When U.S.
President George W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe
Calderón meet on November 9, the U.S.-Mexico border will be
at the top of their agenda. Their first priority should be shared
initiatives that make border communities more safe, secure, and
prosperous. This will require substantially reducing the illegal
border crossing that fuels criminal activity on both sides.
Moving Beyond the
Fence
Neither Americans
nor Mexicans should be satisfied with the Secure Fence Act of 2006
that President Bush signed into law last month. North of the Rio
Grande, U.S. border operations are likely to worsen in the short
term, regardless of the measures in the legislation, because
it will take months and years to implement them. Over that period,
hundreds of thousands seeking to enter the United States will
discover new ways to circumvent border protections.
The Secure Fence
legislation, while important, is insufficient in itself. Indeed, if
all the United States does is try to build a fence, the problem may
get worse, not better. Without a broader approach to immigration,
more fences, if built, could consume the lion's share of the
federal budget for border security, leaving inadequate resources
for other critical tasks, such as employer enforcement, detention,
and removal.
Mexico is unhappy
because the bill symbolizes U.S. suspicions that Mexico cannot be
considered an equal partner in securing the border. But the lack of
security is as much a threat to Mexico as the U.S., because the
flood of crime and corruption that have accompanied surging illegal
flows across the border undermines free trade and travel.
A Cooperative
Strategy
For starters, the
two leaders must craft an effective strategy to disrupt existing
undocumented migrant pipelines and make legal migration a viable
alternative. A successful disruption plan should have three
components. First is security and enforcement. Mexico should
establish floating security checkpoints on its southern border and
along known migrant byways, such as the railroads that run from
Chiapas to Texas. The United States should ensure rapid, robust
border patrol deployment and consistent enforcement along its
southwest border. To make legal migration attractive and aid
enforcement, employer certification procedures, Social Security and
Medicare tax filing, and the visa application process should be
simplified and streamlined.
Second, Bush and
Calderón must find ways to help border states and
municipalities develop their own solutions to protect the frontier
while facilitating legal commerce. Platforms already exist for
this, from the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the
North American Development Bank to the U.S.-Mexico Binational
Commission Working Group on Homeland Security and Border
Cooperation. Today, the North American Bank is underfinanced, and
decisions in Mexico are slowed by the need to deal with its
centralized bureaucracy.
Third, they must
discuss Mexico's responsibility to foster a more competitive
economy and boost employment. Mexico should phase out remaining
monopolies in the communications and energy sectors, continue
easing cumbersome business regulations, and strengthen its courts
and the rule of law so that contracts can have teeth. Education
must be improved in rural areas, while the country's 80-year-old
land tenure system should be phased out to let occupants farm more
efficiently or sell titled property to raise capital.
Fourth, Mexico
should revitalize the Fox Administration's project to reduce
Central American migration by helping its neighbors to the south
become more economically prosperous. Called Plan Puebla Hacia
Panama, it would have stimulated industrialization and trade in
Mexico's southern states and Central American neighbors.
What would not be
welcome at this meeting is posturing, such as statements that
Mexicans have an automatic right to migrate to the United States or
that fences make good neighbors. The best conversation starter is
to say that a secure border is a shared objective and ask what the
U.S. and Mexico can do together to realize that goal.
Stephen
Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst, and James Jay Carafano,
Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National Security and
Homeland Security, in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation.