By Arturo Castellanos Canales *

Texas is taking immigration matters into its own hands — with cost and controversy attached. And its efforts are having a collateral effect on U.S. foreign policy.

First came Gov. Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star, meant to stop migrants from crossing the Texas-Mexico border. Now, just this month, the Texas Legislature passed SB 4, a deeply problematic law that criminalizes unauthorized entry of immigrants and allows Texas judges to effectively deport people to Mexico without coordinating with U.S. or Mexican authorities.

Together, the two efforts empower state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws — even though state and local law enforcement typically have limited familiarity with immigration enforcement, which has long been a federal responsibility.

SB 4 drew a rebuke from the Mexican government, and Operation Lone Star quickly elicited reactions from both the U.S. and Mexican governments: “The Government of Mexico reiterates its rejection of any measure that contemplates the involuntary return of migrants without respect for due process,” reads a Nov. 15 statement by Mexico’s secretary of foreign relations.

Another flashpoint came in July when Governor Abbott ordered the installation of buoys separated by discs with serrated edges in the Rio Grande and razor concertina wire on the riverbanks. This step elicited reactions from both the U.S. and Mexican governments.

Mexico’s responses are no small matter; it is the United States’ largest trading partner and a key hemispheric ally. Nor is Mexico’s concern new — it has long raised objections to Operation Lone Star for the program’s impact on migrants seeking protection in the United States as well as its adverse effects on trade and commerce.

Texas has asserted that Operation Lone Star was intended to protect the United States and is arguing that the buoys are entirely on the U.S. side of the border — not on the Mexican side, which would violate two international treaties regarding physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. In any case, Mexico’s government denounced the tactic, calling Texas’ action a trespass on its sovereignty.

The buoys also seem to violate the Rivers and Harbors Act here in the U.S., which prohibits the obstruction of U.S. waterways. Not to mention that immigration enforcement and foreign policy are exclusive authorities of the federal government, not states, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

Beyond legal breaches, the buoys and concertina wire along the river have exerted a human toll. In recent months, an asylum seeker was found dead in the southern section of the buoys, a pregnant woman was found trapped in the riverbank razor wire and had a miscarriage, and a 5-year-old was injured after being ensnared by a coil of concertina wire. Those incidents sparked indignation and pushed Mexico’s president to call Abbott’s actions “inhumane.” In yet another incident, a Texas National Guard officer shot a Mexican national across the Rio Grande, an action that Mexico’s government deemed “inadmissible” and a “violation of international law.”

In addition, in response to Texas’ increasingly intrusive border inspections of vehicles, Mexico has taken steps to disentangle its trade relationship with the state. In May 2022, Mexico’s Ministry of Economy announced that a new railway project connecting the port of Mazatlán, Mexico, to Winnipeg, Canada, would be routed through New Mexico instead of Texas as initially planned. Considering that Mexico is the largest trading partner of Texas (US $400 billion of goods cross annually through the Mexico-Texas border), the rerouting of the rail network is expected to have long-lasting effects on Texas’ economy.

Whether Texas’ actions have succeeded in stemming migration at the border or not — and indications are they have not — the acts of this single state have threatened to harm U.S. international prestige and credibility and have made U.S.-Mexico relations more tense.

So far, Mexico’s government has expressed its concerns about Texas’ policies only through U.S. diplomatic channels, including urging the U.S. government to remove the buoys and investigate the shooting incident. But Texas’ actions, including SB 4, could further harm relations between the two countries and lead Mexico to pursue remedies before an international tribunal. It could also deter businesses, organizations, and tourists from going to Texas and spending money there.

These diplomatic incidents are not minor. The current relatively friendly terms between the U.S. and Mexican administrations do not mean Mexico will continue to tolerate Texas’ unilateral actions. And that would undermine U.S. foreign policy at a time when U.S. credibility remains essential.

The U.S. government already filed a civil complaint against Texas for Operation Lone Star and ordered the state to remove the buoys along the Rio Grande — steps the Mexican government celebrated. As that litigation makes its way through the U.S. federal court system, U.S.-Mexico relations remain in the balance. Similarly, legal challenges to SB 4 are likely to follow, with significant implications for the U.S.-Mexico relationship slot dana.

