U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–250 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–118

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION

REFORM: SECURING THE COOPERATION OF

PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER 

SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 30, 2005

Serial No. J–109–23A

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JAMES HO, Majority Chief Counsel 

JIM FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 3

WITNESSES 

Clariond, Roberta, Professor of International Relations, Technological Autonomous Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico ................................................. 7

Rozental, Hon. Andre ́s, former Mexican Ambassador at Large, and President, 

Rozental and Associates, Mexico City, Mexico .................................................. 5

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Clariond, Roberta, Professor of International Relations, Technological Autonomous Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico ................................................. 21

Rozental, Hon. Andre ́s, former Mexican Ambassador at Large, and President, 

Rozental and Associates, Mexico City, Mexico .................................................. 29

(1)

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: SECURING THE COOPERATION OF PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2005 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND

CITIZENSHIP, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Senators Cornyn, Kyl, Coburn, and Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Chairman CORNYN. This hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship will come to order. 

I want to thank Chairman Specter for scheduling today’s hearing 

and thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for working with us on 

this important hearing. 

Today, we will continue a series of hearings examining the need 

for comprehensive reform of our immigration system. These hearings have shown that our Nation’s immigration and border security 

system are broken and leaves our borders unprotected, threatens 

our National security, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. 

The system has suffered from years of neglect, and in a post-9/

11 world, we cannot tolerate the situation any longer. National security demands a comprehensive solution to our immigration system and that means both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our immigration laws. 

For too long, the immigration debate has divided Americans of 

good will into two camps, those who are angry and frustrated by 

our failure to enforce the law and those who are angry and frustrated that our immigration laws do not reflect reality. Both camps 

are right. This is not an either/or proposition. We need both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our immigration laws. 

First, we must recognize that in the past, we simply have not devoted the funds, the resources, and the manpower to enforce our 

immigration laws and protect our borders. As history demonstrates, reform without enforcement is doomed to failure. No discussion of comprehensive immigration reform is possible without a 

clear commitment to and substantial escalation of our efforts to enforce the law. 

2

Recognizing this necessity, on May 26, 2005, Senator Kyl and I 

released the border enforcement portion of our legislation which 

addresses those areas of border security which we believe are most 

in need of reinforcement. 

But, increased enforcement alone will not solve the problem. Any 

proposal must serve both our National security and our National 

economy. It must capable of both securing our country and being 

compatible with our growing economy. Our current broken system 

provides badly-needed sources of labor, but through illegal channels. 

As an example, Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner has 

previously testified before this Subcommittee that the vast majority 

of those the Border Patrol apprehends are migrant workers simply 

coming here to work. He testified that the Border Patrol is still 

dealing with a literal flood of people on a daily basis, most of whom 

are attempting to enter the country in order to work. 

While the situation we face at the borders represents a substantial and unacceptable risk to our National security, it also demonstrates why we cannot simply close our borders or round up and 

remove millions of people from within our midst. We simply don’t 

have the resources, the facilities, or even the ability to identify, locate, and apprehend ten to 12 million undocumented workers and 

their families. In addition, securing our Nation’s borders at the expense of weakening our economy and killing off American jobs is 

simply not an acceptable alternative. 

Any comprehensive solution must address both concerns so that 

law enforcement and border security officials can concentrate their 

greatest energies on those who wish to do us harm, not those who 

wish to work and support their families. 

Our economy would suffer if we removed millions of workers 

from our National workforce, just as it would suffer if we removed 

entire stocks of our natural resources from our National inventory. 

Our economy would be strengthened if all workers could simply 

come out of the shadows, register, pay taxes, and participate fully 

in our economy. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the fundamental issue of the level 

of cooperation the United States can expect from countries that will 

benefit from comprehensive immigration reform. Workers in this 

country come from many diverse countries. Essential to immigration reform will be increased cooperation on border security, efforts 

to combat human trafficking and alien smuggling, and stepped up 

crime prevention from any country that sends workers to our Nation. 

We are addressing these types of issues with Mexico and Canada. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have entered the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement designed to develop 

a common security strategy and promote economic development. 

According to this week’s announcement, border security remains 

the central theme of that partnership. I hope that the partnership 

continues to identify additional security initiatives that our countries can jointly pursue and that this initiative can serve as a 

model to address security concerns that relate to other countries as 

well. 

3

In addition to assisting with border security, sending countries 

should further develop strategies that will bridge the development 

gap between our country and theirs so that citizens will not want 

to leave the country of their birth. For example, Mexico’s leaders 

have made clear that it is in the best interest of their country to 

keep their citizens in their country, if possible. Foreign Minister 

Derbez has said the Mexican government has to be able to give 

Mexicans the opportunity to generate wealth that today they 

produce in other places. And, President Fox has stated, ‘‘Every person has the right to find in his own country the economic, political, 

and social opportunities that allow him to reach a full and dignified 

life.’’ 

I couldn’t agree more with these statements. Other countries 

need for their young, energetic risk-takers and hard-workers ultimately to be able to come back home, and particularly to come back 

home with the capital and the savings and the skills they have acquired while working temporarily in the United States. They need 

these people to come back to their home country, buy a house, start 

a business so that these small business owners, these potential entrepreneurs can help strengthen and build a middle class. 

Today’s hearings will explore the relationship of these issues to 

implementing successful immigration reform. Ultimately, comprehensive immigration reform will require the active cooperation 

of participating countries, because we will have to have better management, communication, and coordination between our governments to achieve our goals of protecting our National security and 

strengthening our National economy. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

With that, I would turn the floor over to Senator Kennedy, our 

Ranking Member on this Subcommittee, for any statement he cares 

to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for calling the hearing on the importance of the cooperation with other governments to help mend our immigration system. 

Without the help and cooperation from neighboring countries, immigration reforms adopted unilaterally by the United States are 

less likely to succeed. So we need to work with Mexico, Central 

America, Canada on migration problems and enforcement. It is in 

the best interests of all of our countries to improve security, too. 

