THE

VISIBLE LEASH:

ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES

Alexis J. Ruiz

"Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de Estados Unidos."

“Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United State”
-Porfirio Díaz
I. INTRODUCTION

The United States has historically treated itself as a nation above all others;

according to United States news reports, the country is the largest world superpower, with

the strongest military, a dominant economy, and an extensive cultural imprint.1

The relationship between the United States of America and the neighboring United

Mexican States, more commonly known as Mexico, has always been tremulous. The two

countries share a 2,000 mile border, and as such have had a long history of interactions,

both positive and negative.2 In terms of their perceptions of each other, U.S. citizens have

reported in surveys that they see Mexico as being antiquated, unsafe, and corrupt.3 The

sheer scale of Mexico’s economic and cultural influence on the United States is not

extensively known to U.S. citizens; rather, many seem to diminish the role that Mexico has

in the relationship with the U.S. while simultaneously criminalizing the country as a whole.4

When viewing Mexico and the United States, many U.S. citizens focus on potential security

and immigration issues, rather than the importance of emphasizing trade and economic

1 Sinéad Baker, The Most Powerful Countries, Ranked, INSIDER (Jan. 19, 2020),

https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-most-powerful-countries-2020-ranked-us-news-2020-.
2
Clare Ribando Seelke, Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations, CRS Report, https://heinonline-
org.jerome.stjohns.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.crs/goveayo0001&i=5.
3
YouGov Survey, American Attitudes on Mexico, Vianovo, June 7, 2016,
https://vianovo.com/assets/uploads/news/2016-Am-Public-and-Mexico-Survey-Topline-final.pdf.
4
National Survey Results, Mexico’s Brand in the U.S., Vianovo,
https://vianovo.com/assets/uploads/news/U.S.-Attitudes-About-Mexico-June-2016-final-release.pdf.

1
issues.5 The issue with Mexican drug trafficking groups has played a part in this; Mexico

has taken measures to cut off the drug trade in the country since 2006, and has made

strides with the additional help of the United States, but there has been little success.6

Politically, the interactions between past leaders of the United States and of Mexico have

ranged from mutual respect to thinly-veiled animosity, dependent on the platform and

goals that each president has had.7

Considering the scope of the history that lies between the United States and Mexico,

the purpose of this paper is to analyze whether Mexico is able to, or should even attempt to,

pursue a more independent cultural and economic identity without terminating or

decreasing their current relationship with the United States. This article also challenges the

unilateral position that the United States often takes when issuing foreign aid and support

to Mexico, highlights the repercussions of this position, and argues that a lack of change

will prove to be detrimental to U.S.-Mexico relations.

This paper is divided into four main parts. The first part offers an overview of

Mexico’s history and the country’s connections with the United States, from the Mexican

American War to the creation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA); this

section also discusses the history of migration issues and discrimination within the United

States. The second part details the economy of Mexico and legislation that has affected the

country’s correspondence with other nation-states. The third part breaks down the fight

5
Id at 19.
6
CFR Editors, Mexico’s Long War: Drugs, Crime, and the Cartels, CFR, Feb. 26, 2021,
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-long-war-drugs-crime-and-cartels#chapter-title-0-3.
7 Mary Beth Sheridan, The Weirdly Great Relationship between Trump and Mexico’s New Leftist President,

WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 14, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-weirdly-

great-relationship-between-trump-and-mexicos-new-leftist-president/2018/12/13/c849fe64-fd75-11e8-
a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html.

2
against narcotic production, the Mexican Government’s attempts at controlling its country,

and the criminalization of Mexico by the United States. The fourth part highlights the

cultural influence by the United States on Mexican Culture, the effect of anti-Latino

sentiment, and how the country has addressed migration to Mexico as compared to the

United States. This part also takes into consideration the provided history and background

in this paper and analyzes the costs and benefits of continuing the current relationship that

Mexico has with the United States. The fifth part concludes this paper, summarizing the key

points and arguments made and what should be understood now about U.S.-Mexico

relations, both cultural and political.

I. A BACKGROUND ON U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS

It would be very easy to disregard the influence that the past can have on the present, in

both a political, social, and cultural sense. Doing so when looking at today’s interactions

between Mexico and the United States only hinders the grasp that one can have on the

impact that these correspondences have. The past between Mexico and the United States is

one of turmoil and contradiction, with moments of cooperation.8 Understanding the scope

of this history, even from the days of Spanish rule, aids in our comprehension of the image

that the United States has of Mexico and vice versa. The complex geopolitical relations that

have occurred between the two countries shape their current standing with each other in

ways that can be nearly imperceptible; however, looking at recent relations with a lens of

knowledge of the past allows for a richer comprehension of the present.

