(To watch the video on Youtube, click here.)

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

From: Ed Husain
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:19 PM
To: Shannon O’Neil

Very bold stance in your blog yesterday on undocumented immigrants and how they are, essentially, part of the U.S. social fabric.

From: Shannon O’Neil
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:20 PM
To: Ed Husain

Thanks – I guess bold is good. And it is true: millions are parents, spouses, or siblings of U.S. citizens. They are not going to leave even if it is hard to get a job…

From: Ed Husain
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:27 PM
To: Shannon O’Neil

I prefer bold any day over ‘weighing options’ — taking a stance is more compelling to this reader rather than presenting alternate arguments.

My hunch is to agree with you: it’s a very humane and morally obliging argument. Not to mention economically more viable.

I struggle with its logical conclusion, though: an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and thereby encouraging others to break the law and migrate in the hope of future amnesties.

From: Shannon O’Neil
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:36 PM
To: Ed Husain

The difference is this. Especially for Mexican migrants, given the combination of absolute number caps on legal visas combined with the large number of Mexican family members here, parents, kids, and siblings have to make the choice of growing up (for years potentially) apart waiting for a legal family visas, or coming illegally. So do you want to wait and do the paper work and hope you get to see your 4 year old when he/she is 8-9 years old? Or do you bring them illegally? That is an inhumane law, and should be changed. If you can bring your kid within months, then I think people would wait.

Same with parents that are illegal. Do you send them back, meaning they won’t see their kids for 10 years (at least), at least here in the United States? Yes they are illegal, but in part because of the dysfunction of current laws. So laws in my view need to be changed to reflect realities.

From: Ed Husain
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:54 PM
To: Shannon O’Neil

Not much of a choice between obeying the law and parting from one’s family for an indefinite amount of time. Thanks for explaining. I come to this with a European bias where we have a mess with consequences of legal and illegal immigration and no ’solution’ in sight. The US seems better suited to absorb immigrants (legal or otherwise). In Europe, we’re wrestling intensely with identity, race, multiculturalism, and what it means to be ‘European’. In contrast, immigrants here integrate into the United States and adopt the U.S. Constitution and history as their own.

Any other readers who would like to weigh in should feel free to do so in the comments section. I look forward to your feedback.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Republican presidentical candidate Romney speaks as Gingrich listens during the Republican presidential candidates debate in Tampa (Scott Audette/Courtesy Reuters).

During Monday’s Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney put forth his plan for dealing with illegal immigration: self-deportation. Here is how the exchange went:

Debate Moderator Adam Smith: Governor Romney there’s one thing I am confused about, you say you don’t want to round people up and deport them but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries, and then apply for citizenship. So if you don’t deport them, how do you send them home?

Governor Romney: Well the answer is self-deportation, which is people decide that they could do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here.

Will this work? Unlikely. Lessons from Mexican migrants, which comprise more than half of the unauthorized population and, the country closest and presumably the least costly for “self-deportation,” suggest otherwise. Studies show that during the 1970s and early 1980s, roughly one of every two migrants returned home within a year – and seventy-five percent left within two years – meaning most did in fact “self-deport.” The vast majority of Mexicans came not to settle, but to earn enough money to better their and their families’ lives at home. But this pattern – called circular migration by scholars – starting changing in the late 1980s (also when the United States began hardening its southern border). Today, fewer than one in ten immigrants return each year to Mexico. Thirty odd years ago Romney’s policy of self-deportation occurred regularly, today it does not.

Romney says adding stronger enforcement at the workplace (through E-Verify and other mechanisms), would encourage self-deportation again. He explained this part of his strategy:

We have a card that indicates who’s here illegally, and if people are not able to have a card and have that, through an e-verify system determine that they are here illegally then they’re going to find they can’t get work here, and if people can’t get work here they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.

Analyzing migration trends also cast doubt on these expectations. First, while the economic downturn has slowed those coming to the United States from Mexico, it hasn’t done much to send more home. This hints at the underlying reality for millions of America’s undocumented immigrants – they have deep roots in American society that go far beyond their jobs . As spouses, children, siblings, neighbors, customers, homeowners, and worshippers, they are intricately intertwined in America’s social fabric. They won’t voluntarily leave behind their families and their lives. Instead, the only way to change the status quo is through an immigration policy that sees unauthorized migrants for what they really are: an integral part of America’s social fabric.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Central American immigrants await a train departure to the north of Mexico, on top of a freight train in Arriaga, Chiapas (Jorge Lopez/Courtesy Reuters).