Bilateral and multilateral agreements provide a framework and incentives for safe and legal immigration. 

Every year, thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans come 

to the U.S. legally or illegally to work and join their families. Illegal immigration continues to increase annually. To deal with the 

growing numbers of undocumented workers, we have to modernize 

our laws to meet the challenges of the 21st century. As Mexican 

officials understand, a guest worker program and a path towards 

earned legalization are two essential components of any effective 

proposal for reform. We need fair steps to respond to family needs, 

4

economic needs, and basic migration patterns between the U.S., 

Mexico, and Central America. 

Another critical component of comprehensive immigration reform 

is border security and control of illegal immigration. One of the 

mistakes we continue to make is throwing money at border enforcement as our primary means for reducing illegal immigration. By 

making it more difficult for many Mexican citizens to cross the border to work and reunite with their families living in the United 

States, we are essentially trapping them inside the United States. 

It is an incentive for desperate families to do whatever it takes to 

be together. A more sound policy is realistic immigration laws that 

provide legal avenues for qualified immigrants and strong enforcement of those laws. This plan will restore control of our borders, 

improve national security, and strengthen our economy. 

Another mistake of past immigration bills is to assume that we 

can control illegal immigration on our own. America needs to do its 

part, but Mexico and other countries must do their part, too, to replace illegal immigration flows with regulated legal immigration. 

We need a framework for negotiating an agreement with Mexico to 

prevent Mexico from being used as a transit corridor for third-country nationals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. We need to 

work with Canada and Mexico to help Guatemala and Belize maintain the security of their borders. We need a framework for the 

U.S. to work with all countries of central America to set up a database on the activities of criminal gangs, to control alien smuggling 

and trafficking, prevent the use and manufacturing of fraudulent 

travel documents, and share relevant information. 

Under the leadership of President Fox, significant efforts have 

been made to address Mexico’s economic problems. Remittances 

from the United States continue to be a principal source of income 

for many Mexican families. Tapping into these funds, the Fox administration has adopted promising initiatives, such as the Threefor-One Program to match these funds with federal, state, and local 

money. The pool funding is then used to build schools, clinics, establish other programs to help economically depressed areas of 

Mexico. 

John McCain and I have included all of these proposals in our 

bill. We know that effective enforcement of our immigration laws 

depends heavily upon the participation and the commitment of 

neighboring governments, and I thank our witnesses at today’s 

hearing and look forward to working with them to address these 

important challenges ahead of us. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, and I appreciate your hard work on this effort. I know we will have a lot of 

tough work ahead of us, but hopefully this year, we will be able to 

achieve some success that we will all be able to be proud of. 

We are pleased today to have a distinguished panel, and I will 

introduce the panel and ask each of you to give opening statements. 

Andres Rozental is President of the Mexican Council on Foreign 

Relations. He has also been Mexico’s Ambassador to various countries, including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and its representative to the United Nations. He has also served as Ambassador at 

5

Large in a special envoy for President Vincente Fox. Ambassador 

Rozental is now President of Rozental and Associates, an international consulting firm specializing in providing political and economic advisory services to both Mexican and foreign companies. 

Joining Ambassador Rozental on our first panel, and only panel, 

is Roberta Clariond. I hope I am pronouncing that correctly, Professor. Professor Clariond is a Professor of International Relations 

at the Technological Autonomous Institute of Mexico. She holds 

Master’s degrees in Latin American studies and international relations from UCLA and the University of Chicago. She has been involved in numerous seminars and projects on migration. 

We welcome both of you to the hearing, and Professor, we want 

to thank you for agreeing to fill in when your predecessor fell ill, 

but we know you have been working on these issues a long time 

and appreciate your expertise. 

Why don’t we begin with the Ambassador, and then we will turn 

to the Professor. Let me ask you please to remember to push the 

button on the microphone in front of you so the light shows. That 

means your microphone is on. We ask you to keep your opening 

statement to around 5 minutes, and then we will be able to engage 

with some questions with the rest of the panel. Thank you. Ambassador? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDRES ROZENTAL, FORMER MEXICAN 

AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, AND PRESIDENT, ROZENTAL AND 

ASSOCIATES, MEXICO CITY, MEXICO 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators 

Kennedy and Coburn. Thank you for having me. I have prepared 

a written statement, which I leave with you. I won’t read through 

it. I think you will probably find it interesting. 

Chairman CORNYN. We will make it a part of the record. 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. But I wanted to take the opportunity of 

these few minutes to go over two or three points that are contained 

in that statement. 

The first is that in February of 2001, just after President Fox 

was elected and took office as President of Mexico and President 

Bush began his first administration, the two governments agreed 

to work together, guided by a principle of shared responsibility, in 

establishing new mechanisms to allow for legal, orderly, safe, and 

humane migration between both countries. 

The working agenda that was set at the time included five basic 

components: Improving border security and safety; fighting the root 

causes of immigration from Mexico through economic development 

initiatives; modernizing and expanding the existing temporary 

worker mechanisms; addressing the status of undocumented Mexican nationals currently residing in the United States; and reviewing the backlogs of immigration visas and also looking at the possibility of taking Mexico and Canada as NAFTA partners and neighbors out of the country quota system under which the immigration 

law currently operates. 

These five points, which took up about a year of discussions between the two governments, came fairly abruptly to a halt after 9/

11. It is very satisfying to me, because I have been involved in immigration issues between Mexico and the United States for about 

6

30-some years now, to see that this is now again back on the agenda, both in each of our two countries as well as bilaterally. 