A. History between Mexico and the United States

8 Lorenzo Meyer, The United States and Mexico: The Historical Structure of Their Conflict, in JOURNAL OF

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS VOL. 43 NO. 2 251, 252 (1990)

3
 The first documented interactions between the United States and Mexico began

from relations between the U.S. and the Spanish that colonized Southern America.9

Disputes amongst Spanish-American colonies were frequent, with tensions in the Florida

and Texas state that Spain owned; with the Onís-Adams Treaty of 1819, Spain removed its

claim over Florida, and Spain’s claim over Texas was recognized by the United States.10

Internally, revolts were frequent in Mexico during this time, as those residing in Mexico

fought the Spanish for independence.11 While many led revolts and fought to overthrow the

Spanish, Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla is credited with starting the actual rebellion for

independence.12 On September 16th, 1810, now recognized as Mexican Independence Day,

Hidalgo called for independence against the Spanish, proper land redistribution to the

people of Mexico, and equality amongst all of the races in Mexico; this speech that Hidalgo

made came to be known as El Grito de Doloros.13 The war for independence lasted until

August 24, 1821, and the United States recognized Mexico’s independence on December 12,

1822, when the Mexican Minister José Manuel Zozaya was received in Washington D.C.14

Before declaring their independence, Mexico had few diplomatic relations with the United

States; it was not so much that they had not attempted to receive recognition, but rather

that the United States wished to be seen as neutral during the revolts between the Spanish

and Mexican people.15 However, it is documented that some politicians and other citizens

9
Office of the Historian, Acquisition of Florida, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida
10
Id.
11
De la Teja, Jesús. Mexican War of Independence. May 1, 1995,
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mexican-war-of-independence
12 Id.
13 Britannica, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, Jul. 26 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Miguel-Hidalgo-

y-Costilla.
14 Office of the Historian, A Guide to the United States’ History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular

Relations, by Country, since 1776: Mexico, https://history.state.gov/countries/mexico

15 Id.

4
in the United States wished for Mexico’s independence; one news article highlighted this:

“Where is the Republican that does not sigh for the emancipation of Mexico? Who is there

in the United States . . . that would not be benefitted by the liberation of this great empire

from Spain[?]”16 This serves to highlight how the United States prioritized, above all, the

potential economic and trade benefits that Mexico could provide, rather than the freedom

from Spanish rule that the Mexican people were fighting for.

Prior to and past declaring independence, many issues that would arise between

Mexico and the United States would be deeply rooted in territorial claim. For both

countries, more territory meant more power, and so conflict over land bordering the

United States and Mexico was frequent. One key example of this was the conflict over

Texas. The state was owned by Mexico up until 1836, and at the time thousands of U.S.

immigrants lived there.17 Concern over the number of Americans in Texas prompted

Mexico to close its Texas border, and the Mexican government restricted the American

citizens in the state; this lasted until 1836, when the Mexican President Santa Anna created

a constitution that essentially rendered the local offices in the state powerless.18 This led to

revolts in Texas, culminating in Texas declaring itself to be independent. President Santa

Anna created and led an army to end Texas’ independence, but this effort failed and led to

the President being captured and forced by Texans to give the state independence.19

Mexico never truly recognized Texas’ independence, and so when the United States decided

16 Richard J. Salvucci, The Origins and Progress of U.S>-Mexican Trade, 1825-1884, in THE HISPANIC

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW VOL 71 NO. 4, 697 (1991) (quoting NILES WEEKLY REGISTER, Sept. 30,
1815).
17 Britannica, supra.
18 Id.
19 Id.

5
to annex Texas in 1845, diplomatic relations were disrupted.20 During this time, the

concept of the Manifest Destiny was widely held by the United States, and this combined

with its actions concerning Texas highlighted the country’s goal of expanding its territory

as much as possible.21 Former U.S. President James K. Polk attempted to purchase the state

of California from Mexico in 1845, and when the Mexican government refused, Polk

ordered for the occupation of a territory that was being disputed between the two

countries.22 Militia clashed, and the United States President declared war on Mexico; the

