The U.S. and Mexico: Reset Required
There is arguably no other country in the world that more directly affects the security and prosperity of the American people—and that is particularly the case in a border state like Arizona.
A note to our readers: Today we are joined by Christopher Landau, an American lawyer and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021. In lieu of Claudia Sheinbaum’s ascension to the Presidency of Mexico, we invited him to write for us about the future of U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Arizona relations. We hope you enjoy.
In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably presented her Russian counterpart with a red plastic “Reset” button to symbolize the need for a fresh start in bilateral relations between the two countries. That effort proved futile, but the animating spirit was spot on. Relations between nations, like relations between people, can grow stale over time. A change in administration in one or both countries provides a propitious occasion to take stock of the relationship, identify what is working and what is not, and modify course as necessary.
Nowhere is such a reset needed more than in U.S.-Mexico relations. There is arguably no other country in the world that more directly affects the security and prosperity of the American people—and that is particularly the case in a border state like Arizona. The relationship with Mexico presents not only challenges in areas such as migration and drug trafficking but also enormous opportunities, especially in the commercial sphere. But U.S. relations with Mexico have been on autopilot for several years, guided largely by bureaucracies on both sides of the border that have their own long-standing agendas and grievances.
This year provides an opportunity for a much-needed reset in relations. Both countries are holding national elections, and indeed Mexico has just elected a new president. Regardless of who wins the American election in November, major changes in the relationship with Mexico are overdue. These changes should focus on the three main issues in the bilateral relationship: migration, drugs, and commerce. All three issues share one common denominator: the 2,000-mile-long land border between the two countries. If that border is not under control, the U.S.-Mexico relationship cannot be healthy.
Migration
Although the migration issue has bedeviled U.S. relations with Mexico for decades, the current challenges are relatively new. Historically, the migratory flows over the U.S.-Mexico border consisted primarily of adult male Mexicans looking for work in the United States. Over time, the U.S. immigration system, both in terms of the law and its implementation, adapted to this challenge, with alternating periods of greater and lesser enforcement on the U.S. side. In those days, if an American administration wanted to address the issue, the tools were there.
Starting about a decade ago, however, migrant demographics changed completely. For one thing, Mexican outflows declined, reflecting both demographic and economic changes in Mexico. At the same time, migrants from across the globe began to view the U.S.-Mexico border as a back door to enter the United States. These third-country flows started primarily from Mexico’s Central American neighbors (i.e., Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) but have since expanded worldwide. On any given day, Mexicans are now usually the minority of those trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, and represent just a fraction of those trying to enter by claiming asylum. A review of today’s border crossers’ countries of origin looks like a cross section of the United Nations: Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Congo, Cameroon, and Ukraine, to name just a few.
Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection
This transformation in migrant demographics creates both challenges and opportunities. It has proven much harder for the U.S. to deport non-Mexicans, especially those arriving as families, and asylum seekers, whose cases often languish for years before an immigration judge can adjudicate them. But, for the first time, Mexico and the U.S. have a common interest in controlling migratory flows, as Mexico has no desire to serve as a doormat for people from third countries seeking entry into the United States. While public opinion in Mexico has historically been pro-migrant, given that most of the migrants historically were Mexicans, that sentiment is changing rapidly along with the migrants’ shifting demographic makeup. Not surprisingly, many Mexicans are unenthusiastic about having millions of unvetted persons cross their national territory to make their way to the United States.
For that reason, the stage is set for unprecedented cooperation between the United States and Mexico on migration issues, even if the U.S. has to apply political pressure to achieve it. Indeed, during the Trump administration, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador—in response to a threat of tariffs—cracked down on third-country migrants trying to cross Mexico to enter the United States. Even now, after a tsunami of illegal immigration during the first three years of the Biden administration, it appears that Mexico is curbing such third-country migrant flows in response to election-year pressure and inducements from the Biden administration. Clearly, Mexico has shown that, with the necessary political will, it is capable of working with the United States to limit migratory flows of third-country nationals across its territory.
But it would be a mistake for American policymakers to think that they can outsource enforcement of U.S. immigration laws to Mexico. As long as the United States fails to address the incentives for illegal migration, the migratory flows will continue. Those incentives now consist primarily of the ease of obtaining jobs in the U.S. without lawful authority to work, the absence of any serious threat of deportation, and an overly permissive asylum regime. While it is certainly necessary and proper for the United States and Mexico to work together to curb illegal migration, the U.S. cannot and must not abdicate its responsibility to control its own borders and enforce its own immigration laws. Any U.S. immigration policy that depends on Mexican enforcement for its success is doomed to failure.