The point that I would like to make to you Senators is that, and 

I agree very much with what Senator Kennedy just said in his 

statement, there is no way that this is going to work unless it is 

done together with the source countries. Unilateral immigration reform has been tried before in the United States. There are lots of 

precedents for it. Mexico engaged to share in the responsibility of 

an immigration reform and an immigration agreement with the 

United States and it would be very important for Mexico to be engaged once again in a bilateral fashion on this. There doesn’t seem 

to be any way that I can think of that the United States can administer a temporary worker program or an earned legalization 

program or any other type of immigration reform of substance if it 

doesn’t have the source countries working with it, and this is particularly the case with Mexico. 

Now, Mexico has done quite a few things. As you mentioned, the 

Fox administration began a series of programs to make it more attractive for Mexicans to remain in Mexico and not come to the 

United States. But it occurs to me that the way the social networks 

have now been formed between the communities of Mexicans living 

in the United States and their families and their home country, it 

is probably unrealistic to think that, over the long term, there will 

not be any incentives for Mexicans to come to work in the United 

States or to live in the United States, and I feel very strongly that 

there should be ample ways for them to do it when they do it legally, in an orderly fashion, and according to the laws of both countries. 

I also believe that the only way to engage Mexico to cooperate 

in that is through a series of bilateral agreements. I think that 

that is the hook with which you will be able to get a Mexican government to cooperate and the Mexican government to help implement whatever decisions you take in immigration reform. 

We also are about to go through a political process in Mexico. 

There will be Presidential elections in July. And I think that it is 

very important that this engagement take place as soon as possible 

so that through the transition of a new Mexican administration, 

there be the ability to continue to work together as the case has 

been. 

Perhaps in the questions, I will be able to further expand on 

some of the areas in which the Mexican government has been 

working and areas in which it hasn’t been working yet but could 

be working if a program were designed to engage the Mexican side 

equally with the U.S. on this and also to find ways to undertake 

enforcement in a way in which both sides work together, because 

border security, enforcement of the law, rule of law in general requires both to be able to function. 

I will just finalize with an issue which I have talked about a 

great deal over the years, the circularity of the immigration phenomenon between Mexico and the United States is an extremely 

important part of how it worked and how it functioned, and the 

interruption of circularity probably is one of the reasons why it is 

broken today. Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

7

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rozental appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. Professor Clariond, please proceed with your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA CLARIOND, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, TECHNOLOGICAL AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF MEXICO, MEXICO CITY, MEXICO 

Ms. CLARIOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, 

for this opportunity to speak to you today. 

We firmly believe that the status quo on immigration between 

Mexico and the U.S. is no longer acceptable. Moreover, since the 

infamous attacks of 9/11, the conditions have only been aggravated. 

Because of the current situation, we appreciate the opportunity to 

share our ideas with the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Citizenship. 

It is necessary to act promptly to develop a new migration paradigm on Mexican and Central American immigration to the U.S. 

Almost 75 percent of the current migration flow to the U.S. comes 

from Mexico and Central America. Therefore, I will focus the majority of my testimony on these areas. 

In Mexico and Central America, we fully appreciate the efforts 

of this Committee to promote immigration reform. This testimony 

consists of five elements that we believe should be considered in 

the immigration debate that is taking place in this legislative 

chamber. 

The first element is shared responsibility. The new migration 

status quo should be based on shared responsibility between the receiving country—the U.S.—and the countries with intense rates of 

migration—Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua—as the only way to manage a bilateral and sub-regional 

phenomenon. 

There is an urgency to change the paradigm in which Mexico and 

the U.S. operate on migration matters. Traditionally, U.S. migration policy has been considered a domestic issue. Thus, U.S. authorities have unilaterally managed migration efforts. For its part, 

Mexico for many years had a policy of not having a policy. During 

the Fox and Bush administrations, there have been similar steps 

to engage in a new migration dialogue and cooperation. Still, much 

more has to be done. Mexico and the U.S. must increase their level 

of cooperation in both managing the flow of migrants as well as in 

creating a more secure and efficient border. 

It is also necessary to revise the U.S.-Mexico institutional framework for dealing with the border and migration. A summit involving all agencies in the U.S. and Mexico dealing with security, borders, and migration should take place. The summit will not only 

foster a dialogue on policies and actions, but it will also create a 

new binational mechanism for security, migration, and border cooperation. 

The second element is comprehensive reform. For security matters and given the complicated nature of the migration phenomenon, a comprehensive migration reform is necessary. This reform cannot only partially address the different challenges and 

problems posed by the high levels of Mexican and Central AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Oct 28, 2005 Jkt 023250 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23250.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

ican migration to the U.S., it must deal with needs of both sending 

and receiving countries. 

In addressing five major issues, the Kennedy-McCain initiative, 

Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, represents a substantial change to the current status quo addressing the reality of 

the regional labor market. Mexican analysts and advocacy groups, 

such as the National Migration Institute Citizen Council, have 

urged the Mexican government as well as Congress to engage in 

the Kennedy-McCain effort for comprehensive reform. 

The third element is the creation of an efficient and secure Mexican Southern border. The border between Mexico, Guatemala, and 

Belize is not simply porous, it is wide open. For many decades, an 

open Mexican Southern border didn’t represent a major problem, 

but this is no longer the case in the post-9/11 security-oriented atmosphere. 

In the year 2002, Mexican migration officials deported 138,000 

persons, mostly from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Last year, the number of deportations increased to 215,000. 

Mexico cannot replicate the California experience of the late 1990’s 

of trying to stop the entry of migrants by building walls and fences 

and highly increasing the number of border patrol agents. After a 

decade, it is quite clear that those policies only generated negative 

consequences without reducing illegal immigration. 

Besides entering into a dialogue with Central America and U.S. 

authorities, the Mexican government has to implement a major effort to strengthen the National Migration Institute and organize 

the different police corps and military operating at the Southern 

border. Corruption among Mexican officers must be stopped, both 

for humanitarian and security reasons. 

The fourth element is to formalize a sub-regional dialogue on migration issues. The immigration patterns of the last two decades 

have formed a new hemispheric sub-region composed of Mexico, the 

U.S., and four Central American countries—Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. These accelerated rates of migration explain some new dynamics that are specific to this region. 