Mexican-American War lasted from 1846 to 1848, with thousands of casualties on both

sides.23 The war ended in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in

which Mexico giving up territory that is now in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and other

states, in exchange for fifteen million dollars.24

The Mexican American war truly damaged the perceptions that the two countries

had of each other. For Mexico, the war emphasized its view of the United States as a power

hungry, vindictive entity, willing to go to war over any matter. For the United States, it

increased stereotypes of the Mexican people as being angry and quick to fight. The most

significant outcome of the war was Mexico losing one-half of its prior territory; it is

impossible to estimate what Mexico would be today should the country have retained that

territory. The Treaty of Hidalgo, which ended the war, required for a clear ”boundary line

20 Office of the Historian, supra.

21 Michael Dear, Monuments, Manifest Destiny, and Mexico, in PROLOGUE MAGAZINE VOL. 37 NO. 2 (2005),

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/summer/mexico-
1.html#:~:text=Some%20decades%20earlier%2C%20the%20United,New%20Mexico%2C%20Arizona%2C
%20California%2C.
22 Britannica, supra.
23 Britannica, Mexican-American War, Jun. 21, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexican-American-

War/Invasion-and-war.
24 Id.

6
with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground landmarks

which shall show the limits of both republics."25 Essentially, the Treaty led to the creation

of the U.S.-Mexican border, establishing the Rio Grande as the true divide. The recognition

of this border can be shown to have led to the development of immigration regulation law

in the United States, discussed in the following section.

B. Migrant History and Treatment

There were few laws governing the act of immigration to the United States prior to

the mid-nineteenth century. This changed with the Immigration Act of 1864, also known as

An Act to Encourage Immigration, which made immigrant labor contracts created abroad

enforceable by U.S. courts.26 This was in response to labor shortages, and the act also

created the opportunity for migrants to be employed more easily by both small and large

companies alike. By contrast, in 1885 the Alien Contract Labor Law, also known as the

Foran Act, banned employers from contracting unfit immigrants and bringing them to the

United States.27 No matter the law at hand, employers would continuously bypass the

legislation and send recruiters to Mexico to convince Mexicans to migrate. American

employers have historically treated migrant workers as a cheap source of labor. Companies

such as the Southern Pacific Railroad would entice workers from Mexico to the United

States through advertisements and active recruiting methods, even after the Foran Act was

passed.28

25 Michael Dear, supra.

26
Act to Encourage Immigration, 13 Stat. 385, 38 Cong. Ch. 246
27
Importation of Foreigners Under Contract to Perform Labor, 23 Stat. 332, 48 Cong. Ch. 164
28
Parker, Edna. The Southern Pacific Railroad and Settlement in Southern California,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3633158

7
 With the increase in Mexican immigrants came a growth in anti-Latino sentiment.

The true scale and severity of the anti-Mexican violence that occurred between 1848 and

1928 is largely unknown to the U.S. public.29 During this period on the West Coast, mobs

would terrorize and lynch people of Mexican origin, claiming thousands of victims.30 One

victim sparked a diplomatic issue between the United States and Mexico. In 1910, Antonio

Rodríguez, a twenty-year-old Mexican national who was working in Texas, was accused of

murdering a white woman.31 He was arrested and taken to a jail cell; the following day, a

mob snatched him from his cell, tied him to a tree, and burned him alive.32 Rodríguez’s

death led to a rise in anti-American sentiment in Mexico; he had a right to a trial, and the

mob’s execution of him was clearly race-motivated in their eyes. Angry groups of Mexican

citizens raged through Mexico City and towns on the Texas border. Francisco León de la

Barra, a Mexican ambassador in the U.S., filed a claim for reparations with the U.S.

Department of State. U.S. Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson responded solely by focusing on

the riots that occurred and placing the blame completely on the Mexican government,

calling the riots a disgrace.33 The actions of the United States government only fanned the

flames of anger that Mexican citizens felt.

Another case of a lynching, this time involving two brothers surprisingly ended with

a conviction of the murderers, but only led to more bloodshed. In 1915, José and Hilario

Leon were hanged by two deputies, Robert Fenter and Frank Moore, in Arizona.34 While

29
Carrigan, William D. The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or Descent in the United States, 1848 to 1928,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790404
30
Id at 413.
31
Todd, Rebecca. The Biography of Rodrigo, Antonio, June 1, 1995,
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/rodriguez-antonio.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Pfeifer, Michael. Lynching Beyond Dixie: American Mob Violence Outside the South. Feb. 27, 2013.

8
this was not an uncommon occurrence—for local authorities to carry out violent actions

against Mexicans—it was what occurred after that was surprising. The two deputies were

convicted and imprisoned for murder.35 In Arizona, this acted as a symbol of an end to

community-led murders. However, this only sparked outrage in other states. Texas Rangers

and white ranchers responded to the news of the deputies’ incarceration with mob

violence. In a night that locals called “La Hora de Sangre”, or The Hour of Blood, it was

estimated that more than 500 Mexicans were executed.36 Charges were filed against the

Texas Rangers, but none of them were ever put on trial.37

Hatred towards Mexicans in the United States spiked during the Great Depression.

