DEVALUATION OF PESO RESULTING IN INCREASE OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS TO U.S.

SourceMex

     A severe recession in Mexico, resulting from the
devaluation of the peso, is expected to sharply increase the
rate of illegal immigration of Mexicans to the US in the next
several months.  As a result, the US is making plans to
greatly increase its patrols along the border, leading to
conflicts with the Mexican government over the effort to crack
down on illegal immigration, as well as disputes with the US
Congress over how to pay for more US security in the border
areas.
     According to statistics compiled by the US Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) and other agencies, roughly
100,000 undocumented immigrants were deported back to Mexico
during January of this year, double the number reported in the
same month in 1994.
     The statistics for January appear to be the "tip of the
iceberg," since the tough economic reforms required by
international creditors in exchange for an economic rescue
package of US$50 billion are expected to throw Mexico into a
severe recession.  According to some estimates, the number of
deportations is expected to total 1.5 million for all of 1995.
     Key among the economic adjustments demanded by the
creditors is the requirement that Mexico bring inflation under
control by charging interest rates above the rate of inflation
in order to sop up excess liquidity from the economy.  This,
in turn, is expected to raise interest rates to unattainable
levels and force many businesses to implement cutbacks or fold
altogether, thus greatly worsening employment problems in
Mexico (see SourceMex, 02/22/95).
     The devaluation in late December was already beginning to
affect the unemployment picture for January.  According to El
Financiero daily business newspaper, the jobless rate among
the economically active population (EAP) in Mexico was a
record-high 3.7%.  The report--which is based on statistics
issued by the official statistics agency (Instituto Nacional
de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica)--noted that the
statistics do not reflect the rapidly growing numbers of
Mexicans who are underemployed.  According to the report, if
the unemployed and underemployed were counted together, the
unemployment picture in January affected roughly 6.5 million
Mexicans.
     The lack of job creation and massive layoffs in Mexico--
both resulting from the devaluation--have left many Mexicans
with no other choice than to seek employment in the US.  The
increase in illegal immigration to the US, however, is coming
during a period when anti-immigrant sentiment is growing
stronger in the US, as evidenced by the passage of
"Proposition 187" in California in November of 1994, and some
proposals in the US Congress to deny benefits even to
immigrants who are legal residents.
     Indeed, in early February US President Bill Clinton
ordered tougher enforcement measures at the border to prepare
for the expected increase in undocumented migrants.  The
directive included the assignment of 62 new Border Patrol
agents to the Nogales-Tucson district in southern Arizona,
where much of the increase in recent months has been reported.
     Statistics released by the Center for Immigration Studies
in Washington in early February show that more than 19,000
undocumented immigrants were arrested in Tucson, Arizona, in
January, twice as many as during the first month of 1994.  The
statistics also showed that the number of arrests had
increased by 25% in El Paso, Texas.
     On the other hand, the number of arrests declined
slightly in the San Diego-San Ysidro district of southern
California.  The drop in immigration there is attributed in
part to the passage of Proposition 187 in California, which
seeks to deny most educational, medical, and social service
benefits to undocumented workers (see SourceMex, 11/02/94).
     The assignment of new border patrol agents to Arizona was
only a small part of President Clinton's overall proposal to
increase immigration enforcement along the US-Mexico border.
In the budget proposal for 1996, the US administration is
seeking a major increase in the number of Border Patrol
agents, inspectors, and other immigration personnel along the
US-Mexico border.
     To pay for the increased enforcement, Clinton had
proposed the collection of a special fee of US$3.00 per
vehicle and US$1.50 per pedestrian crossing into the US from
Mexico and Canada.  The fee was expected to generate US$400
million annually.
     That proposal, however, came under immediate criticism
from Mexican and Canadian government officials, who warned
that the fee would cause a deterioration in relations between
their countries and the US.
     In addition, others in the US joined in strongly
criticizing the proposal, among them various chambers of
commerce and members of Congress that represent districts near
the US-Mexican and US-Canadian borders.