The emergence of transnational young criminal gangs, such as the 

Mara Salvatrucha and the Barrio 18, which social ties extend from 

L.A. to Honduras, is one example. In this case, as in many others, 

it is necessary to develop sub-regional approaches to cope effectively with the specific challenges of the region. 

The fifth and last element is the areas in which Mexico should 

engage to strengthen the possibilities of a successful migration reform in the U.S. As Ambassador Rozental was just saying, it is important to return to the circularity of the immigration pattern, improve the health and education coverage of the Mexican nationals, 

including those who migrate to the U.S., and improving security 

and border safety, and one example could be by cooperating with 

the U.S. on fighting the criminal organizations that smuggle immigrants and operate on both sides of the border. Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Professor. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clariond appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. We will start now with a round of questions. 

Let me start perhaps, Professor, with the subject that you were 

9

just addressing. Some have called Mexico’s Southern border America’s third border because the transiting of criminals, human smugglers, and other activities through that border into the United 

States is a security concern. What is Mexico doing to provide greater security along its Southern border and to stop Mexico from being 

a transit point for terrorists, drug dealers, violent gangs, and the 

like? 

Ms. CLARIOND. Well, as I was just saying, the National Institute 

of Migration of Mexico has increased the number of arrests and deportations of immigrants, illegal immigrants, especially from Central America into Mexico. I think that to address, to really address 

the problem of the transnational gangs as the Mara Salvatrucha 

and even criminal drug networks, we really need to form a sub-regional dialogue to work together. We cannot try to address unilaterally these challenges because there is not going to be any forum 

to do it. 

As we said in the report that we handed in before this hearing, 

in Salvador, they tried to implement a zero-tolerance policy towards the Maras. The only thing that happened was that the 

Maras, they started to going to Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, 

Belize, and Mexico, and even into the U.S. 

So Mexico cannot develop a unilateral policy, a zero-tolerance 

policy. It has to work together with Central America and the U.S. 

in order to really try to approach this challenge. 

Chairman CORNYN. I do know that Mexico has been a good partner with the United States in developing strategies for security in 

many respects and we very much appreciate that partnership. At 

the same time, the United States cannot intervene in a sovereign 

nation’s affairs. Regarding the violence, for example, we see happening in Nuevo Laredo and places like that—Ambassador, I would 

appreciate your observations on this—what can the United States 

do to help Mexico further secure law and order within its own borders in addition to participating in these partnerships and other efforts that we have been engaged in for some time now? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. My own feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that 

there—and we have just concluded a tri-national task force report 

on the future of North America in which we have proposed, in effect, the creation of a security perimeter around North America 

whereby all three countries—Canada, the United States, and Mexico—undertake a joint and shared responsibility for creating a zone 

within North America where issues such as those that you have 

mentioned are looked at and dealt with insofar as possible trilaterally. 

I agree with you that sovereignty issues always play a role in 

how countries see what goes on within their own territories. But 

I think that it is clear, and from a survey that the Council that I 

chair undertook last year in Mexico of public opinion attitudes towards international relations and relations with the United States 

specifically, that Mexicans, by and large, understand that these 

issues need to be addressed jointly and that because they need to 

be addressed jointly, they require us to understand that we can 

have things which perhaps in principle look like sovereignty issues 

but that at the end of the day make our own region and our own 

10

countries, individually and jointly, more secure and safer for the 

citizens within them. 

It was interesting to see that Mexicans by a majority, a fairly 

large majority, agreed to have the stationing of U.S. law enforcement personnel within Mexican territory if it meant that they 

would be safer from external threats to North America by doing so. 

Chairman CORNYN. Let me ask you about this concept of circularity of migration that both, Mr. Ambassador, you and the Professor both emphasized. This seems to be a subject that comes up 

repeatedly in our conversations with our friends in Mexico. And, it 

seems to be very consistent with America’s national interests and 

the national interests of Mexico, in particular, but also with those 

of other countries in Central and South America. People who would 

come to work in the United States for a time would have the ability 

to cross the border during the period of their work visa. Ultimately, 

to the success of economies like Mexico and those of countries in 

Central America, people would actually return home at some point 

with savings and skills, not permanently emigrate to the United 

States. 

Could you please comment on your view of that issue, Ambassador? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Certainly, Senator. The history of migration patterns between Mexico and the United States, and I take 

that particular example because it is the one I know best, show 

that, at times—at the times when there were less, fewer obstacles 

to circularity, that is, to coming and going, the numbers of people 

who came and went, especially the ones who stayed in the United 

States, were much lower. 

It is my understanding, and I certainly—there is no way to prove 

it until we try it, but the fact is that the erection of all the barriers 

that have been put up at the border, the fences and the operations 

and the enforcement measures that have been taken, have really 

only served to ensure that the people who do make it across, and 

they always do make it across, stay in the United States because 

it is much more difficult to come and go. 

I feel that if there were sufficient opportunities for Mexicans and 

others to work in the United States legitimately, in an orderly 

fashion, according to United States laws, and to come here fairly 

easily, that is, to obtain visas without a 10-year waiting period or 

whatever it is, that there would be much less, one, illegality, and 

two, many fewer people who would want to remain in the United 

States permanently. Again, it is difficult to prove it, but I think 

that the history shows that that is the way it worked before the 

beginning of all of these programs to stop people from crossing. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you both. Let me ask, Ambassador, 

why do you think all five of these points are necessary to reform 

the immigration laws and the sort of chaos lawlessness that now 

exists? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Senator, thank you. I believe that all five 

are necessary because they all form part of the phenomenon. They 

all have to do with the issue of immigration. I mean, the first, of 

course, is what do you do about all the people who have yet to come 

11

to the United States to work, who are being demanded for work 

here, who have job offers and who have the ability to be employed? 

The second part is, of course, the several million people who are 

already in the United States without proper authorization, and you 

can’t, I think, solve the first issue without addressing the second 

issue, among other reasons, because of the constituencies involved 

within the internal domestic political system of the United States 

and the various groups that deal with the issue. 

Border security and safety not only after 9/11, but even before 9/

11 was a very big issue, and what has happened in these recent 

weeks and months at the border with the United States on the 

Mexican side, although perhaps today more evident from media 

coverage, is not new. There has always been a degree of criminal 

element in the border, at the border, because of the illegality of the 

issues that cross the border, whether it is arms smuggling or people smuggling or illegal immigration or contraband or anything 

else. 

The efforts that Mexico needs to make, and these are efforts 

which I think the United States should participate in, perhaps together even with Canada, to enhance the opportunities for its own 

citizens within the country, for a developing country that has so 

many other requirements to deal with in its social and economic 

structure is an issue which needs to be addressed, as well, because 

as long as there are areas and pockets of poverty in Mexico and 

states that don’t give opportunity to their people, then those people 

will be looking for ways to move forward. 

And finally, the country quota system, although on the books, in 

practice is not being observed. There are many more Mexicans who 

get legal and proper visas to come to the United States under all 

of the different programs that are offered for them to do that, 

whether it is family reunification or whatever, that if all of this 

was put in an orderly system and Mexicans knew that if they had 

a job offer here and they could come and that the visa would be 

available within, I don’t know, 30 days if they could prove that 

they had a job offer and that they could come back and forward at 

the end of that job offer or move to another job, that there would 

be much less of an illegality to the system. 

So from my perspective—a former Foreign Minister of Mexico 

called it a ‘‘whole enchilada.’’ I wouldn’t call it that, but I would 

say that these are very much entwined as issues in the immigration phenomenon and, therefore, need to be looked at together, including the border security and enforcement issue, which I think 

is very much a matter of consideration of this Subcommittee. 

Senator KENNEDY. Maybe you have answered this question with 

the first one, but what would happen if our Congress only addressed the border security and didn’t address the need for legal 

status of the undocumented or a legal avenue of new temporary 

workers? What do you think the result would be? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Senator, I think the result would be exactly the same as we have had for the last 50 years. You would 

continue to have the same phenomenon of Mexicans crossing over 

to the United States to work. Americans, by the way, staying in 

Mexico to work, as well, without proper authorization. I should 

point out that this is not just a pure one-way street. There are 

12

many fewer, but there are Americans who live in Mexico and work 

in Mexico without proper documentation. 

And I think that the only way that you can address this issue 

and get to the root causes of it is to deal with those points in addition to enforcement. The U.S. has done nothing but to try to enforce the border up until now, and over successive immigration reform acts and all of the money and resources, human and financial, 

that have been put in enforcement, it has not made the slightest 

dent in the actual numerical issue of the migration phenomenon. 

Senator KENNEDY. Professor Clariond, let me ask you, how can 

we best guard against the corruption, the fraud, the other illegal 

activities by the sort of unscrupulous recruiters and make sure the 

visas are available to qualified workers? 

Ms. CLARIOND. We are going to start right now cities. The H2A 

and H2B visas that almost were allocated to Mexican workers, almost in the number of 70,000 visas last year, there is no involvement of the Mexican or the U.S. Government in allocating these 

visas. So they are in hands of recruiters which can lead to an increase in the possibilities of corruption and fraud. So I think that 

the best way to guard against this kind of illegal activities will be 

not to let it go in the hands of the recruiters and to form an intergovernmental task force in Mexico with the participation of labor, 

foreign affairs, interior, and social development ministers in order 

to be able to manage the demand for visas in the U.S. 

Senator KENNEDY. I think that is a good suggestion. My time is 

up, but I would be interested in following up. 

Also, Ambassador, as I mentioned, my time is up, but I hope that 

sometime you might be able to supplement about your reactions to 

that Three-to-One Program, which I would be interested in your 

ideas. Perhaps the Professor could give us a little summary about 

your own impressions on that, what you think its strengths are, its 

possibilities for expansion. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Coburn has graciously allowed Senator Kyl to go first because I know you have a short amount of time to be here, Senator 

Kyl, so please go ahead. 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate 

that. Senator Coburn, I need to apologize to both of you. I am the 

Chairman of another Committee that is meeting right now just 

down the hall. Fortunately, it is on the same floor of the same 

building, but I do need to return to that. 

So rather than take the time of my colleagues here, I wonder if 

you would be willing if I submitted a couple of questions for the 

record. It would give you time to think about the response to that, 

and I will just tell you a couple of the subject matters. 

One of the things, Ms. Clariond, that you mentioned was that 

perhaps Mexico could do more to help the United States with interdiction and removal of the third-country nationals, sometimes 

known as OTMs. I am very interested in how that might be helpful. 

Mr. Ambassador, I am interested in what Mexico might do to realistically work with the United States, cooperate with the United 

13

States in a temporary worker program. The last suggestion might 

be part of that, and perhaps that could be expanded on. 

And then, finally, the third area would deal with what recommendations you would have with respect to people who are already here illegally as contrasted with those who might participate 

in a guest worker program prospectively and how we would make 

that work. 

But again, let me ask you to submit that for the record so that 

I don’t use my colleagues’ time here. I again apologize to you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Coburn. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Kyl. 

Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. 

Ambassador, a couple of questions I have. The Mexican government, I guess it was last year, stopped requiring visas for Brazilians, and since that time, we have seen a tremendously increased 

number of Brazilians, not necessarily the poorest but some from 

the lower-middle economic classes coming through Mexico as a 

transit. Can you explain the logic behind elimination of the visa requirement for Mexico for Brazilians who are coming in and 

transiting through? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Thank you, Senator. Well, I, of course, 

don’t represent the government and I with difficulty would be able 

to tell you why certain policies are government policy. I suspect 

that because Brazil is a sister Latin American country and because 

we generally have a suppression of visa regime with most of the 

countries in Latin America that this was not an issue. 

I know that the United States government has been in discussions with the Mexican government about requiring visas for Brazilians. One of the things that has been done recently, and I think 

it is a harbinger of the type of cooperation that I think a North 

American security perimeter would require, is harmonization of 

third-country visa policies. We have done it to some extent already, 

but not fully, and I think that the only way to consider it in a 

wider scheme of things would be precisely to have an overall cooperation. 

In the Ottawa meeting of the ministerial groups that reported to 

Presidents Bush, Fox, and Prime Minister Martin of Canada just 

this last Monday, one of the issues which is covered in the report 

is third-country national visa harmonization, and it is certainly, I 

think, one of the issues that needs to be looked at. 

One of the things I would like to remind people that I talk to 

about immigration matters in North America is that Canada does 

not require visas from Mexicans. It is a country that Mexicans can 

visit freely for the amount of time that the Canadian authorities 

allow Mexicans to go there, and we have no undocumented or illegal immigration issue with Canada whatsoever. We have a guest 

worker program for agricultural sector that covers several of the 

provinces. There are about 10,000 Mexicans that go every year. 

They all come home. They are all rehired the following year. They 

now have a longstanding presence among their employers. Their 

employers want the same people to keep coming and it works very 

well. 

14

That, although the numbers are obviously very different from 

those that could be involved in a U.S.-Mexican temporary worker 

program, it is certainly a possibility and it is a bilateral program. 

That is, both governments administer it jointly. 

Senator COBURN. Would you care to guess for us the number of 

visas, H1 and H2 visas, that might be required to fully meet the 

needs that we have on our side as well as the demands coming 

from Mexicans and other than Mexicans on a visa program if, in 

fact, we had an ideal program, much like Canada has? Would you 

have any idea of the number of visas We have had discussions on 

the floor in the Senate. There has been a lot of discussion bandied 

around in terms of the guest worker program. Do you have any 

ideas as to those numbers? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. The only number that I can give you 

with any authority is the one that, bilaterally, Mexico and the 

United States have been looking at from the time that we did our 

binational study, and that is that it has fluctuated yearly between 

300,000 and 400,000 people. We don’t know how many of those people return, so that whether the universe is—are all individuals who 

are different or whether they come and go. But presumably, if you 

were to cover, from the Mexican point of view, the total amount, 

you would be talking about somewhere in that ballpark figure. 

If you were to add the Central Americans and other countries, 

OTMs, as they are called, other-than-Mexican nationals, it would 

probably be an additional amount, although I think that, statistically, Mexicans cover about 60 percent of the numbers. 

Senator COBURN. Professor Clariond, would you have an answer 

to that question or an estimate? 

Ms. CLARIOND. I agree with Ambassador Rozental. He used—I 

mean, Jeffrey Pascal from the Pew Hispanic Center, his last estimates indicate that around Mexican migration to the U.S. fluctuates between 420,000 and 480,000, so if you really want to have 

access, give legal channels to this migration, it will have to be 

around that number. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you very much. My time has about expired and I will yield back. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Coburn. 

Professor, one of the burdens that illegal immigration places on 

taxpayers at the local level is the cost of health care. We know that 

it is the most expensive, least efficient form of delivery because it 

is in emergency rooms. The Federal Government requires an emergency room to see any patient without regard to their citizenship 

status, without regard to whether they have insurance or not. 

In my State, Texas, 25 percent of the population is without 

health insurance, which means that an awful lot of people end up 

going to the emergency room, and many emergency rooms in large 

cities, like Dallas, for example, at Parkland Hospital, have to go on 

‘‘divert’’ status. That is, they can’t take any emergencies because 

they are full of people who are not emergencies, who don’t have 

health care, who have nowhere else to go. 

What kind of obligation would you see that Mexico and any other 

country that would benefit from an authorized worker program, 

what sort of obligations could the United States expect them to accept in terms of the health care of their own people and relieving 

15

some of that burden off of the local taxpayers in Texas and places 

like that? 

Ms. CLARIOND. Well, the Mexican government clearly needs to 

strengthen its health coverage programs. It just implemented a 

new program called Seguro Popular, that it is a public health program for low-income families. These are the families that do not 

have access to any other kind of health system, Social Security system in Mexico. The idea is to see if the Seguro Popular could be 

extended to migrants, Mexican migrants in the U.S. 

Another idea can be to establish a bilateral or binational health 

coverage system with private enterprises joining in and seeing that 

some of these migrants can receive health care attention in Mexico, 

not only in the U.S. 

Chairman CORNYN. Ambassador, I would be interested in your 

comments in that regard, as well. I think virtually every country 

in the world, as a condition to issuing visas or allowing people from 

other countries to enter that country for any extended period of 

time, require proof of health insurance. Would that be one of the 

alternatives that you think would be a reasonable requirement of 

temporary workers who would be admitted to the United States 

under such a program were it adopted? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Senator, it works that way with our Canadian program, the Mexican-Canadian program. They are insured 

while they are in the United States. Mexican undocumented workers usually pay fairly large amounts to the smugglers who put 

them across. If you didn’t have to pay that and you used that 

money to partially pay for health insurance while you are in the 

United States, I would suspect that many of them would prefer to 

have health insurance and prefer to have access not only to emergency room care, but to general health care. 

The other possibility, and this ties in with the issue of incentives, 

I think Mexico and the U.S. need to find together, but Mexico 

needs to do its part, of course, to find incentives to keep Mexicans 

at home, but it also needs to find incentives for Mexicans to use 

Mexican educational, Mexican health, Mexican other services that 

are available. 