As unemployment rates increased, Americans accused Mexicans of taking jobs that should

be for Americans only. This led to the United States removing an estimated number of 2

million people from the country, all of whom were of Mexican descent, and of whom an

estimated sixty percent were American citizens. These removals were referred to as

repatriations and were largely involuntary. Private employers would forcibly take their

employees to the Mexican border and abandon them there, and people with disabilities

were removed from hospitals, left at the border to fend for themselves.38 Seeing the

violence that many faced, many Mexicans left “voluntarily”- in reality, the major motivation

was threats from local government and offers of free transportation to Mexico.39 The

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has few records of the sheer scale of these

35
Id.
36
Id at 111.
37
Johnson, Benjamin. Revolution in Texas. 2003.
38 Erin Blakemore, The Brutal History of Anti-Latino Discrimination in America, HISTORY, Sept. 27, 2017,

https://www.history.com/news/the-brutal-history-of-anti-latino-discrimination-in-america
39 Id.

9
forced deportations, as many occurred outside of the formal removal proceedings. In 1931,

the government agency reported that the number of Mexicans that were “voluntarily”

returning to Mexico had “reached large proportions,” but official records offered no actual

estimate of a number: “Mexicans who returned home under these circumstances were

considered ‘voluntary’ repatriations because though they faced great pressures and

sometimes actual threats from local authorities, they returned to Mexico outside of official

federal removal proceedings.”40 The impact on Latino communities was severe— it is

estimated that one third of the Mexican population in Los Angeles had been repatriated

from the United States; the State of California issued a formal apology to the victims of

repatriation, as did the City of Los Angeles.41

The mistreatment of Mexican migrants extended beyond the workers. Starting in

the 1870s, the children of migrants in the United States were expected to attend schools

that were solely for Mexicans.42 There were no strict laws mandating this segregation, but

it was enforced by violence against those who went astray from the areas that were

deemed to be for Latinos.43 The case of Sylvia Mendez provides a background on this issue,

and how the courts addressed it.44 In this case, Sylvia Mendez was not permitted to attend

an all-white elementary school in Orange County, California, and was directed to attend a

small, low-income elementary school.45 Her parents fought against this decision; with four

40 See INS Records For 1930s Mexican Repatriations, USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-

history/history-office-and-library/featured-stories-from-the-uscis-history-office-and-library/ins-records-
for-1930s-mexican-repatriations
41 Government of the State of California, § 8722. Apology, West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code (2006).
42
Blakemore, Erin. The Brutal History of Anti-Latino Discrimination in America. Aug. 29, 2018,
https://www.history.com/news/the-brutal-history-of-anti-latino-discrimination-in-america
43
Id.
44
See Westminster Sch. Dist. v. Mendez , 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947)
45
Id.

10

other families, the Mendez’s brought a class action lawsuit against four Orange County

school districts, with the goal of ending racial segregation in California schools.46 The case

ended with the court ruling that the schools discriminated against Mexican-American

students, and ended segregation in California schools, eight years prior to the landmark

case of Brown v. Board of Education.

Meanwhile, following the repatriation efforts, migrant workers were still being

hired and brought to the United States by American businesses, and conditions for migrant

workers were drastic. Workers faced racial discrimination, and because of the additional

low pay rates they were forced to live in terrible conditions. Due to labor shortages in the

United States during World War II, Congress enacted the Emergency Labor Program in

1942.47 The Bracero Program was developed as a part of this in August 1943 and was fully

established through an executive order by former President Franklin Roosevelt, called the

Mexican Farm Labor Agreement.48 Created from diplomatic negotiations between the

United States and Mexico, the program allowed for Mexican citizens to take agricultural

work, on the conditions that it would be temporary work.49 There were other conditions on

the program, more related to equality measures. In the wake of the repatriation efforts in

the United States just a few years prior, Mexico wanted a guaranteed protection for the

citizens that would go to the United States.50 Mexico was concerned about losing the

workforce that was available in their own country. It is also plausible that there was

46
Id.
47 Library of Congress, 1942: Bracero Program, in A LATINX RESORCE GUIDE: CIVIL RIGHTS CASES AND

EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program

48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Robert Longley, The Bracero Program: When the U.S. Looked to Mexico for Labor, THOUGHTCO, May 09,