     In a letter to Clinton during February, Richard Perez of
the Laredo Chamber of Commerce noted that the devaluation
alone had already caused retail sales in that community to
plummet by about 20% during January.  Perez estimated that US
merchants along the US-Mexico border could experience a
decline of 60% to 70% is sales this year because of the
effects of the devaluation.  Thus, a border fee would
represent an unfair burden, causing commercial activity to
drop even more, according to Perez.
     Members of Congress, meantime, suggested that the fee
would amount to the creation of a new levy on a region already
hit disproportionately by the costs of illegal immigration.
To present a united front against the fee, Democratic and
Republican legislators from the US-Mexico border area formed
a special task force to decide on actions to block the fee's
approval.
     Among other things, the legislators expressed their
concerns through letters to Clinton and through meetings with
Vice President Al Gore and White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta.  The most vocal opponents of the fee were Republican
Jim Kolbe of Arizona and Democrats Solomon Ortiz and Ron
Coleman of Texas.
     In response to the protests from congressional
representatives, plus the opposition voiced by the governments
of Mexico and Canada, on Feb. 22 Clinton withdrew the original
proposal and offered a so-called "local option alternative."
Under this alternate plan, states choosing to implement the
crossing fee would receive additional federal funds to combat
illegal immigration and to construct and expand border
infrastructure.
     "We are in fact providing states the option of having the
fee imposed in their jurisdictions in order to receive the
benefits of the higher revenues, or on the contrary, they can
opt for no fee and no additional benefits," explained White
House spokesman Mike McCurry.
     However, the alternate plan also met with strong
opposition.  Rep. Ortiz, whose district includes Brownsville,
Texas, argued that the plan would lead to uneven enforcement
along the border, since the states and local communities that
refuse to charge a crossing fee could find themselves at a
disadvantage in receiving funds from the federal government.
     For its part, the Mexican government used a meeting of
the immigration committee of the US-Mexico Binational
Commission in Zacatecas in mid-February to express its
concerns about the US plan.  The Mexican delegation at the
conference included deputy secretaries from the Foreign
Relations Secretariat (SRE), Interior Secretariat
(Gobernacion), and the Attorney General's Office (PGE).  The
US delegation was led by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner and
the US Ambassador to Mexico, James Jones.
     Despite the strong reservations from Mexico about the
plan, the official communique from the consultations took the
form of a broad statement in which the two countries pledged
to "increase cooperation on common matters related to
immigration, taking into account the different levels of
development of each of the two economies, and the variances in
their labor markets."
     Some analysts viewed the weak communique as an informal
concession by President Ernesto Zedillo's administration to
the US for the US$20 billion in loan guarantees that the US
has provided to help rescue the Mexican economy from the
impact of the peso devaluation.
     While some political analysts criticized Zedillo for not
pressing the US to ease its new restrictions on immigration,
others said this was probably the best compromise, given the
strong sentiment in the US Congress to enact even more
restrictive measures.
     In fact, after the rescue package for Mexico was
announced on Feb. 21, influential legislators such as Rep. Dan
Burton, R-Ind., chairman of the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee, criticized the Clinton administration for not
extracting a formal pledge from Mexico to crack down on
illegal immigration.
     Some political observers said the Canadian government
probably had a greater influence than Mexico on Clinton's
decision to back down on the initial proposal to impose the
mandatory fees.  According to the Associated Press, Clinton
dropped the original proposal and offered the alternate plan
one day before his scheduled meeting with Canadian Prime
Minister Jean Chretien in Ottawa on Feb. 23.  (Sources: Inter
Press Service, 02/06/95, 02/09/95; New York Times, 02/04/95,
02/08/95; Deutsche Press Agentur, 02/08/95; La Jornada,
02/01/95, 02/02/95, 02/08/95, 02/09/95, 02/12/95, 02/15/95;
Agence France-Presse, 02/01/95, 02/21/95; Notimex, 02/04/95,
02/05/95, 02/06/95, 02/07/95, 02/16/95, 02/22/95; Associated
Press, 02/09/95, 02/21/95, 02/22/95)