While most people are focused on the national and domestic political implications of Texas’ actions along its border with Mexico, we must pay attention to the potential damage to U.S.’s international standing and its adverse effects on the Texan economy. These effects are precisely why immigration policy is the federal government’s responsibility — and why Republicans and Democrats on the federal level must work together on lasting solutions that balance security, compassion, and lawfulness scatter hitam.

* Arturo Castellanos Canales is the Policy & Advocacy Manager at the National Immigration Forum. Arturo holds a Doctorate in Juridical Science (J.S.D.) and a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Cornell Law School as well as a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from Escuela Libre de Derecho in Mexico City.​ This Op-Ed is part of a series sponsored by The Center for Binational Institutions’ whose mission is to promote a better understanding of the bilateral institutions between Mexico and the United States. The Center is a program of the US-Mexico Foundation is a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant.Twitter: @USMexicoFound

By Gabriel Eckstein *

As climatic changes continue to grip the American Southwest and precipitation declines, communities across the U.S.-Mexico border are not looking to the skies. Rather, they are turning their eyes to the ground below them, specifically to the numerous aquifers that cross the frontier. Unfortunately, a dearth of information, lack of monitoring, and near absence of cross-border cooperation make it unlikely that the region’s last vestige of native water will quench their growing thirst.

Hidden all across the frontier, from Baja to the Gulf, more than seventy subsurface formations holding precious groundwater crisscross the Mexico-US border. For many border communities—like Ciudad Juárez in Chihuahua, Ciudad Acuña in Coahuila, Del Rio in Texas, Nogales in Sonora and Arizona, and a dozen others—the water in these transboundary aquifers is the only reason they continue to survive the parched frontier.

Despite this heavy reliance, information about these resources is desperately lacking. Few aquifers have been explored or monitored, and scant information is available on the origins of the water, as well as their recharge rates, the extent of withdrawals, chemistry, flow rates, direction, dependent ecosystems, and much more. What is known is that many of the aquifers along the frontier are being overexploited as populations and industries expand, with little regard for sustainability or cross-border consequences. Moreover, many are polluted due to poorly regulated–or unregulated–agricultural and municipal runoff, industrial waste, and mining activities.

More troubling, though, is the reality that the two nations have yet to ink an agreement addressing how these underground resources might be managed, shared, exploited, or protected. In fact, groundwater has long been neglected in Mexico-US political relations. Transboundary aquifers are excluded from the existing treaty regime, rarely appear on the binational agenda, and have only sporadically received the focus of federally funded research. Without cooperation, these resources are doomed to dwindle, jeopardizing the viability of the region’s communities, economic growth, and environment.

As temperatures continue to rise and droughts become more widespread, there is an urgent need for action on the region’s transboundary aquifers. Information on the border region’s groundwater is desperately needed, especially for those aquifers underlying cities and communities that depend on the subsurface resources for their survival. That information must also be shared and exchanged between the two neighbors, especially among stakeholders, local and regional leaders, and academics. In addition, where rivers do traverse the frontier—such as the Rio Grande, Colorado River, Tijuana River, San Pedro River, and Mimbres River—information on the hydrological relationship that those rivers have with surrounding aquifers must be explored to better understand how they influence each other.

The two countries and the border states should also come to terms with administering these shared resources, especially their allocation, and protection. Ideally, because every subsurface formation tends to function differently, Mexico and the U.S. should develop aquifer-specific rules, policies, and procedures for the most critical aquifers on the border. If that is not possible, at the very least, they should develop principles and priorities to guide them in managing these critical freshwater resources under drought conditions.

Lastly, the two nations should facilitate public participation in the decision-making process, especially from local and regional stakeholders. Groundwater use is a local activity. Local institutions and communities may not always have the resources or technical knowledge to address broad and scientifically complex transboundary challenges, yet they are typically better informed about local cross-border needs and challenges. They are also likely to be more responsive and adaptable to evolving environmental and economic circumstances.

Relying on the Rio Grande, Colorado River, and the other rivers that cross the Mexico-US frontier is no longer an option. Overallocation and climate change-driven droughts have made it a foregone conclusion. If the border region is to have a future, it lies underground in its aquifers.