Under the understanding that there would be a program which 

the Mexican side would be involved with or shared responsibility 

for, things like a binational health insurance scheme, issues relating to the Seguro Popular that Roberta mentioned, the possibility 

which we even discussed back when I was Deputy Foreign Minister 

in the prehistoric times of this century—of last century, actually—

was to allow for emergency health care at the border to be provided 

on the Mexican side rather than on the U.S. side. Now, there is a 

time problem and you can’t expect people to make a big trip, but 

at least along the border, and this specifically referred to the State 

of Texas, the idea that Mexicans who needed emergency health 

care could get it on the Mexican side rather than on the U.S. side 

in order to alleviate the cost to the U.S. taxpayer. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you. Let me ask again, we talked a 

little bit about the circularity of migration issue and this sort of 

counterintuitive idea—I mean, I understand what you are saying, 

and I have seen this written up in a number of places, that by enhancing border security in the United States, we have actually 

16

locked people into our country, in a sense, rather than allowed 

them to go back and forth. 

But, we all know that we simply can’t have an open border and 

we all know that the United States and any country has to know 

who is coming into their country and why. And finally, I would say 

we have to be able to place some reasonable limits on immigration. 

Any nation in its own interest has to be able to limit immigration 

to some rational level, recognizing that there is a tremendous demand for the labor provided by immigrants. 

I want to press you maybe a little bit, Mr. Ambassador, on the 

security issue again because I don’t know how we deal with the terrorist who wants to come across if we regard the security perimeter 

as only covering the three countries of the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico. I mean, I wouldn’t expect you to want American law 

enforcement to go to Nuevo Laredo and intervene in those violent 

episodes. 

I guess I am wondering a little bit, do you see a difference between the way that Americans view sovereignty in terms of what 

our borders mean as opposed to the way Mexicans view our border? 

I sense there would be some difference in perception and approach 

because so many of my friends from Mexico seem to view us as a 

North American continent, not as separate nations with sovereign 

borders. 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Thank you, Senator. No, I am not one of 

those that feels very strongly either way. I think we have a North 

American sub-region. We have set up a North American Free Trade 

Agreement. We have free movement of goods. We have a fair 

amount of free moment of services. I think that, eventually, as a 

long-term goal, an open border or a free movement of people should 

be a long-term goal. 

I think it is obviously unrealistic to expect that to happen today 

or even in the next 15 or 20 years, but hopefully when Mexico is 

a developed country, when the economy and the social structure of 

Mexico are such that they are more in line with the U.S. and Canada, there is no reason why we couldn’t have a similar situation 

as to what the Europeans have, and that is a fair amount of freedom of movement both for jobs as well as for other legitimate activities. 

The issue of stopping terrorists and undesirables, if you like, 

from my perspective, would work better if it were done on the other 

perimeters of our region than if it is done at the land borders, 

which are already extremely congested, saturated, where you have 

the issue of the trade and the commercial traffic that goes through. 

You mentioned Nuevo Laredo. Sixty percent of our bilateral trade 

goes through truck traffic in Nuevo Laredo, as you well know. 

If you concentrate all of the resources that you are today concentrating on the fight against terrorism and securing the U.S. homeland and you don’t worry about what is going on on the Southern 

border of Mexico or the Northern borders of Canada or the 

entranceways, gateways into the airports and seaports, you are, in 

effect, only doing half of the job. 

And my point is that you work in looking at North America as 

a region and then you transfer part—not all, but part of the security mechanism to the outer perimeter through third-country naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Oct 28, 2005 Jkt 023250 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23250.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
17

tional visa harmonization, watch lists, sharing of databases, for example, deciding that before you issue a visa to come into North 

America in the U.S. Consulate in Paris or in Tehran, you consult 

the Mexicans and the Canadians as to whether they have any information on that individual, things of that sort which can increase 

security and increase the protection that you give to the region. 

That doesn’t address the issue within the region, but it does address part of the issue outside. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you. 

Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. I just had one question. It is kind of a personal 

note and it is to ask motivation rather than anything, in your opinion. As an obstetrician, I have delivered lots of foreign babies in my 

practice in Oklahoma, most of which are Hispanic, but not all 

Mexican. Is there part, because of our citizenship requirements of 

birth, if you are born in this country, does that play a role at all 

in motivation for coming across the border? You know, this is a 

more frequent occurrence in this country, and, of course, there is 

chain migration associated with that in that if you are born here 

to an illegal alien, you are still a U.S. citizen. 

Is that part of the motivation? Is that ever in the thinking, or 

is that just a happenstance of those that are here, in your opinion? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Senator, I think it certainly is a phenomenon that exists. I think it exists much more along the Mexican border, in Mexican border cities, especially Tijuana and some 

other places, where more well-to-do Mexican women go to have 

their deliveries in the United States for that reason. But I do not 

think that it plays a very dramatic or important role in the general 

migration phenomena. 

Senator COBURN. If my daughter were pregnant and delivered in 

Mexico, would she be a Mexican citizen? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Yes, she would. 

Senator COBURN. The child would? Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. Ambassador Rozental and Professor, I read 

with interest about a mortgage program for Mexican migrants 

where Mexican migrants living in the U.S. can obtain mortgages to 

buy homes in Mexico. Supporters of the program argue that it will 

increase the standard of living of the families of migrants in Mexico and it will reinforce migrants’ roots in their native country. 

What steps do you think Mexico and other countries can take to 

increase economic opportunity at home to maintain ties to one’s 

homeland in a way that promotes the circularity of migration you 

are talking about and prevents the severance of ties on a permanent basis with their home country such that they are more likely 

to permanently emigrate to the United States? Professor, would 

you like to take a stab at that first, please? 

Ms. CLARIOND. Yes. Thank you, Senator. The Mexican government recently has implemented a program on transnational mortgage, as you were saying, to make housing available for low-income 

families. So I think it will, as part of any temporary worker program between Mexico—that Mexico cooperates with the U.S., it 

will be—the Mexican government can broaden this program and 

make it accessible for Mexican immigrants to come back, as an incentive to come back and be able to own their own house and their 

18

family—for their family. This really, as we all know, owning a 

home is part of strengthening your ties to your community of origin. So I think this will provide to be an important economic incentive for migrants, Mexican migrants in the U.S. to go back. 