2021, https://www.thoughtco.com/the-bracero-program-4175798

11

concern about the program, and if it would only reinforce the idea that Mexicans were a

cheap labor source. Despite these concerns, Mexico entered into the program agreement as

a way of supporting the Allied nations.51 The key terms in the Bracero Program were that

temporary migrant workers were to receive a minimum wage of thirty cents an hour, to be

provided housing and food, and to be protected from racial discrimination as best as

possible.52 Although it was only meant to last through World War II, this program was

extended further in 1951 by the Migrant Labor Agreement, and continued until 1964,

bringing an estimated 4.6 million migrants from Mexico to work on farmland and on

railroad construction efforts.53

Despite the terms of the agreement made between Mexico and the United States,

migrant workers employed under the Bracero Program faced racial discrimination, low

wages, and substandard working and living conditions. Additionally, thousands of

undocumented migrant workers were brought in by employers who were too impatient or

unwilling to comply with the parameters of the Bracero Program.54 Many strikes were

staged by braceros from 1943 to 1954, protesting their terrible living conditions and

wages. For all of the faults of the Bracero Program, it did lead to change; most notably, it led

to the unionization of farm workers. The United Farm Workers union, headed by Cesar

Chavez, was formed in 1962.55 Other labor associations were created and pay increased for

immigrant and American farm workers.

51 Id.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Chavez was a Mexican American civil rights activist; a longtime advocate for labor unions and equal rights

for braceros, his work has left lasting impacts. See United Farm Workers, Our Vision, https://ufw.org/about-
us/our-vision/

12

 This history of treatment of migrants in the United States is only a small sliver of the

persecution that Mexicans faced. Today, migrant farmers make up over seventy percent of

the agriculture workers in the United States and spend hours on exhausting work for low

pay.56 As undocumented workers make up around half of these agriculture workers, they

are not protected by labor laws in the United States.57 The treatment of migrant farm

workers is only one small category, but it is the occupation that best highlights the

disparity and inequality. The juxtaposition between the treatment of Mexicans in America

and Americans in Mexico is stark. Both in the past and today, Americans in Mexico have

received treatment that surpassed how Mexico’s own citizens have been treated. By

contrast, Mexicans in America are treated as being completely second class and subjected

to segregation and racism. As can be seen, the treatment of Mexicans in America has hardly

changed to this day.58 Discrimination is rampant, and many Mexican immigrants are

regulated to blue-collar positions, being placed in difficult jobs such as restaurant work and

house cleaning. Additionally, most workers are paid far below minimum wage, and if they

are undocumented there are little channels through which they can dispute their wage with

local law enforcement. Efforts are continuously being made in the United States, calling for

reform and reparations, but little has been done by government officials in Mexico. The

Mexican president, both current and past, have mainly prioritized keeping a respectful

relationship with the United States, for clear economic reasons.

56 Andrew Moriarty, Immigrant Farmworkers and America's Food Production: 5 Things to Know, FWD.US, Mar.

18, 2021, https://www.fwd.us/news/immigrant-farmworkers-and-americas-food-production-5-things-to-

know/
57 Id.
58 Mark Hugo Lopez, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, and Jens Manuel Krogstad, Latinos and Discrimination, PEW

RESEARCH CENTER, Oct. 25, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2018/10/25/latinos-and-

discrimination/

13

 II. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MEXICO

The economic history between the United States and Mexico is extensive, and this

history is impacted by social and cultural factors, as well and the geography of Mexico and

the materials and produce that it exports to the United States. Mexico shifted from a closed

economy to an open economy in the 1980s, and since then has become primarily focused

on exports.59 With programs such as NAFTA and its successor, the USMCA, Mexico has

grown in its export capacity, but has still retained a lower economic growth rate.60

Reviewing the legislation that guides the economic relations of the two countries, and how

that extends to influencing the political climate within each country, allows for an

understanding of just how much impact Mexico has on the United States and how that

impact is often undervalued.