* Gabriel Eckstein is Professor of Law and Director of the Energy, Environmental & Natural Resources Systems Law Program at Texas A&M University. Holding an LL.M. in International Environmental Law, a Juris Doctor in Law, an M.S. in International Affairs, and a B.A. in Geology, Gabriel focuses his research and teaching on water, natural resources, and environmental law and policy issues at the local, national, and international levels. He regularly advises UN agencies, national and sub-national governments, NGOs, and other groups on international and US water and environmental issues, and has represented nations before the International Court of Justice. This Op-Ed is part of a series sponsored by The Center for Binational Institutions’ whose mission is to promote a better understanding of the bilateral institutions between Mexico and the United States. The Center is a program of the US-Mexico Foundation is a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant.. Twitter: @USMexicoFound

By Yussef Núñez Menéndez *

The last couple of years have forever changed the international system’s dynamics and have also altered domestic affairs in some countries. The Covid-19 pandemic’s effect on the world’s economy has impacted global trade and supply chains causing a significant increase in inflation and economic recessions. Also, the nearly 11-month-long Russian occupation of Ukraine has rekindled latent geopolitical tensions and aggravated energy prices. It has also tested the critical bilateral relationship between the world’s biggest economies, China and the United States. While China is currently struggling with a public health crisis echoing that of early 2020, the U.S. continues to pursue a tough and inflexible versus China policy in several areas including trade.

Mexico has not been exempt from this period of geopolitical tensions but it does not mean it cannot take advantage of it for the better. The sum of the recent events –along with the rise of nationalism– is impacting globalization. This evolution has resulted in closer regional cooperation. North America should stand strong in this new era. Last month, the region’s priorities were in fact addressed during the North American Leaders’ Summit (NALS) held in Mexico City. The key points in the Summit’s agenda were diversity, equity, and inclusion, climate change, regional competitiveness, migration, health, and security.

Undoubtedly, the NALS agenda is important and relevant for Mexico. However, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s own domestic priorities seem at odds with it.

Take climate change for instance. How can AMLO’s government speak of climate action whilst two of his key infrastructure projects (the Dos Bocas oil refinery and the Mayan Train across the Yucatán jungle) are climate regressive and a threat to biodiversity? The lack of congruence between the current Mexican administration’s policies and its implementation – unfortunately – displays a duality, thus depicting a colossal gap between proposals and final outcomes.

A similar argument can be made regarding the current Mexican government’s strategy towards nearshoring. Today, Mexico is missing a lifetime opportunity to attract more Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and replace Eastern Asia as a regional manufacturer. Basic geography has driven the private sector to consider Mexico as an alternative to China to access North America’s market. However, this is not enough for private companies to consider migrating their operations to Mexico. The country does have to foster proper infrastructure, security, and institutional safety to protect private investment. Attracting more FDI would promote economic growth, incentivize Mexico’s competitive marketplace, and generate jobs. The aggregate increase in production will inevitably maximize knowledge spillovers and positively affect Mexico’s human capital. An interesting development is the recent announcement of Plan Sonora which addresses regional competitiveness, engages in nearshoring, and attracts FDI in the automobile industry. Despite its pros and cons, critiques, or praise, this engagement could lead to the appropriate direction.

Notwithstanding, long-run economic development seems not to be a national priority for AMLO’s government. We can only hope that the winner of the 2024 Mexican president has a better understanding of world affairs to better position Mexico as a key player in the complex 21st century. The board is set, it is Mexico’s move.

* Yussef Nuñez Menéndez has a BA degree in International Relations from the Universidad Anáhuac México. He is currently pursuing a MSc in International Development at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), specializing in Applied Development Economics. He is an associate of the Mexican Council of International Affairs’ Young Professional Program  (PJ-Comexi). The US-Mexico Foundation is a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant.. Twitter: @USMexicoFound

By Bertha Banuet *

On December 12th of last year, the United States and Mexico celebrated the bicentennial of diplomatic relations between both countries. And with it, we have the unique opportunity to look back and assess our recent accomplishments and failures.

On the one hand, there are solid achievements which continued to foster bilateral such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the new Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Heath, and Safe Communities (which replaced the Merida Initiative), the Migrant Protection Protocols (often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy) and other programs to address key issues of mutual interest. On the other hand, the impact and results of this first or second-generation initiatives have not borne the expected fruit.

