To access the full paper, download the PDF on the left-hand sidebar. 

Introduction

Programa Frontera Sur (PFS) is the latest in a series of public policy initiatives dealing with one of three aspects (or more commonly, all of them) pertaining to Mexico’s southern border: migration matters, border issues, and security concerns. While these three areas are not always and necessarily connected, the significance of the border in U.S. foreign policy strategy and the progressive escalation of a securitization agenda at the southern border have increasingly brought them together, for the most part. Viewed from a historical perspective, PFS shares some of the same features that characterized prior attempts to regulate matters at the border and to manage migration. Despite the fact that PFS was conceived as an instrument of state policy intended to foster development and reinforce border security while mitigating migrants’ vulnerability, the program’s results so far raise deep concerns as to whether it has complied with its stated spirit. Meant at first as a comprehensive initiative, PFS ended up being merely a program to contain in-transit, undocumented migrants (El Colegio de la Frontera Norte 2015), from a security standpoint.

PFS took effect at the same time as—and, in fact, has been a response to—a perceived “crisis.” The number of unauthorized Central Americans who pass through Mexico on their way to the United States has slowly but steadily increased in recent years. Statistics on the number of people apprehended by Mexico’s National Migration Institute (INM by its acronym in Spanish) provide an approximate measure of this trend. While the number apprehended in 2013 was 79,908, in 2014, it had risen to 118,446; the following year, it climbed to 177,949, showing a twofold increase over 2013 (Unidad de Política Migratoria-Secretaria de Gobernacion 2013, 2014, 2015). In addition to this increased flow, a growing number of individuals and entire families are fleeing from violence in their home countries, making them potential asylum applicants. While the phenomenon is not new per se, the fact that more claims for refugee status are being filed in Mexico is a relatively recent development. Furthermore, there is a substantial increase in the number of minors (accompanied and unaccompanied) that join the exodus (Carlson and Gallagher 2015). Adolescents, in particular, comprise a significant amount of those seeking asylum as they have become direct targets of gangs’ recruitment attempts or directly threatened by these criminal groups.

This paper attempts to shed light on the performance and legacy of PFS as a policy instrument meant to deter unauthorized migration to the United States, a common concern of both the United States and Mexico. Research focuses mainly on developments that have taken place along the beginning of the two main migrant routes at Mexico’s southern border region; primary field information came from Tapachula (Chiapas) and Tenosique (Tabasco). One route starts at the Ciudad Hidalgo (Chiapas)/Tecún Uman (San Marcos) border crossing and extends all the way to central Mexico via Oaxaca. The other follows the Gulf coastline and begins at the port of entry known as El Ceibo and nearby locations at the Tabasco (Mexico)/Petén (Guatemala) borderline, passes through Veracruz, and on to Tamaulipas. The data gathering process included, on the one hand, interviews with two migrants’ rights advocates, a former consular member of the Guatemalan government, a migrant shelter volunteer, a state officer in Chiapas, and an ex-employee from a government-run shelter for minors. Attempts to talk with INM personnel and the former head of the PFS proved unsuccessful. On the other hand, the research involved obtaining information from secondary sources, including reports by NGO and advocacy groups, the media, and official government documents.

The study addressed a number of different questions. Did PFS contemplate a working strategy to reconcile its dual objective of implementing both protective measures for migrants and enforcement policies? To what extent does PFS embody seemingly conflicting public policy aims? Is Mexico turning into a “migration manager” for its northern neighbor, as suggested by one source (Rietig and Dominguez 2014)? Will Mexico be able to implement an autonomous policy regarding immigration and transmigration, independently from U.S. interests? What are the program’s achievements, and what was its overall performance? What have been some of its intended and unintended consequences? In light of the program’s assessment, what changes are needed for Mexico’s migration policy as a whole? What are appropriate policy recommendations for achieving an orderly and prosperous southern border with a particular focus on public policy toward Central Americans? What are specific suggestions for all governmental parties involved—the United States, Mexico, and migrants’ countries of origin? What feedback do civil society actors require to better deal with PFS’ outcomes?

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.