liberalizing the U.S. response.

"We need to work to extend the rule of law to Mexico's border and seaports," he said. "Helping to extend the rule of law in Mexico is, in light of 9/11, our most important Mexican policy role."

George Grayson, a professor of government at the College of William & Mary, said at the forum that the Mexican government must improve its control of the border and end its use as a conduit for illegal entry to American soil.

His research shows that more than 100 intricate criminal organizations run afoul of Mexican law enforcement in the southern United States running illegal immigrants from around the world through the porous border.

"Increasing numbers of Asians, Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants are able to cross the boarder with 'aiders' who are linked from their home countries all the way to the United States," said Grayson.

He also noted that guest work programs, like that proposed by Mexican president Fox last fall, have historically produced a parallel stream of illegal workers. Grayson and Leiken said this shows the need for reform within Mexico before new immigration deals should be discussed.

Leiken also noted that immigration problems may get even worse under plans for reorganizing immigration management under the new Department of Homeland Security. Realignment disrupts even the best run agencies, he said, adding that placing more responsibility onto an agency as problem-plagued as the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be "irresponsible."

"A hurricane is not the time to turn on the sprinklers," he said.

Demetrios Papademetriou, co-director of the Migration Policy Institute, dismissed these as the politically motivated views of immigration skeptics, not of those interested in discussing policy alternatives.

"The unfortunate thing is that a lot of the politics that permeate this conversation are passed on as facts and as intellectually valid," he said.

Papademetriou has long advocated greater cooperation between the American and Mexican governments as a means to address the problem of immigration.

He says that if the United States could take care of its immigration problems unilaterally, it would have already done so. He also noted that the $2.5 billion per year invested in border patrol policy and increased efforts to crack down on illegal aliens have had little effect. The population of illegal immigrants has ballooned, and nearly half of these illegals are believed to be Mexican born.

He says what is needed is an honest recognition of policy failures and of the need for a shift in focus.

"The outcome of all of this increasing effort is a higher level of illegal immigration," said Papademetriou "We are not talking about nuclear science here. This is not high mathematics. This is replacing a whole set of faulty assumptions and a paradigm of enforcement and management that has become exhausted.

At the forum, Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies -- a think tank that believes in limiting the influx of immigrants to the United States -- said there are also are economic reason to not undertake the proposed reforms to Mexican immigration policy.

He says that both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants ultimately cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year though their use of social programs, while providing little benefit to the economy.

"There is a high cost to cheap labor," said Camarota "An employer wants someone to work, and it looks like a good deal, but he doesn't see the (overall) costs to him (as a taxpayer)."

But Jeffrey Passel, an expert on immigration policy at the left-leaning Urban Institute, said this analysis is flawed because the impact of illegal immigrants on government social programs is minimal.

"They basically don't use social welfare benefits, they are not eligible," he said. "The two places where they have an impact on government expenditures are in the education system because they have children, and their children (rightfully) go to school. Secondarily, there is an impact on health care expenses, but it is not an overwhelming expenditure."

Passel argues that the tremendous number of Mexican immigrants in the United States -- a population which he estimates is split almost evenly between illegal and legal immigrants -- is very important to the economy because they take agricultural and service industry jobs.

He says that although he is unsure about the guest worker program proposals, current policies have clearly failed and may have been counterproductive.

He noted that there is a good deal of evidence showing that toughening the border before Sept. 11 converted a temporary labor migration into a more permanent one. Passell says that illegal workers that once came o the United States for short term jobs like picking produce were kept from returning home due to the greater difficulty involved in the journey back to Mexico

"Those folks are still here," said Passel. "They are living all over the country and I don't view them as a security threat, but as a group of people who are on the fringe of society, and to some extent outside of the normal institutions, they need to be dealt with. They undermine the functioning of the normal (security) systems."

Passel believes that policymakers need to redraft the discussion

"I think we really need to go back and start over to talk about specific proposals, in the context of where unemployment is at six percent and the economy is not growing very rapidly. That may well change the perspective," he said.

********

Analysts Say There is No Chance of Mexico-U.S. Migration Accord
The News (Mexico), August 7, 2002

A potential immigration accord is sure to be on the agenda when President Vicente Fox and U.S. President George W. Bush meet in Texas later this month. But despite both presidents' desire to craft such an agreement, neither country could implement one, analysts said Tuesday.

"This is not the hour for a comprehensive agreement on immigration," said Robert Leiken, a guest scholar at The Nixon Center. "I fear that today, neither the United States nor Mexico has the institutional capacity to carry out an immigration accord."

Fox has made no secret of his desire for an agreement, with proposals, such as amnesty for illegal immigrants and guest worker programs, which are seen as possible components of a deal.

The two countries reportedly were close to an accord before the Sept.11 terrorist attacks. Since then, U.S. officials have become reluctant to opening their borders to more immigrants. Additionally, experts said, the expected overhaul of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the creation of a Homeland Security Department would make implementing an accord virtually impossible.

"Even well-run agencies are invariably disrupted by reorganizations," Leiken said. "To heap atop of an agency already in disarray and facing daunting challenges a guest worker program, a legalization program or a deportation program seems, however politically attractive to some, imprudent and even irresponsible. A hurricane is not the time to turn on the sprinklers."

Bush, who left Washington for a month-long vacation Tuesday, will host Fox Aug. 26 at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. The presidents will find that public opinion on immigration has changed significantly in the last year, analysts said.

"Sept. 11 has changed the ambience in this town (Washington)," said George Grayson, a professor of government at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. "Nobody in Congress wants to talk about immigration reform, not before the November elections. And what we found even before Sept. 11 is that all Americans wanted immigration laws enforced."

Leiken and Grayson spoke at a presentation on Mexican immigration co-hosted by The Nixon Center and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), two conservative Washington think tanks. Other analysts at the briefing said an immigration accord is not necessary for the United States to cut down illegal immigration.

"I'm not sure we need an agreement," said Steven Camarota, CIS director of research. "I don't think illegal immigration from Mexico is uncontrollable or whether we need help from Mexico. We should pursue our own interests. I would make the case for enforcing the law and not so much placating Mexico."

Dimitri Simes, president of The Nixon Center, said the United States simply must decide to end illegal immigration.


"The assumption is that nothing can be done about illegal immigration," Simes said. "I don't quite understand that. We can have missile defense but we can't have border defense? We should not say that this is not doable. If nothing is happening, then it is because we don't yet want it to happen."

The U.S. has an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants, 3 million of them Mexican. Even if it wanted to, the United States probably could not handle an immigration accord, Leiken said.

"Bush could not likely go ahead and offer the kinds of incentives to Mexico that would get an agreement through the Mexican Congress," he said. "That would take legalization or a guest worker program, and those are very unlikely because I don't think we can handle them. What's important is for President Bush to explain just how much things have changed in this country after Sept. 11. I don't think Mexico understands."

********