The main bilateral challenges have remained the same for decades: security, trade and migration. Irregular migration through the Mexico border has been one of United States’ main priorities of its foreign policy in recent decades. The examination itself of the current humanitarian crisis happening along the U.S.-Mexico border provides us a deeper insight into the long and complicated U.S.-Mexico relationship. However, there is a need to examine other migration trends happening between countries which involves the boost in the number of U.S. citizens opting to live in Mexico. What is exactly happening on the other side of the wall?

First, we need to understand where and why are U.S.-born citizens moving to Mexico. Mexico is the country with the most American emigrants in the world. The number of U.S.-born citizens living in the country is close to 1.6 million by late 2021, according to the U.S. Department of State. However, this number is likely higher since the Mexican government doesn’t keep track of exactly how U.S. citizens hold either resident or tourist visas. In the first five months of last year, it was estimated that 5.3 million U.S. tourists visited Mexico, which makes entirely necessary to reconsider how many of them have decided to stay.

The reasons driving U.S. citizens to stay in Mexico can be classified into five different categories based on their occupation and their main reason for making Mexico their new home. Firstly, there are U.S. retirees and pensioners, who intend to live permanently without seeking employment in Mexico. Most of them move to primarily three regions, Ajijic along the shores of Lake Chapala in Jalisco and (where it is estimated that more than 10,000 U.S. citizens live), San Miguel de Allende, in Guanajuato (14,000 are estimated to live there), and Baja California. Some of them have seen in Mexico a country where to live while purchasing prescription drugs at an affordable price.

Secondly, there is the new wave of remote workers and freelancers for mainly U.S. companies who often live in the most popular neighborhoods in Mexico City and in towns in the Yucatán Peninsula for several months. This group still gets their income in dollars and usually hold a tourist visa. They often take advantage of the lack of immigration restrictions and the low cost of living compared to U.S. living standards. In sum, they save money while enjoying of a better life style, as their dollars go much further in Mexico.

Thirdly, there are U.S.-citizens at the border that go back and forth from Mexico to the U.S. every day for work, studies, and vocational training. Although this has been occurring for decades, this phenomenon was aggravated by bursts of post-pandemic inflation, large-scale reallocations of economic resources, and an increase in housing prices. As a result, more U.S. citizens crossed to border and acquired property in main border cities such as in Tijuana, which in turn just became Mexico’s most populated municipality.

Fourth, there are people who work for either international or Mexican companies as well as businessmen who want to open a company in Mexico.

Last but not least, the fifth category, there is the U.S.-born children and teenagers who have emigrated to Mexico to accompany their parents: de facto deported, as a result of a stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration policy and laws involving mixed circumstances of voluntary and involuntary departures. Although most of them intend to return to the U.S. in the future, it is a fact that they still face substantial difficulties in the social transitions, tough times in the emotional distress, school adaptation making it into a disorienting and uprooting experience. De facto deported U.S.-born children data is unclear but it is estimated to be more than half a million, and the number increases every year.

Geographically speaking, the majority of Mexico’s foreign-born population is concentrated in the northern states with a total of 404,144 people living in Baja California, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, according to 2020 numbers collected by Mexico’s statistics agency (INEGI). Per the same count, there are 213,795 foreign-born persons living in the central states of Aguascalientes, Jalisco, Nayarit, Zacatecas, among others. Lastly, in the south (including Mexico City) the number is about 179,304 people living along the states of Campeche, Querétaro, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Oaxaca, etc.

In many cases, sky-rocketing cost of living in the U.S., good potential returns on investments, among other economic reasons are driving more and more Americans to move to Mexico. As a result, Mexicans in some neighborhoods are now experiencing higher housing prices themselves and some shops are being closed in favor of trendy coffee shops, gyms, and restaurants.

Mexico and the United States confront the same dilemma. Both countries have broken immigration systems that provide short-term economic relief to people on both sides of the border. In some neighborhoods in Mexico, this phenomenon has led to real concerns due to many people forced to move out. There is a need for a larger conversation to better develop policies that benefit all proportionally.

