For years, decades, migration has been seen in Mexico as a humanitarian right. That kind of top-down rhetoric is now complicating the Mexican government's efforts to suppress migration flows.
Listen to this note:
Anti-immigrant sentiment is widespread in the United States, where Congress is on the verge of approving a draconian law aimed at immigrants and Department of Homeland Security raids have resumed in California's Central Valley. But what about in Mexico, where President Claudia Sheinbaum must confront increasingly aggressive calls for stricter enforcement by the incoming Trump administration and where migration has long been defended as a natural human right? Ariel Soto, of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan organization, says that as migrants, including large numbers of minors, continue to pass through the country, Mexico faces an “identity crisis” as it searches for a way forward. (This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.)
El País reports that a man has been arrested in Mexico Increasing number of migrant childrenHave you seen that too? And if so, what does it tell us about current migration flows?
What I’ve seen in the data is that the number of children traveling alone has actually declined since 2021, when Central American migration, primarily from Guatemala and Honduras, began to slow relative to other countries, including Venezuela, Colombia and Haiti, from where migrants tend to travel largely as single adults. That could mean more minors are traveling with families or in larger groups of children. Still, the number of minors remains relatively high, presenting significant challenges for U.S.-Mexico negotiations.
What do you think are these challenges?
In Mexico, there is a law that was passed in 2020 and was implemented in 2021 that prohibits the detention of any child traveling alone or with another person through Mexico. Additionally, anyone traveling with a minor cannot be separated from that child, as this is deemed to be against the child’s best interest. There is a world of difference between that law and what is in place in the United States, where we continue to detain children, albeit for a shorter period.
Why this discrepancy between the two countries?
In general, the Mexican Congress has taken a very pro-humanitarian stance regarding migrant children. This doesn't mean that just because there are laws protecting children, these laws are enforced or implemented uniformly throughout Mexico. Obviously, that's not the case. But, at least on paper, Mexican policies are more child-friendly. In the United States, we haven't seen immigration reform of any kind for a long time. So whether it's Biden, Trump, Obama, or anyone else, there really hasn't been that ability to make significant changes regardless of who's president.
Still, migrant children passing through Mexico face significant risks, don't they?
You've probably heard reports of how migrants think that Mexico, not the Darien Gap, is the most difficult place to crossIt is in Mexico where many migrants, including children, are exposed to sexual or physical harassment, corruption, and not only among bad actors, coyotes or smugglers, but also politicians, police, the National Guard and, particularly, the National Migration Institute (which oversees migration in the country). There have been information of very poor treatment of migrants by INM officials across Mexico for years. The journey from southern Mexico to northern Mexico is long, and the different routes people take are very dangerous in some cases. Children, especially very young ones, are probably the most vulnerable.
Anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise in the United States. What about in Mexico? Could there be a backlash as more immigrants choose to stay?
Migration through and from Mexico dates back to the late 1990s and early 1980s. Even before that, there has been travel to and from Central America in southern Mexico. What has changed is the number and type of migrants, and that has led to a more polarized image among the Mexican public toward migrants. I must say, though, that it is not like the one that exists in the United States. In Mexico, migration is maybe in the top 10, maybe in the top 15 priority issues, but it is nowhere near the top. The reason, in general, is that the Mexican public has conformed to the idea that migrants are just passing through, even when Mexican migrants themselves have gone to the United States. There is a kind of public understanding that migration happens, and that it happens through Mexico.
That began to change when we started seeing the caravans of 2017 and 2018, primarily of Honduran migrants seeking protection en masse. These caravans attracted not only international media, but also local media in Mexico. And that began to affect public attitudes, especially in places that were not directly located along transit routes, as more people began to view migrants as a threat, especially as more Haitian and Cuban migrants began to pass through the country. Now it is not uncommon to hear people complain that migrants compete for local resources that should be destined for Mexican citizens, or that they are a security threat.
Given these changing dynamics, what do you see from the Sheinbaum administration in terms of an emerging strategy?
For years, decades, migration has been seen in Mexico as a humanitarian right. That kind of top-down rhetoric is now complicating the Mexican government’s efforts to suppress migration flows, including what we see on the southern border with Guatemala, now the country’s most heavily controlled zone. Even former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador tried to say that migration was a net benefit for the people, even though control under his administration surpassed levels seen even during the most conservative Mexican administrations. The fact that Mexico’s most liberal or left-wing government has maintained the harshest policies toward immigration is a puzzle that speaks to the crisis of Mexican identity in recent years.
Can you tell us more about the idea that Mexico is going through an identity crisis? What role does migration play in that?
You can't say immigration is bad when Mexicans are leaving in large numbers and have been leaving in large numbers for a long time. The problem is that official rhetoric doesn't align with current practices. There is a gap between what the administration says and what it does.
And what is the administration doing or proposing to do?
On the one hand, Sheinbaum is under pressure to continue the policies of her predecessor, López Obrador, which involves increased surveillance at the southern border. At the same time, she is trying to press López Obrador's argument that addressing migration requires getting to its root causes in the countries of origin. They are trying to combine these two political strategies, and they have not really worked. Mexico, today, is Detaining more migrants every month than the United States. That's a fact. Mexico is trying to do more with less money than its American counterparts. The question is: how sustainable is that?
Of course, Trump is making numerous threats and increasing the pressure on Sheinbaum. What should we be watching for as this dynamic unfolds?
I think there are two key elements to focus on. One is how Sheinbaum will respond if there are mass deportations of Mexicans from the United States to Mexico. Will she cooperate, seeking to defend herself from Trump's economic threats? Or will she stand firm, yielding to the public reaction in Mexico to mass deportations? It's a difficult line to walk. The other element is that Mexico is going to need additional assistance if it continues with its enforcement policies. Sheinbaum has said that both the INM and COMAR (in charge of refugee resettlement) will see cuts in their budgets this year. How will Mexico continue its law enforcement policies with less money? Will the United States help? It's a difficult question, but one that is likely to come up in the negotiations.
One last question: What happens to migrants fleeing the increasingly intolerable conditions in countries that are reinforcing their borders?
If we go back to the first Trump administration, when migration levels were beginning to rise, people were not just moving to the United States. In fact, most Venezuelans were moving to Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. I think they will continue to go to Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Mexico. These countries are relatively stable politically. They have relatively good economic systems, and they need immigrants to create jobs and promote growth. If there were smart politicians in these countries who were looking to the future of their economies, this would be the time to try to control migration as a benefit to those societies.
You may be interested in: Raids begin in Kern and Tulare counties in California ahead of Donald Trump's arrival at the White House
