What Mexico sees as indifference from the White House has combined with antagonism from U.S. groups battling illegal immigration to create a relationship that is strained and chilly.
"Relations with the U.S. look like they are going sour," said Sydney Weintraub, a Mexico expert at the Washington-based International Center for Strategic Studies.
Mexicans are insulted that Republican lawmakers have focused on sealing the border while stalling a Senate proposal that would provide a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and their families. Mexico is also still stinging from U.S. criticism of its failure to control drug-related violence.
Washington, meanwhile, has not forgotten Mexico's opposition to the Iraq war, and insists that its southern neighbor is not doing enough to stem the tide of illegal migrants north, an issue that will remain front-and-center on the diplomatic agenda in what also is a U.S. election year.
"Immigration will remain an ever-larger and tougher bone of contention," said George Grayson of the College of William & Mary in Virginia.
With his eyes on an immigration accord, outgoing President Vicente Fox made it his mission during his six-year term to maintain a close relationship with the United States and his good friend President Bush — in spite of criticism at home that he was becoming Washington's puppet. Many Mexicans say his intimate ties won him few concrete benefits.
"The sobering effect of these experiences suggests that Mexico's next president will move the country away from Fox's tight embrace of the United States," wrote Pamela K. Starr of the New York think-tank Council on Foreign Relations.
Leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has promised to do just that. He says as president he would not "be the lackey of any foreign government" — a statement analysts say was a direct reference to the United States — and would return to Mexico's traditional noninterventionist foreign policy.
Felipe Calderon, the candidate of Fox's conservative party, would continue "close cooperation with the United States, but without a warm public embrace," Starr wrote.
Lopez Obrador also has promised to defy certain clauses of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He wants to renegotiate the agricultural sections of the accord, and says he will not allow elimination of tariffs on U.S. corn and beans scheduled for 2008.
Yet he also has said he would maintain a relationship "of respect and cooperation with the United States," and analysts agree he is unlikely to sign on to the harsh anti-U.S. rhetoric of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Bolivia's Evo Morales, given the economic and social importance of cross-border ties.
An estimated 11 million Mexicans live in the U.S., sending home about $20 billion every year, while Mexico directs nearly 90 percent of its exports to the United States.
Some have worried Lopez Obrador's election would upset U.S. markets. But those markets have been calmed by the candidate's economic advisers, who say his policies will be fiscally conservative despite his ideas for state intervention, protectionism and subsidies, said Riordan Roett, director of Western Hemisphere studies at Johns Hopkins University.
Although Washington would clearly prefer a victory by the Harvard-educated, free-trade-friendly Calderon, Bush has promised to work with whoever is
I read what I thought was an excerpt and got chest pains! I knew it was too good to be true coming from the Al AP source. Oh yeah, this is Bush's fault. ;-)
You ain't seen nothing yet. If the Mexican Communist Party candidate, Lopez Obrador, wins the Presidential election today, you'll see our relations go to hell in a hand basket.
>Mexico refused to do nothing about the corruption<
I would say Mexico refused to do ANYthing about corruption, and unfortunately corruption does not stop at the borders, but extends all the way to Washington, D.C..
I certainly have noticed no cooling of the affection between the two countries on the gubmint level. I fear the lovefeast continues inspite of the outrage of the American people.
"he will not allow elimination of tariffs"
Well, there might be an idea--let's put a tariff on every ILLEGAL we find and charge it back to the mexican government.
I dunno.
You might want to post the article first and your comments about it at the bottom.
Maybe that's just me, and the way it's been done for a decade or so.
I'm rooting for Obrador. The current Mexican govt is ruining our country with its policy of exporting its poverty here. At least Obrador promises to help the poor stay in Mexico.
Fox was a big disappointment in terms of his relationship with the US. Because he was the first non-PRI leader in 70 years, he felt he had to prove his bona fides by being doubly obnoxious to us. Also, on a personal level, Fox was a little flaky - anybody else remember the bizarre events with his live-in girlfriend, whom he suddenly married in 2001 and who announced a couple of years ago that she wanted to run for president this year? Her behavior had already made her less than popular, and they squelched that idea fast enough!
This is a bogus estimate. The actual number is probably closer to 45 million.
I sort of see our conservative leaders ending-up as the current Mexican conservatives, especially given the direction we're taking. They'll be interested only with the rich, and believe me I'm not a class warfare dim idiot...I just realize when you get a boat load of poor people, you end-up having an opposing power that works only for the rich...take Venezuela as a great example.