By Sara Hayden Van Velkinburgh *

Unless you avidly follow the Mexican fintech sector, you likely missed Mexican fintech Covalto’s announcement last month of a US $10 million unsecured debt facility with the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC). What can be described as the private sector arm of the U.S. government, the DFC is the result of a merger between the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and USAID’s Development Credit Authority carried out under the Trump Administration in 2018.

The agency is congressionally funded and has an investment capital of US $60 billion, more than double that of OPIC’s. Its objective is simple: to support investments in developing countries to drive economic growth, create stability, and improve livelihoods while generating returns for American taxpayers. Its investments also have the added benefits of advancing U.S. commercial competitiveness around the globe and providing a foothold for U.S. businesses in many of the world’s fastest-growing markets.

According to the DFC’s website, the agency has over US $37 billion in active investments, with the greatest share in the Western Hemisphere and over US $514 million in active investments in Mexico alone. A significant portion of this investment has been in financial technology (fintech) and SOFOMs, a Mexico-specific non-banking financial institution (IFNB in Spanish) that offers credit and lending services.

Since 2019, the agency has invested in Covalto, a fintech-turned-bank offering banking and credit services to the country’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); Tangelo a fintech that offers tailor-made credit solutions to consumers and SMEs; and the now defunct SOFOM Crédito Real, to support women-owned SMEs, in addition to other SOFOMs.

You might ask, what does the DFC see in these fintechs? The answer is simple, the DFC has correctly recognized that SMEs are the backbone of Mexico’s economy and that investing in fintech companies that service this sector is one of the most efficient ways to support them. 52% of the country’s GDP is driven by 4.2 million small and medium businesses which collectively employ 72% of the country’s entire labor force. If there is support to the SMEs, then you are supporting the majority of Mexicans and the majority of Mexico’s economy.

According to fintech Konfío, one of the main obstacles to Mexican SMEs’ continued growth is a lack of access to financing, with 3 out of 10 SMEs facing this problem. Fintech risen to the challenge, with the majority of Mexican fintechs now operating in the lending space offering several innovative solutions including credit secured by a company’s accounts receivables – in Mexico, some SMEs have to wait up until 120 days to be paid for goods and services they already delivered – and buy-now-pay-later options for consumers to increase sales.

Not only could an increase access to financing could unlock the potential of millions of companies throughout Mexico, but, as was made painfully clear during the Covid-19 pandemic, it also can mean the difference between keeping the lights on or shutting down forever during an economic downturn. According to the Association of Entrepreneurs, during the pandemic, nearly 35% of Mexico’s SMEs closed their doors due to a lack of liquidity.

In this context, the U.S. government’s decision to back lending fintechs in Mexico is not only a smart investment decision, given that lending is considered one of the more lucrative lines of fintech, but is also a decision that directly contributes to the strength of one of the United States’ most important allies. By funding fintechs that are increasing access to financing among SMEs, the U.S. is supporting the main driver of Mexico’s economy and the country’s main employer.

The argument is so convincing that the United States is making the same investment in its own market. On October 4th, Vice President Harris announced that the Small Business Association would propose a rule change to lift a 40-year moratorium to allow non-banks, including fintechs, to apply to serve as lenders on its behalf to increase small business lending.

This, perhaps, makes it even more surprising that the Mexican government has failed to invest in fintech, or even offer government assistance to SMEs during the Covid-19 pandemic. Time will tell if they eventually catch on.

* Sara Hayden Van Velkinburgh is a senior consultant with FTI Consulting’s strategic communications division based in Mexico City where she focuses on developing and implementing stakeholder management and communications plans for companies at critical junctures. She is a member of COMEXI’s Young Professional Program (PJ-COMEXI).  The US-Mexico Foundation is a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant. Twitter: @usmexicofound​

By Jamaal Glenn *

In February of this year, an American startup founder visiting Mexico tweeted a photo of a gorgeous, plant-framed, stucco walkway in the Roma Norte neighborhood of Mexico City: “Do yourself a favor and remote work in Mexico City — it is truly magical ” read the photo’s caption. The seemingly benign, now-deleted tweet quickly went viral, less for its aesthetic and more for its controversy. What seemed intended to be harmless, instead sparked outrage and debate online from Mexicans, and others, collectively expressing frustration at the influx of foreigners working remotely in Mexico City. “Please don’t,” replied one Mexican resident. “This city is becoming more and more expensive every day in part because of people like you, and you don’t even realize it or care about it.”