Looking ahead to the new year ahead of us, these next two weeks I want to look at important developments affecting Latin America that are worth keeping a close eye on in 2012. The first is the changing nature of immigration.

The flow of immigrants from Latin America to the United States, a constant and often accelerating trend of the last three decades, slowed in 2011. The most prominent was the change from Mexico. New arrivals fell off a cliff, with apprehensions at the border hitting their lowest levels in seventeen years. The drop is so great that Doug Massey, head of the Mexican Migration Project (a long term survey of Mexican emigration at Princeton University), claims that for the first time in sixty years, Mexican migration to the United States has hit a net zero.

Though Mexico is the single largest source of migrants to the United States, providing roughly a third of all newcomers, they weren’t the only change.  Anecdotal evidence at least suggests that many Brazilian migrants – which once numbered around one million – started heading home as well. Unemployment fell to all time lows, and numerous articles pointed out the labor scarcities both for high and low skilled workers.

There are many reasons behind these trends, some general, some country specific. Many point to the Obama administration’s rather tough immigration policy as one reason for the decline. A record-breaking 400,000 immigrants were deported last year, and immigration prosecutions increased almost eighty percent along the U.S-Mexico border in the last four years. For Mexico, others speculate that the rise of organized crime and violence along the border may deter some from contemplating the journey (though studies, such as that done by Jezmin Fuentes et al., suggest this may be less of a deterrent than many claim).

An important factor is the weak U.S. economy. With unemployment rates hovering at just over eight percent, there are fewer jobs for natives and migrants alike. This has occurred at a time when many of their home countries are growing steadily – at a decent 4 percent regional average clip, and much more in particular countries and economic strongholds. Better job opportunities in the region broadly — but particularly in Brazil — encouraged many to return home, and kept others from leaving at all.

Looking ahead, a U.S. economic recovery would recreate the pull north for Latin Americans seeking to improve their lot. If the Chinese economy stumbles this too could slow returns, or push more migrants north (especially from Brazil, which counts China as its largest trading partner). Meanwhile, flows from Central America are likely to continue as long as economic opportunities there remain scarce. The real question is Mexico. There, demographics have already shifted, with fewer Mexicans coming of age and entering the work force each year. As a result, the Mexican immigration boom of the 1990s and early 2000s is unlikely to be repeated ever again.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

First lady Michelle Obama attends a Hispanic Heritage event at Lamb Public Charter School in Washington (Yuri Gripas/Courtesy Reuters).

At last week’s Republican presidential debate a member of the audience provocatively reminded the candidates that not all of the Latinos in the United States are illegal, and then asked them, “What is the message from you guys to our Latino community?” Nearly everyone on stage dodged the question, saying that they didn’t have a specific message for Hispanic voters because “they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants” such as a healthy economy and access to affordable health insurance. That may be true, but the exchange raises the broader issue of whether the Republicans can connect with the growing number of American citizens with links back to Latin America.

Finding a good answer to this question is more important than ever. Some 50.5 million people – or one in six Americans – fall under this moniker. In every single state of the union, the Latino population grew over the past decade – including in swing states such Florida, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina.

What the presidential frontrunners have done quite vocally is attack one another for “soft” immigration stances and lashed out against “illegals”. Herman Cain ratcheted up the rhetoric to an all time high, suggesting electrifying the border fence and killing anyone who tried to cross into the United States from Mexico.  A wave of harsh immigration laws – requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is undocumented, punishing landlords that rent to those without papers, and even checking immigration status at schools — have passed in states including Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. With the economy in the doldrums and unemployment near historic highs, blaming illegal immigrants for many of America’s ills has gained traction, particularly within the Republican Party.  Though technically not directed at U.S. Latinos, many feel the rising hostility targets them all the same.

While it may be awhile until the full economic effects of these laws are clear (a recent study by the Council of the Americas suggests that the restrictive laws hurt rather than help local employment), the political impact is more immediate. How the polarization will  play out in the primaries –will it further energize a strongly anti-immigrant conservative base, or mobilize Latino and other pro-immigrant groups (along the lines of the coalition that defeated an English-only bill in Nashville, Tennessee in 2009) – remains to be seen. But in the general national election, it is hard to imagine how it helps its proponents.