Without a conservative middle class, there isn't a reputable class of conservatism. Then we might as well shoot a bullet in our head. To me, it's extremely important we don't import poverty on a massive scale or we're asking for it...then again, I think we need to move towards normal people conservatives and less with the elites.
They are INSULTED that we won't take the dregs that they want to get rid of and put them on the dole here. Their concern for their countrymen is not that they are leaving in droves but that the US won't welcome them with open arms. Something here does not compute.
Illegal Aliens: A Few Myths to Keep in Mind . . .
GEORGE GRAYSON
Mexico City. Last Tuesday the Pew Hispanic Center announced that 41 percent of Mexicans surveyed in February and 46 percent questioned in May stated they would live in the United States if given "the means and opportunity." Indeed, two out of 10 people interviewed said they were prepared to enter the U.S. illegally. These figures could have amazing consequences because our Spanish- speaking neighbor has a population of nearly 106 million inhabitants.
Recent Virginia news stories have focused on the issue of illegals attending college in the U.S. Although we can sympathize with individuals, it might be useful to look at half-truths -- or, in some cases, myths -- that have suffused the immigration debate.
(1)Mexico has no good universities. True, many schools in the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) -- with 350,000-plus students -- are highly politicized. However, ITESM, known as "Monterrey Tech," has a network of excellent campuses throughout the country.
(2)Welcoming the 65,000 illegal aliens who graduate from high school to American colleges is cost-free. In fact, there are a limited number of places in freshman classes. Should individuals who have broken the law be preferred over applicants who have played by the rules?
(3)DIVERSITY HAS enriched the United States, which -- as a "nation of immigrants" -- has a moral obligation to extend a helping hand to the less fortunate of other lands. Times have changed. Exploding populations in poor countries and advances in transportation and communication have made America a "promised land" for millions upon millions of "have-nots." The U.S. has responded with the world's most liberal immigration policies. Yet, uncomfortably high domestic unemployment and overcrowded schools, highways, and hospitals mean that only a small fraction of those clamoring for admission can be accommodated without greatly sacrificing the quality of life of Americans, especially the poor.
(4)Illegal aliens are younger than the U.S. population as a whole and are, therefore, an economic asset. While there is an element of truth to this proposition, it overlooks the competition that immigrants pose to younger workers in the U.S., notably African-Americans and Chicanos, who suffer the highest rates of joblessness.
(5)Because they pay taxes, contribute to Social Security, and don't apply for welfare, illegal aliens put in more than they take from government coffers. Officials in Arizona find this proposition nonsensical: Illegal immigrants cost their state -- for education, health care, and prisons -- approximately $1.3 billion more annually than they pay in taxes. A study by the Center for Immigration Reform (CIS) found that the burden of such unlawful residents on the 2002 federal budget was $10.4 billion -- with Medicaid, health care, and prisons constituting the high-ticket items.
(6)Mexicans and other illegals perform menial work spurned by Americans. In some instances this is true; however, in March, 2003, there were 8.8 million Americans working full-time without a high-school education, 1.3 million school drop-outs unemployed, and a further 6.8 million not even in the workforce. "There is a good deal of evidence that these workers are in direct competition with Mexican immigrants -- i.e., these are jobs that Americans are doing already," according to immigration expert Mark Krikorian.
(7)AS IS THE case with most problems in a democracy, pressures will eventually compel American politicians to limit the flow of illegal aliens. In pursuit of political clout, many Hispanic-American groups welcome the influx of Spanish-speaking people.
The Electoral College magnifies the influence of ethnic groups viewed as power brokers in pivotal states such as California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Postponing action on unlawful immigration will strengthen those special pleaders who oppose enforcing U.S. laws.
(8)The guest worker plan that operated between 1942 and 1964 -- along with the 1986 amnesty -- proved successful in reducing illegal immigration and fostering bilateral cooperation. In fact, a robust stream of unlawful immigration paralleled the legal guest-worker program. Rather than end unlawful entries, the amnesty legislation gave rise to a snowballing of unlawful newcomers who believed that the first amnesty would beget a second amnesty, and so forth.
Continuing a porous border will see the current flood of illegals become a tidal wave and possibly spark an anti-foreign backlash in view of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose amnesty. The Statue of Liberty may hold the torch of freedom in one hand, but she has a book of laws in the other.
George Grayson, who represented the 97th District in Virginia's House of Delegates, teaches Latin American politics at the College of William & Mary