I found myself walking down similarly beautiful corridors on my second-ever visit to Mexico City in September. I arrived there from New York City as part of a US-Mexico Foundation-facilitated delegation of Americans working at the intersection of the public and private sectors in a program called the U.S.-MEXICO 360.

Like the controversial tweet’s author, I found the city delightful and easily imagined myself living and working remotely there. Searches for “Mexico remote work” on TikTok show countless montages of young English-speaking American workers voicing over glamorous, sound tracked point-of-view videos of themselves teleworking, eating, and exploring their way through the country.

Buoyed by its affordability, Mexico has long been a top global tourist destination. The overall cost of living in Mexico is nearly 50 percent less than in the U.S, and the country ranks 88 out of 137 in a global cost of living ranking. With 45 million international visitors in 2019, Mexico trailed only France, Spain, the U.S., China, Italy, and Turkey.

The Covid-19 pandemic has given rise to a new class of global-digital nomads who are spending more time in and permanently relocating to many of their favorite tourist destinations. As a result, smart policymakers in these places are preparing for a global competition to attract remote talent.

As much as any country, Mexico can be among the biggest winners of this new era if it chooses. But doing so will require a reconciliation of the tensions the country is facing around population growth, along with housing policies and investment that help ease those tensions.

Mexican policymakers have started to leverage the country’s other economic, cultural, and natural assets, to actively attract this growing group of people who are free to live anywhere. Mexico is one of more than 30 countries with some version of a formal short-term worker visa program. Visitors who make at least US $2,500 per month can stay for up to 12 months with the option to renew, while Americans can stay for up to six months with no visa. These policies are one factor in making Playa del Carmen and Mexico City the third and sixth fastest-growing remote work hubs worldwide, respectively, over the last six years.

Yet, digital nomadism can be divisive, especially when local citizens deal with issues like lack of affordability and underdeveloped infrastructure.

But digital nomads don’t just bring gentrification. They also bring an economic and innovation boon for local economies. Research has shown that skilled migrant workers import new and unique knowledge that does everything from increasing the rates of entrepreneurship to boosting the filing of new patents.

Mexico, like many places, needs to make investments that allow its economy to benefit from being a talent magnet while also working to mitigate its highest costs. The first place to start is by adopting more thoughtful land use policies, as well as digital nomad visas. That means allowing for, and promoting, the building of affordable, densely-built housing where supply is responsive to demand.

A 2022 MIT study on Latin America’s housing challenges makes the case that Mexico’s housing supply needs to be better planned, denser, and more formal. I agree. 

During my time there in September, much of Mexico City felt less dense than I had hoped for a metropolitan area of 21 million people. Density, after all, lowers per capita carbon footprints and decreases infrastructure costs. My feeling was also informed by my last two years developing a framework, as part of a group of civic experts, on how cities should best deal with growth. Among other things, we conclude that the best cities —  what we call ‘NOVA Cities’ — should be “compact, dense, committed to multimodal transportation, with mixed-use housing and no single-family zoning within one kilometer of heavy transit infrastructure.” Unfortunately, neither Mexico City nor any other major Mexican city is there yet.

The MIT study predicts that Mexico needs to build 800,000 housing units per year over the next 20 years, at the cost of nearly 4 percent of GDP, to keep up with demand. Albert Saiz, the director of MIT’s Urban Economics Lab and the author of the study, told the Mexico Daily Post that “the prevalence of self-built, one-family homes is a bigger problem than the growing numbers of ‘digital nomads.’” 

That lack of density also contributes to housing unaffordability for locals. Mexico City, home to 16 percent of the country’s population, has an average home price between six and 15 times greater than the average income. That is at least 20 percent higher than the global median for cities and at least twice the international affordability standard price-to-income ratio of three. Overall, Mexico’s home prices are more than eight times greater than the average income.

More innovative housing policies won’t solve all the problems of population growth, and remote-working arrivals can bring both promise and problems. In the long run, Mexico’s digital nomads will bring more good than bad, and land use policies that increase density and affordability will benefit Mexicans even if the country decides to close its doors to the remote-work relocation revolution. But Mexico can, and should, embrace this new era and build enough dense housing supply to make it work for everyone.