A. Economic Exchange Between the United States and Mexico

It cannot be understated how large of an economic relationship the two countries

have with each other. In January of 2021, Mexico was the top United States trade partner,

and about eighty-five percent of Mexico’s exports were to the United States.61 In 2019,

there was a total of $614.5 billion worth of goods traded between Mexico in the United

States, with the largest import to Mexico being machinery, and the largest export from

Mexico being vehicles.62 Additionally, Mexico has been labeled as the most frequently

visited travel destination from the United States in 2019, and tourism has a deep impact on

the Mexican economy.63 Labeled as the world’s seventh most popular tourist destination,

59 Clare Ribano Seelke, Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations 11 (Jan. 7, 2021), CRS Report
60 Id at 12.
61 Id.
62 Office of the United States Trade Representative, U.S.-Mexico Trade Facts, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT, 2019, https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico

63 Id.

14

the National Tourism Business Council has estimated that in 2019 tourists contributes

around $25 billion of income.64

B. Effect of NAFTA and USMCA on Mexican and United States Economy

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted on January 1,

1993.65 The pact removed many trade barriers that were between the United States,

Canada, and Mexico, and got rid of most of the taxes and tariffs on goods that were

imported and exported by each country. NAFTA went into effect in 1994 under the Clinton

administration, but was negotiated by President Bush. President Clinton was a major

advocate of NAFTA; he believed that the agreement would “set the stage for moving to

embrace all of the Americas—750 million people strong—in a dreading unit that will bring

prosperity to us all.”66

According to NAFTA supporters, it is estimated that around fourteen million jobs in the

United States were dependent on the parameters of NAFTA, as the positions are export

related; it is also estimated that around two hundred thousand jobs are created because of

exports every year in the United States.67 As for the impact on Mexico, NAFTA increased

produce exports to the United States, and thousands of jobs have been created in the

automobile construction industry in Mexico.68 However, Mexico did not benefit to the

fullest extent that NAFTA promised; the country has had a slow economic growth rate, and

64 Megan Frye, Risky Business? Balancing Mexico's Pandemic Response with Tourism, CNN, Feb. 23, 2021,

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/mexico-pandemic-tourism-health-balance/index.html
65
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1993 Enacted H.R. 3450, 103
Enacted H.R. 3450, 107 Stat. 2057
66
Bill Clinton. Building a Partnership for Prosperity: White House Report on the Summit of the Americas, Miami,
Florida - December 9-11, 1994 (1995), https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.forrel/bdptpry0001&i=23
67 Andrew Chatzky, James McBride, and Mohammed Aly Sergie, NAFTA and the USMCA: Weighing the Impact

on North American Trade, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Jul. 1, 2020,

www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact.
68 Id.

15

poverty levels in Mexico have remained low, with unemployment increasing.69 In a study

done by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, around two million Mexican farmers

were put out of business, due to the effects of NAFTA on small-scale farmers in Mexico.70

Under Donald Trump’s presidency, NAFTA was repeatedly challenged. During his

presidential campaign in 2016, Trump blamed NAFTA for job losses in the United States.

The former President may have also felt threatened by the rise of China’s presence in Latin

America.71 He renegotiated NAFTA with the goal of increasing jobs in the United States, and

the former president created the United States- Mexico- Canada Agreement, known as the

USMCA. The key change was creating an agreement that would further benefit the United

States and increase job opportunities in the country. A highlight of this is tightening the

auto industry’s capacity to distribute vehicle construction in different locations; for

example, if a vehicle is being constructed in Mexico, then the majority of the parts of the

vehicle must have originated from Mexico itself.72

Ultimately, there is little difference between NAFTA and the USMCA agreement, and the

impact on Mexico is minimal; in viewing the agreement and its predecessor as a whole, the

trade agreements have served to propel Mexico into the higher trade economy. However,

for all these efforts, there has been little growth. Poverty rates in Mexico have been low

since the start of NAFTA, and the more industrial north portion of Mexico has benefited

from these trade agreements far more that the more rural south portion of Mexico, creating

69 Id.
70 Mark Weisbrot, Stephan Lefebvre, and Joseph Sammut, Did NAFTA Help Mexico? An Assessment After 20

Years, CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH, https://cepr.net/documents/nafta-20-years-2014-

02.pdf
71 M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, May 24, 2017, sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R42965.pdf.

72
Andrew Chatzky, James McBride, and Mohammed Aly Sergie, supra.

16

a clear lack of wealth distribution.73 Mexico has grown as a developing economic power in

the overall economy of the world; but with the citizens of Mexico facing poverty, this

cannot be called a success. Mexicans could potentially face more risk of unemployment

with the new USMCA program; NAFTA was criticized for sending jobs to Mexico for the sole

reason of cheap labor, and so the USMCA intends to monitor labor enforcement in Mexico.74

The supposed goal of this is to ensure the rights of Mexican workers, but what will

ultimately happen is a decrease in job opportunities because of companies who would be

unwilling to comply with the USMCA. It is too soon to truly estimate what impact the

USMCA will have; any data that could be calculated is marred by the effects of COVID-19 on

the Mexican and United States economy.

