Luis Rubio
Between neighbors—as in marriages—peace is not automatic; it takes constant work. That simple truth applies to Mexico and the United States, two countries that long ago chose, first in practice and later through formal agreements, to turn proximity into mutual gain. Today’s tensions—fueled by overheated rhetoric on one side and treaty violations on the other (sometimes by the same actors)—make one thing clear: peace, and the benefits that come with it, only endure when clear rules exist and are enforced.
One need not reach back to the U.S. invasion of 1847 to see how complex this relationship has always been. Trade, migration, arms flows (once south-to-north, now largely reversed), drugs, water management, environmental cooperation, investment, infrastructure—these are not optional interactions. They are the unavoidable byproducts of two very different nations that are nonetheless deeply intertwined, economically and humanly, in ways that only continue to intensify.
Some argue there is a contradiction between the dense economic integration of the two countries and U.S. political rhetoric, especially on migration and the presence of millions of undocumented foreigners, many of them Mexican. There is no contradiction. The contradiction lies elsewhere.
Formal, legislatively ratified agreements—most notably NAFTA/USMCA—reflect a shared understanding that rules are necessary to channel and sustain economic interaction. Migration, by contrast, has been left largely unregulated, as it is a purely sovereign and unilateral matter. That absence of rules has become an inexhaustible source of political conflict.
In the early 1990s, Mexico and the United States established a framework that unleashed trade and investment, built a powerful North American manufacturing platform, and created an inescapable interdependence. Today, ever more goods and sectors rely on trilateral exchanges among the three North American economies for the basics of daily life.
Yet alongside this extraordinary economic success, both governments tolerated—and at times encouraged—practices that violated agreed-upon rules or openly flouted existing laws. Nothing illustrates this better than the gap between the rigor of trade rules and the reality of the labor market. Washington has largely overlooked Mexico’s repeated breaches of trade commitments, while the migration issue is handled through slogans, raids, and a willful blindness to its economic implications.
Trade and investment operate under strict, enforceable rules. Labor does not. The United States has failed to legislate comprehensively on migration—whether for high-skilled visas like the H-1B, especially critical to the tech sector, or for the workers whose entire industries depend on them, from agriculture and construction to services and manufacturing. Mexicans are central to this story, but they are far from alone.
Migrants follow jobs. That is the basic rule. People cross borders because demand exists, responding to an economic reality that U.S. politics has refused to formally acknowledge—even as employers, facing chronic labor shortages, long relied on it. The political backlash was inevitable once this contradiction went unresolved, culminating in the rise of a candidate willing to confront the issue aggressively, though without offering an economically viable solution.
The labor market has functioned in practice, but the current political moment demands a comprehensive settlement that remains elusive. Meanwhile, those who fantasize about a clean break between Mexico and the United States indulge in illusions of sovereignty and self-sufficiency. What is needed instead is dialogue and joint programs to address the vast challenges of the relationship—especially security and Mexico’s economic stagnation.
The status quo cannot hold. It feeds visceral reactions on both sides and invites extreme, simplistic proposals. The only antidote is a shared strategy rooted in political and diplomatic engagement and in the basic imperative of geography: peaceful coexistence, with responsibilities on both sides. Just like in a successful marriage.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: