This article is subscriber-only content. To get access to this and the rest of, subscribe or sign in.

Thanks for reading! To enjoy this article and more, please subscribe or sign in.

Unlimited Digital Access

$1.99 for 1 month

Subscribe with Google

$1.99 for 1 month

Let Google manage your subscription and billing.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to the's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
No thanks, go back

Are you a subscriber and unable to read this article? You may need to upgrade. Click here to go to your account and learn more.


Kamala Harris’ mandate at the Mexican border should be broader than just migration | Opinion

The Biden administration should avoid the Trump-era mistake of reducing the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico relationship to the single issue of immigration. The administration has made Vice President Kamala Harris its point person at the Southern border, and she has been engaging with Mexico and Central American nations to embrace a regional approach to migration, which is laudable.

But starting with her May 7 meeting with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, announced over the weekend, the vice president should broaden the scope of her Mexico agenda to cover the complex array of economic, environmental, security, energy and rule-of-law issues that define U.S.-Mexico dealings.

Mexico is heading in the wrong direction, and it is time for the United States to prioritize a relationship that is crucial to our common well-being. Ties across the Rio Grande simultaneously involve so many sensitive foreign and domestic issues, and the vice president is uniquely suited to coordinate Mexico policy. The role should be familiar to President Biden; it’s much like the one then-President Obama asked him to take on, framed as a “High Level Economic Dialogue” between Mexico and the United States in 2013.

Click to resize

Harris’ immediate focus on migration is understandable given the situation at the border. But unauthorized crossings and asylum claims — it’s notable that Mexicans have once again overtaken Central Americans as the largest group being detained — are symptoms of other issues. To focus exclusively on migration is to heed the fever but not its causes.

It has become fashionable to point out the need for comprehensive policies when it comes to the forces pushing Central Americans north, but there are fewer such calls for a more-expansive approach to our relationship with Mexico, which suffers from, or enjoys, depending on where you sit, inertia and complacency.

Engaging Mexico City on migration alone sends the wrong message. López Obrador got along well with Donald Trump because neither hyper-nationalistic leader poked around in the other’s business. AMLO, as he’s known, understood that so long as he did Trump’s bidding on migration — allowing Mexico to become the waiting room for asylum-seekers and guarding the U.S. Southern border, for instance — the United States wouldn’t stop him from indulging his politics of nostalgic megalomania.

It’s hard to succinctly catalog López Obrador’s erratic and destructive policies. His government handled COVID-19 disastrously and now presides over the world’s third-largest reported death toll. He has stubbornly adhered to fiscal austerity in the face of the global pandemic, exacerbating the inevitable economic downturn.

Deploying informal referendums, AMLO has overturned development contracts, including one for Mexico City’s new airport and scared off foreign investment when he most needs it, and when Mexico could benefit from corporate America’s second thoughts about relying too heavily on Chinese supply lines.

On energy, López Obrador’s desire to re-create the glory days of Mexico’s oil and electricity-generating state monopolies is wreaking further havoc on the nation’s federal finances, the environment (is there any government on Earth more allergic to renewables?) and, again, on Mexico’s attractiveness to private investors.

López Obrador’s nationalistic rhetoric is a throwback to one-party rule and the days before the United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to a North American pact. He has cited “sovereignty” to justify rolling back security cooperation with U.S. authorities pursuing organized crime. In early April, his government and its supporters equated criticism of his attacks on press freedoms as an attempted “coup.”

To tune in even for a few minutes to the rambling daily news conferences López Obrador conducts is to get a taste of a leader desperate to deploy any half-truth, scapegoat or distraction to equate his political project of a “Fourth Transformation” with the Mexican people’s sole legitimate interest and desire. Thus any criticism of his government or himself is an attack on “the people.”

Harris, no matter how broad her portfolio, cannot solve all Mexico’s problems. But the White House cannot afford to write them off, either. It needs to get back in the business of managing a relationship that still has untapped potential to benefit all of North America.

Empowering Harris to oversee all aspects of the U.S.-Mexico relationship would elevate what otherwise could turn into debilitating low-grade issue-by-issue, department-by-department spats. Her leadership could resurrect a more holistic and strategic approach, aligning incentives for both countries and reclaiming the promise of closer ties among North American nations.

Andrés Martinez is a professor of practice at the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University and a fellow at the New America think tank.

©2021 Los Angeles Times

$2 for 2 months

Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app, eEdition and more.

Copyright Commenting Policy Privacy Policy Do Not Sell My Personal Information Terms of Service