III. NARCOTICS AND GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION

The counternarcotic efforts in Mexico by the Mexican government have been long going

and largely unsuccessful. Thousands of Mexicans have died due to conflict related to

narcotics.75 With an estimated three hundred thousand homicides since 2006 that can be

directly tied to narcotics, Mexico has floundered in this effort to curb drug trafficking and

cartel violence.76 The United States has taken a part in helping Mexico with this effort, with

a program called the Mérida Initiative, with little results to show that their contributions

have made a difference. The drug trafficking issues impact both Mexico and the United

States, and create security concerns both along the border and within the two countries.

73 Id.
74 Helene Fleischer, Six Main Differences Between USCMA and NAFTA, CLEARIT, Jun. 15, 2020,

https://clearitusa.com/differences-usmca-nafta/
75 See National Institute of Statistics and Geography, Mortaility- Deaths from Homicide,

https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/olap/proyectos/bd/continuas/mortalidad/defuncioneshom.asp?s=est&c=2
8820&proy=mortgral_dh
76 CFR, Mexico’s Long War: Drugs, Crime, and the Cartels, Councel on Foreign Relations, Feb. 26, 2021 at 8:00

a.m. (EST), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-long-war-drugs-crime-and-cartels

17

 A. Efforts to counter narcotics

The battle against narcotics has been long and arduous in Mexico, with much effort

by the people of Mexico, but with very little to show as success. Corruption in the Mexican

Government impeded counter-narcotic efforts. Mexican President Felipe Calderón and his

administration focused on taking a strong and hard stance against narcotics and cartels in

the country. From 2006 to 2012, Calderón essentially declared war on the drug gangs in

Mexico, creating various military groups and deploying them to remove corrupt police

forces from power.77 Calderón’s efforts were the highlight of his term, but critics such as

Jesús Murillo Karam have pointed out with his efforts to go after the key leaders of the

larger cartels and gangs in Mexico, many smaller and more violent crime groups splintered

off.78 The Mexican president following Calderón largely dealt with the repercussions that

came with his counternarcotic methods. Current Mexican President Andrés Manuel López

Obrador (referred to as AMLO) initially stated during his campaign that he wished to focus

on the socioeconomic influences on the drug trafficking issues in Mexico.79 However, he has

since taken a focus on expanding the Mexican Army and its power, pushing counternarcotic

efforts to the side.80 AMLO has expressed his intent to decrease the role that the United

States has in Mexico security efforts, and has proven so by ending the Mérida Initiative,

discussed in the upcoming section.81 In ending this program and attempting to remove

American influence on Mexican security, but choosing to not address the cartels and drug

77 Id.
78 Agencies in Mexico City, THE GUARDIAN, Dec. 19, 2012,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/19/mexico-government-condemns-calderon-war-drugs
79 CFR, supra.
80 Yulia Vorobyeva and Ryan Berg, Amlo and the “War on Drugs”, LSE, Jan. 6, 2021,

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2021/01/06/the-merida-initiative-may-be-dead-but-restarting-us-
mexico-security-cooperation-will-be-crucial/
81 Id.

18

trafficking happening in Mexico, President AMLO is proving to be the first Mexican

president since 2006 who is not addressing the narcotics issue in Mexico to the full extent

that it warrants, even though doing so will have the worst impact on the citizens of Mexico.

B. Involvement by the United States Government

In 2007, Mexican President Felipe Calderón asked the United States, at the time

under the Bush administration, for increased aid in countering the narcotic issues in

Mexico.82 Prior to 2007, Mexico was receiving around $40 million in assistance for

counternarcotic efforts from the United States.83 The response to Calderón’s request was

the creation of the Mérida Initiative, a security agreement that was made between the

United States, Mexico, countries in Central America, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.84

The majority of funding goes to assisting Mexico with counterdrug efforts—in its first year,

Congress set aside $400 million for Mexico, and $65 million for the other countries.85 Aside

from the physical factor of being so close together, the two countries share mutual security

concerns due to violence from “transnational criminal organizations”.86 This is not without

due reason; according to a CRS report done in 2019, it is estimated that over 150,000

people have been killed since 2006 due to organized crime.87 The Mexican government and

82
LaFranchi, Howard. Mexico Seeks Antidrug Aid From the U.S. Aug. 8, 2007,
https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0808/p01s01-usfp.html
83
Id.
84
Seelke, Clare Ribano. Mérida Initiative for Mexico and Central America: Funding and Policy Issues, CRS, Aug.
21, 2009, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R40135.pdf.
85
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252).
86
U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Assistance to Mexico: State Department Could Improve Its
Monitoring of Mérida Initiative Projects, GAO-20-388 1 (2020-05-12),
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.gao/gaobaebcb0001&i=1
87
Id., citing Congressional Research Service: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking
Organizations (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2019).