* Jamaal Glenn is an investor, writer, and university professor living in New York City. He has also an alumni of the U.S.-Mexico Foundation’s USMX360 program. The US-Mexico Foundation is a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant. Twitter: @usmexicofound​

There is no question that the U.S.-Mexico border is dynamic in a way that few others in the world are. The border is bounded by deep cultural and community ties: families living on both sides of the border, binational educational efforts, shared traditions, and countless others. Border communities also work together in politics and activism initiatives. Just as important, economic and commercial ties are bedrock of border life.

People who live along the border, either in the Tijuana-San Diego area, the Matamoros-Brownsville region or any border community in between, frequently describe themselves in Spanish as “fronterizos”. For them, having a foot in both nations is a given. A fronterizo would not be surprised to hear that trade between both countries made Mexico the second largest individual trading partner for the U.S., with a total trade amount of US $725.7 billion in 2021. Even less surprising would be the fact that Mexico is the main import supplier for 9 U.S. states, including Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

Current trade trends are the results of almost two centuries of interaction. On December 12th 2022, the U.S. and Mexico will celebrate 200 years of diplomatic relations. It’s this constant dialogue that has allowed for a deep socioeconomic integration between both countries, particularly in northern Mexican states and their U.S. counterparts. This relationship has led binational trade to grow over 900 percent over the past 30 years, and allowed for ambitious collaborative projects such as the Cross Border Xpress (CBX) crossing between Tijuana and San Ysidro which has facilitated efficient movement of people.

But how does this vision of a country with on foot in North America translates into public policies in Mexico? Is this North American Way seeping into the policies implemented by Mexican decision makers? Or is it just something limited to the actions and strategies of key, state and local Mexican players at the border?

Some recent developments suggest that it may be the latter. We’ve seen many successes of economic and political cooperation in recent years. One example is collaboration during the pandemic at the time when the border was closed to non-essential travel. Officials in border  Ciudad Juárez, Reynosa and Tijuana were able to get workers to cross the border and get a Covid-19 vaccine in the U.S. side which allowed protecting the life of essential personnel for many companies with manufacturing plantson the Mexican side. Recently, the state governments of Nuevo León and Tamaulipas brokered deals with Texas to remove enchanced inspection restrictions on trucks crossing the border. This allowed for Mexican goods to cross into Texas at their usual pace. Further, cross-border economic organizations in states such as Baja California, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas continue to forcefuly promote business deals and investment . However, all of these efforts have one thing in common: they’re planned, led and implemented regionally, by states and for the states.

At a national level, success stories are a bit harder to find. Two examples make it clear that the situation is not the same as in the border. On one hand, Mexico is still embroiled in a dispute settlement process involving U.S. concerns with the Mexican government’s energy policies and the commitments that the country signed and agreed to in USMCA. The current consultations process could result in the establishment of panel with potential repercussions for Mexico. Another concern involves the fact that Mexico was not included on the list of potential members of the proposed U.S.’s “Chip 4 Alliance” initiative, seen by the U.S. as a strategic partnership to boost semiconductor manufacturing capacities to strengthen its supply chain. This, despite the highly integrated nature of Mexian manufacturing with U.S. producition, and also despise officials on both sides have discussed such possibility.

It’s undeniable that engagement and dialogue is actively happening at the national level. The Mexican and U.S.’s federal governments, business groups and chambers, as well as think tanks and NGOs, have continued to be active, fostering discussions and proposing strategies. The High Level Economic Dialogue (HLED) between both countries was also relaunched in 2021, after a four year hiatus. However, there comes a point where dialogue shows its limits. Communication is important, but its just the first step in the path towards results. What the Mexican border state-level success stories have in common is that they leveraged the dialogue into concrete plans and actions, which in turn resulted in bilateral solutions that guaranteed the continuity of integrated production and efficient trade, both of which have a positive impact on the livelihoods of people living on both sides.

If we truly want to see a binational U.S.-Mexico partnership, where the integration and economic growth seen in the border is replicated in other Mexican states (including those with lower GDP rates) we need to take note of the blueprint set by them. The North American Way, the way of the fronterizos, shows that when dialogue is joined by actual actions and joint efforts, results are possible. We can’t expect the former without the latter. In this, as in many other cases, actions will speak louder than words.

