Opinion: Fox and Bush – Not AMLO and Trump – Offer a Realistic Path Forward for U.S.-Mexico Immigration Cooperation

In July, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador visited President Trump to celebrate the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The visit occurred a year after U.S. threats to impose tariffs on Mexico led both countries to use border crackdowns and ad-hoc policies such as the Migrant Protection Protocols to deter the arrival of Central American families seeking asylum in the United States. Although this approach reduced migration to the U.S.-Mexico border, its reliance on Mexico and the Northern Triangle governments to implement it failed to create a meaningful framework for managing migration in the region.

In spite of his, a restart of the relationship is possible, and the discussions between the administrations of Mexican President Vincente Fox and President George W. Bush offer a Biden administration or second Trump term a smarter – and more realistic – long-term approach to U.S.-Mexico cooperation on migration because it treated immigration as a part of the region’s economic landscape needing management, not as an aberration needing control.

The discussions, which started in 2001 to manage the historic irregular flow of Mexican migrants into the United States, sought to create a framework that would forge a “new and realistic approaches to migration to ensure it is safe, orderly, legal and dignified.” For instance, the plan explored the possibility of creating a temporary worker program that matched Mexican nationals with U.S. employers needing workers. Although the Bush administration was wary of legalizing the undocumented, the two countries contemplated regularization that would allow undocumented immigrants to legally work in the United States and access certain benefits such as driver’s licenses and Social Security cards.

Although Presidents Fox and Bush held a successful summit on these issues in early September 2001, the tragic events of the September 11th attacks led the United States to abandon these talks and focus on overhauling the immigration system’s national security components to prevent future attacks. Despite the necessity of these national security reforms, this pivot leaves historians to wonder whether these talks would have improved migration management in the region.

The discussion’s proposals weren’t perfect. For instance, its emphasis on regularization of undocumented immigrants isn’t a viable alternative to true legalization. These immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades, deserve the opportunity to become full-fledged members of their community, including having the chance to eventually pursue citizenship. Furthermore, a viable migration system that promotes the economic movement of migrants within the region must address permanent employment-based migration and not just temporary work visas, especially for migrants who can fulfill long-term labor market demands in the U.S. and want to settle in the United States permanently.

Furthermore, the discussions addressed economic-based Mexican migration to the United States without considering how these patterns can change over time. In 2018 and 2019, Central American families seeking asylum became the primary group traveling to the border, reversing long-term patterns where single Mexican men traveled to the U.S. seeking work. More migrants have also sought humanitarian protection in Mexico in recent years. Although single adults – many of whom are Mexican nationals – recently have reemerged as the primary group arriving at the border, a modern regional migration plan must adjust to changes in migration flows and incorporate the Northern Triangle governments into its formation and implementation.

Despite these weaknesses, the philosophy behind these discussions are too important to relegate them to the dustbin of history. Migration between Central America, Mexico, and the United States will always remain embedded in the region, meaning that the U.S. and Mexico need to prioritize a strategy that works to manage these movements not crush them. In addition to rethinking how countries in the region can reimagine the reception of humanitarian migrants in ways that allow for timely and due process with viable access to asylum, both countries also need to consider how economic-based immigration policies can assist with managing migration. Revisiting the Fox-Bush plans would be a smart first step towards this approach.