At the Western Republican Leadership Conference/CNN debate Rick Santorum was the only Republican presidential candidate who seemed to recognize what other prominent party leaders (such as Karl Rove and Jeb Bush) have been saying now for awhile: the Republicans cannot afford to alienate this huge and growing demographic. They also don’t have to. The Republican Party has the opportunity to connect with Latinos on a number of issues, including family values, faith-based views, and an emphasis on entrepreneurship and small businesses. But if Rick Santorum is the only Republican hopeful that understands the importance of reaching out to Latinos, then the party is in trouble. President Obama won a whopping 67 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, and preliminary counts suggest that this demographic will only be more important this time around. History suggests that minorities, while often punching below their electoral weight, tend to turn out for national presidential (as opposed to midterm) elections. In 2012, they will represent over a third of the voting age population — an all time high.  To compete, the Republicans have to come up with a better answer, or they risk losing America’s fastest growing electorate.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Governors (L-R) Jose Guadalupe Osuna Millan of Baja, Humberto Moreira Valdes of Coahuila, Texas Governor Rick Perry, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jose Natividad Gonzalez Paras of Nuevo Leon, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and Eduardo Bours Castelo of Sonora pose as characters from the movie "Terminator" at the 26th Border Governors Conference (Courtesy Reuters).

This week the Mexican state of Baja California will host the two-day Border Governor’s Conference. Started nearly two decades ago, the annual meeting brings together governors from all four U.S. and six Mexican border states to discuss the issues directly affecting their states and citizens. At its height in the early 2000s, the governors and their ministers met not just with each other but also with representatives from Commerce, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other departments and agencies to influence border-centered debates in both Washington, DC and Mexico City.

But in recent years the conference has fallen on hard times, a victim of polarizing politics. The 2009 session hinted at the divides, as the governors of Arizona, California and Texas failed to make it to Monterrey due to “scheduling conflicts.” It hit its nadir in 2010 in the wake of Arizona SB 1070. The Mexican governors wrote a letter calling the law “discriminatory [and] racist” and announced their plan to boycott the meeting if hosted, as planned, by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in Phoenix. Brewer cancelled the conference in retaliation. In the end, Governor Richardson of New Mexico held the meeting, but no other U.S. governors attended, leaving the future of this consultative mechanism in limbo.

The conference also has suffered from a sprawling agenda and size. With its initial successes the agenda items grew, as did the number of participants. In recent years there have been some 25 working groups on topics ranging from wildlife to science and technology. The influx of hundreds of staffers and activists has made the process much more cumbersome, and reduced the intimacy and spirit of cooperation that guided the conference in the past. Reduced in large part to the signing of agreements and photo opportunities, many governors (particularly from the United States), began skipping the event.

As the United States and Mexico search for common ground and mutual solutions to pressing problems, it is time to revitalize this mechanism. It should refocus on practical problems facing the border states and their residents. Rather than covering the gamut, the agenda should be streamlined to emphasize a few vital issues. It must enable leaders to actually meet and discuss the serious challenges facing their states and constituencies, re-energizing the consultative element of the event. Most pressing today is security, where policy so far has been guided from the center, even though the effects are concentrated on the border.

Once refocused, the border governors need to organize better to influence their respective governments, shaping policies that in turn shape the border. One potential model is the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), which brings together state legislators, governors, civil society and businesses to lobby the federal government and strengthen U.S.-Canada border security and the region’s economic competitiveness. Another is scaling up the San Diego Association of Governments’s (SANDAG) annual binational conference, which brings together local leaders in California and Baja California to address just one broad agenda item at each meeting – such as the economic impact of wait times at shared border crossings.

As Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano repeatedly said that one of her closest day-to-day working relationships was with Sonora Governor Eduardo Bours. This reality – that cross-border issues and events strongly affect border state residents’ daily lives — hasn’t changed. Revitalizing the Border Governor’s Conference is one means to address these shared challenges, and reincorporate regional problem-solving strategies into larger U.S.-Mexico debates.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Undocumented Migrants travel on raft bound for Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico (Daniel Leclair/Courtesy Reuters).

While two weeks ago Damien Cave’s great New York Times piece highlighted the positive economic factors keeping Mexicans at home, this week the Wall Street Journal adds border crossing dangers to the reasons for a downward trend in undocumented migration. This holds doubly true for Central Americans. A recent RAND study shows that while fewer Mexicans are coming to the United States, fewer are leaving as well, even with the economic downturn. Its authors suggest that this is due to the “target earner hypothesis,” which holds that migrants will not return to their home country until they have earned a prefixed level of savings. I’d add that the increasing costs and dangers of returning must also affect migrants’ calculation.

Though unlikely before the 2012 presidential election, these changing dynamics may open a space again to talk about immigration reform.  I recommend CFR’s immigration policy Task Force, published in 2009, for some serious thoughts on what U.S. national interests here comprise, and what should be done.