* Astrid Salazar works at CIL, an international logistics company with presence in Southern Texas and Mexico. Ana Bertha Gutiérrez is the Coordinator for Foreign Trade and Labor Market at the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO) in Mexico City. Both Astrid and Ana Bertha are alumni of USMX260, a U.S.-Mexico Foundation Initiative, and participated in the Louisiana Americas Competitiveness Exchange (ACE). The US-Mexico Foundation is a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant. Twitter: @usmexicofound

By Emilio Cadena *

More than two years after Covid-19 upended face-to-face meetings and international travel, the U.S.-Mexico Foundation organized a fantastic three-day event in Mexico City to debate the future of North America, the dynamic trading block extending all the way from Alaska’s Bering Sea all the way to the Mexican Caribbean coast. For many years, I have attended countless receptions and dinners devoted to North American integration but this time the so-called North Capital Forum in downtown Mexico City felt different.

Many of the 750 participants to Mexico City’s North Capital Forum made clear the tremendous opportunity and urgent need to consolidate North America as the most competitive region in the world. As I was listening to the many panelists presenting their ideas of how this process may pan out, I truly felt that regardless of whether we sometimes notice it or not the “North American Way” of building things together is somehow already a reality. Day after day, the North American Way is uniting workers in Canada, farmers in the US and tourism entrepreneurs in Mexico.

What are the main components that make up the North American Way?

My first thought about how to catalyze North American competitiveness is for champions of integration to think about it not through an adversarial prism versus Asia. Major players across the North American continent would be better off by thinking of producing together the highest quality goods and services that people need through an inclusive, environmentally friendly, and price-accessible process. Personally, the goal of consolidating North America is not a matter of winning a perpetual race versus China but of serving the U.S., Canadian and Mexican peoples.

Second, I believe that the region’s booming manufacturing sector provides the best example of what the North American Way of building things together. Today, parts and components travel several times across borders within North America to build world-class products like high-end home appliances, affordable vehicles and strategic defense industry inputs. Since 1994, North American manufacturing integration has improved workers’ conditions and increased profits than in other sectors. The trilateral industrial platform benefits peoples and the private sector. The development of resilient supply-chains through North America’s manufacturing has created a unique sense of trust. Today, U.S companies see Mexican or Canadian manufacturing plants united in purpose, goals and values. Every day, they work as a team. For me, the respect for each country’s comparative advantages is at the heart of the North American Way.

A third thought I have around the North American Way are the challenges it faces. I do believe that many people still don’t see the strategic relevance of moving towards further integration. Perhaps, many people still don’t consider how relevant is our day-to-day collaboration on things like food production or leisure. Notwithstanding the common bonds that unite Mexico with Latin American countries (like Colombia, Argentina, Brazil or Cuba) the reality is that the U.S is the most relevant partner for Mexico’s well-being. This is reflected all across the spectrum of U.S.-Mexico interactions from mere geographical reasons to family bonds and day-to-day border life. Mexico is truly a North American country. At the same time, the U.S. needs to make North America a foreign policy priority. It would also be great to see Canada playing a larger role in the trilateral space. Meanwhile, Mexico should no longer tiptoe around its commitment in several areas. Close collaboration among government officials is always welcome but the process depends on forces beyond governments. Civil society must be brought in more forcefully into the analysis and solving of common challenges.

The North American Way is not something that grew out of government but from collaboration between peoples building things together. Examples abound from brewing beer, temporary workers and high-tech hubs that are helping North America succeed. As stakeholders in one of the world’s most powerful blocks, we must commit to a paradigm that further delivers benefits for peoples across the region.

* Emilio Cadena is President & CEO of Grupo Prodensa and Chairman of the U.S.-Mexico Foundation. His consulting group has helped over 700 foreign companies establish manufacturing operations in Mexico and is routinely recognized among the top places to work in Mexico. He is also co-chairman of the Border Transformation Working Group of the U.S.-Mexico CEO Dialogue an initiative between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Mexico’s Business Coordinating Council (CCE, in Spanish). The US-Mexico Foundation, a binational non-profit organization dedicated to fostering bilateral cooperation and improving the understanding between the United States and Mexico by activating key people in the relationship that once were dormant. Twitter: @usmexfound