Drugs
The challenges and opportunities relating to U.S.-Mexico cooperation on drugs closely track those relating to migration. Drugs have been on the bilateral agenda for some 50 years, but the problem today is very different than in the past. Historically, Mexico was a source of both marijuana and heroin (from poppies grown in the highlands) as well as a transshipment point for cocaine from South America. For most of that period, the Mexican and American governments have pointed fingers at each other, with the Mexicans accusing the Americans of doing nothing to reduce demand (not to mention the flow of money and firearms) and the Americans accusing the Mexicans of doing nothing to reduce supply.
Within the past decade, synthetic opioids—including, most notoriously, fentanyl—have come to dominate the illegal drug trade. Gone is the need for vast plantations of organic plants—synthetic drugs can be manufactured to any strength in a lab. To make matters worse, these drugs are so potent that a dose of fentanyl the size of a grain of salt or sand can kill an average adult. A single brick of fentanyl can thus contain hundreds of thousands of doses. These synthetic opioids can be pressed into pills or “cut” into another drug like cocaine or heroin to increase its potency. As recently as five years ago, most of the fentanyl entering the United States came directly through the mails from China or was transshipped through Mexico. But as China began to crack down on fentanyl production, Mexican production began to ramp up. Now, fentanyl is both transported through and produced in Mexico from precursor chemicals imported from China. The surge in overdose deaths in the United States over the past decade (almost every year has broken the previous year’s record) can be attributed largely to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.
While the challenge has changed significantly, the response of the U.S. and Mexican governments has not. Rather, both countries have maintained a “business as usual” approach, light on action and heavy on blaming the other country. For decades, the American approach has been dictated largely by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) within the Department of Justice, which prioritizes urging Mexico to apprehend suspects and extradite them to face justice in the United States. The Mexican approach, in contrast, has been characterized by diffidence, complicity, and resentment toward the DEA. Not surprisingly, these contrasting approaches have stymied progress and increased tension.
It is time for a new approach, one in which both Mexico and the U.S. stop complaining about the other country and instead do more within their own borders. In particular, Mexico must assert control over the shipments into its ports of fentanyl and its chemical precursors in ships arriving from China. If the Mexicans refuse to cooperate, the U.S. would be fully entitled to take matters into its own hands, including stopping and searching ships on the high seas if necessary. In addition, the U.S. must do more to combat drug trafficking within its own territory—the drugs do not magically transport themselves from the border to the streets of New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia—and stem the flow of illegal money and firearms into Mexico.
Calls for the U.S. to take unilateral military action in Mexico to capture or kill drug kingpins are an understandable response to frustration at the current impasse. But such unilateral military action in another country might amount to an act of war, and the “forever wars” of recent decades have taught us that not every international problem requires a military solution and that it is much easier to get into a war than out of one. Moreover, such calls for unilateral military action against cartel leaders in Mexico just double down on the DEA’s misguided focus on individual criminals. It is a fantasy to suppose that the Mexican drug cartels will crumble if their leaders are neutralized. To the contrary, history has shown that when you cut the head off the snake, it will grow five new heads. The U.S. must show its resolve, but it must also be smart, and getting sucked into unilateral military action in a foreign country with no clear path to victory is not smart.
Commerce
A focus on migration and drugs must not obscure the importance of the U.S.-Mexico commercial relationship. Each country is currently the other’s largest trading partner, and that relationship can and should boost prosperity and economic growth on both sides of the border. But that relationship cannot become a mechanism to siphon American jobs to lower-paid workers in Mexico or to open a back door for China to evade tariffs and penetrate the American market. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is up for review in 2026, and it must contain additional safeguards to ensure that it promotes not just free but fair trade.
Trade that is both free and fair will surely promote prosperity. Many Americans do not recognize the vast potential of the Mexican market. Mexico’s population of roughly 130 million people makes it by far the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world, and its close proximity to the U.S. and strong cultural ties make it a natural market for American goods. Mexicans know and value American brands, sometimes more than Americans themselves—which helps explain why brands like Radio Shack and Woolworth, which have vanished north of the border, still exist in Mexico. A border state like Arizona is perfectly positioned to lead the way for American businesses to develop Mexican markets for their goods and services.
The border itself can serve as an obstacle to commerce if customs and border agents become overwhelmed with stopping illegal migration and drugs. Lengthy delays of trucks carrying goods are not uncommon, and the infrastructure of border crossings is woefully outdated and inefficient. Once again, a border state like Arizona is perfectly positioned to champion the need to upgrade and modernize points of entry along the border.
The recent landslide election of Claudia Sheinbaum, a close confidante of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and considered by many as his political heir, shows that the Mexican people have opted for a stay-the-course agenda. It remains to be seen whether the American people will make a similar choice in November. But, at least with respect to the bilateral U.S.-Mexico relationship, the present course appears unsustainable. Regardless of who wins in November, the two countries require a “reset” in relations. The challenges are daunting, but the greatest peril of all is to pretend that everything is fine.
Christopher Landau is an American lawyer and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021. You can follow him on X (formerly known as Twitter) here.