Lastly, Arturo Valenzuela’s tenure at the State Department has now officially ended. Steve Clemons offers his take, emphasizing the positive steps the outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs took toward establishing a more consistent, less volatile U.S. policy toward Latin America. Let’s hope for continuity rather than change going forward.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Venezuelan President Chavez looks on as his Brazilian counterpart Lula da Silva speaks during their meeting at Miraflores Palace in Caracas in July, 2010 (Jorge Silva/Courtesy Reuters).

Jorge Dominguez’s recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere gives an overview of Latin America’s progress toward democratic consolidation in recent history, and the role the international community has played in this slow, but steady, march.

Time and America’s Quarterly have two good pieces on Mexico’s state level elections last weekend. While both rightly focus on the PRI’s strength coming out of the election, it didn’t win everywhere. The party lost nine municipalities it previously held in the state of Hidalgo, due in large part to successful alliances between the PAN and PRD. Meanwhile, the PRD mayor of Mexico City urges that these ties must become stronger to give his party and its allies a fighting chance in the 2012 presidential elections.

A recent New York Times article looks at the current state of  illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S., highlighting how changing dynamics within both countries dissuade Mexicans from crossing the border illegally. This discussion addresses issues I raised in the past, namely changing demographics and new economic realities, including the rise of the middle class in Mexico and the region more broadly.

Lastly, for readers worried about Brazil’s overheating, this Economist graph won’t calm your fears.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A shaman performs a ritual in front of a photograph of President Barack Obama in Lima (Mariana Bazo/Courtesy Reuters).

Between March 19 and 23, President Obama will take his first foreign trip this year – and his first ever to South America. He will kick it off in Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro, then head to Santiago, and finish up in San Salvador. The trip’s goal, as announced in his State of the Union address, is to “forge new alliances across the Americas.” Alongside the obvious meetings between presidents, in the works are business roundtables, a visit to one of Rio’s favelas, an Egyptian style speech to “all Latin Americans” in Santiago, and educational activities for his daughters, who, along with the First Lady, will accompany him.

Why these three nations?

Brazil is the obvious choice. It has grown into an economic and diplomatic powerhouse, weighing in on world issues from financial reform to climate change. Under Lula, it flexed its muscle at times to the discomfort of the United States – on nuclear proliferation and Middle East politics, U.S. bases in the region, and the Honduran standoff. With newly installed President Dilma Rousseff’s openness to deepening U.S.-Brazil ties, there are high hopes on both sides that the trip will open a new chapter in the relations between the two largest economies of the Americas.

On the table will be trade and investment, particularly on clean energy and Brazil’s infrastructure needs in the lead up to the World Cup and the Olympics games. Also up for discussion will be China and its currency, as companies in both countries struggle to compete with Chinese imports and investments.

The other two nations are less obvious stops. Important as nations with which the United States maintains strong friendly ties, they are also examples of pragmatic and progressive governments from across the ideological spectrum. Chile’s Sebastián Piñera is leading one of the region’s most prosperous and stable nations from the center-right– the first elected conservative leader since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. Obama’s visit will put the finishing touches on a nuclear pact, and the two leaders will work on clean energy and intellectual property issues (in particular the steps to get Chile off the U.S. priority watch list for failing to protect IP rights). Both leaders are keen to discuss innovation and entrepreneurship – part of their domestic political platforms.

El Salvador’s Mauricio Funes rules from the other side of the spectrum. A reformed revolutionary, he is the United States’ strongest partner today in Central America. The presidents will focus on security– Funes presented a $900 million plan to Hillary Clinton last fall, which would quadruple U.S. commitments under the Merida Initiative to Central America – as well as issues of economic cooperation and poverty reduction. The future of the 2.5 million Salvadorans (roughly one of every four) living in the United States will also be on the table, as Funes hopes to replace the Temporary Protected Status under which most live with a path to permanent residency.

What is also interesting is who is not on the list. The President, First Lady, and family will not be stopping in Buenos Aires, Argentina; a decision said to upset President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Behind the scenes, many feel that the old aphorism once attributed to Brazil is perhaps now more applicable to Argentina, that it is “not a serious country.” Also not on the itinerary is Colombia, in part because Obama has no good news to bring his counterpart on the long-delayed free trade agreement.

Though timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, nothing so grandiose will be in the works. Nevertheless, as the heads of state meet and talk about an array of issues, Obama has the opportunity to make a significant change. In addition to the usual bilateral and regional topics, it is important that Obama bring Latin America into his thinking about global challenges. This shift, though subtle, would be the start of a real transformation in U.S.-Latin America relations.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

For those of you who may prefer to read in Spanish, my Foreign Affairs article on Mexico has been translated and appears in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica, which you can find here.