Chairman CORNYN. Ambassador, one proposal that I am familiar 

with—that I learned about from Senator Phil Gramm, my predecessor—I embraced in a bill I sponsored last year. It would allow 

the withholding from a worker’s pay (someone who works on a temporary basis in the United States and would not be eligible for Social Security through the United States or Medicare) sums that 

would ordinarily be withheld, and it would put them in a separate 

account for the worker. The sums would only be made available to 

the worker upon return to his/her country of origin. The belief is 

that this would provide yet another incentive for the worker to return home by providing him/her with some capital—savings that 

would be beneficial to the worker and to the country of origin because it could be used to buy a home, start a small business, or 

otherwise contribute to the economic development of that country. 

Do you see that as one potential approach that we could use, or are 

there positives or negatives associated with that? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. Thank you, Senator. The Social Security 

Administration in this country and the Mexican Social Security Institute signed an agreement back in June of last year, a so-called 

totalization agreement, which allows Mexicans who work both in 

the United States and in Mexico to be able to retire and get Social 

Security benefits from both under this agreement. It works also for 

Americans who work in Mexico. It also avoids dual Social Security 

taxation, which is an issue that people who work in both countries 

have to deal with. 

That agreement, which was negotiated and signed by both governments, is still pending submission to this Senate and also pending submission to the Mexican Congress for ratification. Once it is 

ratified, it will go a long way towards doing exactly what you mentioned. 

Whether you could also add to that the possibility of a withholding for a savings account, an IRA-type system where you would 

have something for when you went back home, I think is certainly 

a feasibility. The number one use in Mexico of remittances sent by 

Mexican migrant workers home is for the purchase of a home. 

Chairman CORNYN. I know occasionally, I hear people say that 

one reason why Mexico and other countries are not committed to 

immigration reform in the United States is because these countries 

depend on the remittances sent from workers here in the United 

States. I think that is wrong. I disagree with those who argue that 

because if you would estimate that the remittances, the amount of 

money actually sent, let us say from the United States to Mexico, 

which I think is in the $16 to $17 billion range per year, represents 

the savings rate by immigrants, let us say it is ten percent of one’s 

earnings, Mexico might be the beneficiary from an economic standpoint of that $16 or $17 billion, but it represents an additional 90 

percent of economic activity which is taking place in the United 

States and not in Mexico. So, I have a little difficulty with the argument. 

19

Thus, I might just ask, Ambassador, this question. What other 

steps do you believe that Mexico can take on its own or with help 

from the United States to develop its economy and create jobs and 

opportunities in that country so that, as both President Fox and 

Secretary Derbez have said, Mexicans can achieve their life’s 

dreams in their country of origin? 

Ambassador ROZENTAL. I think there are two aspects to the question, Senator. The first aspect is the question of the incentives that 

the Mexican government as such can put on the table for Mexicans 

to stay in Mexico or return to Mexico if they are not in Mexico or 

if they travel or take jobs elsewhere. 

And the other aspect, of course, has to do with how Mexicans 

themselves see this phenomenon of circularity. I mentioned earlier 

that the way it used to work, before all of the obstacles came about, 

was that most Mexicans would go seasonally into the United States 

and work in the agricultural sector to do seasonal work and then 

go home and have jobs the rest of the year. Today, the category of 

migrants that come from Mexico has changed considerably. They 

are no longer predominately agricultural workers. Today, they 

work in the service sector, they work in a whole series of areas of 

the U.S. economy that are not limited to agriculture. 

And they also probably would be better off if they were able to 

deal with their skills in both countries, and many of them do, and 

many of them risk the travail of crossing the border and risking 

being caught and deported and going back again because the number of reincidences that the Border Patrol and the U.S. Immigration Service documents is rather high, which, in effect, again indicates that they are looking at this as almost a bilateral labor market in which they would like to be able to work a certain period 

of time, whether it is a few months of a year or a few years of a 

decade in the United States and then be able to go home, because 

that is where their families are, that is where their ties are, in 

some cases that is where they own property. 

Again, the circularity issue, the interruption of circularity, I 

think to a great extent has led to the fact that the system doesn’t 

work the way it used to. 

On the incentive issue, there are incentives of a financial nature. 

Senator Kennedy and yourself, you mentioned the Three-for-One 

Program. This is a program that President Fox put into place to 

match remittances with federal, state, and local—which is why it 

is called three-to-one—dollars with investment in infrastructure, 

infrastructure being job creating on the one hand and also giving 

development opportunities to these regions of Mexico that generally 

are poorer. 

Employment incentives—you will be able, presumably, under an 

agreement that those who came back to Mexico would have some 

sort of a fast track into the job market, to be able to get employment in an easier way and through a government-sponsored 

scheme where they would be able to enter the job market in Mexico 

in a better system. 

Educational incentives—Mexicans who came to the United States 

and worked here and picked up skills while they were here could 

then go back to Mexico with educational incentives to be able to either continue their training and their skill building or go into the 

20

educational system beyond high school and beyond what the average Mexican goes through. 

And then there are the pension and Social Security incentives. 

There is the mortgage incentive that we talked about for homebuilding. There are a whole series of issues that could be on the 

table. 

Again, all of these, I think, are conditioned on the bilateral nature of the discussion. As I said at the outset, the bilateral part of 

the discussion was interrupted fundamentally at 9/11 and has not 

really resumed as far as immigration is concerned since then. 

Chairman CORNYN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador 

and Professor. Thank you for your time and testimony on this important subject. 

We will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, 

July 7, for members to submit additional questions in writing or 

additional documents for the record. 

With that, and with my thanks, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

21


23250.001
22


23250.002
23


23250.003
24


23250.004
25


23250.005
26


23250.006
27


23250.007
28


23250.008
29


23250.009
30


23250.010
31


23250.011
32

Æ


23250.012