19

the United States government have attempted to work together to curb the drug-related

crime in Mexico.

In 2011, Mexico and the United States decided to create an outline for Mérida

programs to follow; with this modification, the Initiative consisted of four pillars: Pillar One

was to “Disrupt Capacity of Organized Crime to Operate; Pillar Two was to “Institutionalize

Capacity to Sustain Rule of Law”; Pillar Three is was “Create a 21st Century Border

Structure”; and Pillar Four was to “Build Strong and Resilient Communities.”88 Expanding

past counternarcotic efforts, the United States has not ignored Mexico in its endeavors to

push law programs onto other countries; the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID), funded for by the Mérida Initiative worked to establish criminal

justice reform in Mexico, but in a manner that is largely reflective of the United States

justice system.89 While at surface level the Mérida Initiative and the USAID may seem like it

was geared for success, it proved to be the opposite. Programs such as these have been

criticized for the lack of change that has been made in the fight against drug trafficking,

especially considering the amount of funding that both countries have put into the

program. With the end of the Mérida Initiative, officials have announced a plan for a new

program to replace Mérida, titled the “Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health,

and Safe Communities.”90 Little has been released about what this framework will entail,

but the program has three main goals: (1) Protecting the people of Mexico and the United

88
U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Mexico, The Merida Initiative, https://mx.usembassy.gov/the-merida-
initiative/
89 See, e.g., USAID, https://www.usaid.gov/mexico/rule-law (last updated Oct. 28, 2021).
90 Catherine Osborn, The U.S.-Mexico Drug War Gets a Rebrand, FOREIGN POLICY, Oct. 15, 2021,

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/15/mexico-united-states-drug-war-security-cooperation-merida-
initiative-bicentennial-framework-biden-amlo/

20

States; (2) Preventing Trans-Border Crime, and (3) Pursuing Criminal Networks.91 The

program will be finalized in January of 2022. The program has already received criticism,

largely due to the pattern that the people of Mexico have seen from their leaders time and

time again: a lack of focus on the citizens of Mexico, and an increase focus in relations with

the United States.

IV. VIVA MÉXICO, VIVA AMÉRICA

Octavio Paz, Mexican poet and diplomat, wrote that the United States and Mexico “are

neighbors, condemned to live alongside each other; they are separated . . . more by

profound social, economic, and psychic differences than by physical and political

frontiers.”92 Paz highlights how the Mexican people’s perception of the United States shifts

between hatred, appreciation, and trepidation: “The idea that the Mexican people have of

the United States is contradictory, emotional, and impervious to criticism; it is a mythic

image.”93 It is impossible—or rather, unfair—to generalize every Mexican citizen’s view on

the United States and the impact that the country has on them. Only the likely capacity of

the country’s influence can be estimated, based on the actions of the citizens and the

evidence that is shown of their treatment.

A. The American influence on Mexican Culture

It is undeniable that the United States has shaped Mexico’s culture, all the way to the

name of the country. The true name of Mexico is The United Mexican States, as named in

the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Some Mexicans have advocated to change the name of

91 Fact Sheet: U.S.-Mexico High-Level Security Dialogue, WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM, Sept. 27, 2021,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/08/fact-sheet-u-s-mexico-high-
level-security-dialogue/
92 Octavio Paz and Rachel Phillips, Reflections: Mexico and the United States, in THE HISTORY TEACHER 13

NO.3 (SOCIETY FOR HISTORY EDUCATION, 1980), at 401, 402.

93 Id.

21

the country to simply Mexico; Mexican President Felipe Calderón has attempted to pass

legislation to do so, saying “it’s time that we Mexicans retake the beauty and simplicity of

our motherland’s name: Mexico. (It’s) a name that we use when chanting or singing, a name

that identifies us throughout the world and that makes us proud.”94 Calderón also made a

statement that highlights the efforts to achieve independence from U.S. influence—"the

name of our country no longer needs to emulate that of other nations."95 While this change

was never passed, the effort highlights even the most minute impact that the United States

has had on Mexico. The citizens of Mexico have a rich culture, filled with traditions and

strong family ties, as well as a large connection to Catholicism. There is very little research

on the impact that American influence has on Mexican culture, but it is undeniable that

there is influence in the northern regions.

B. View on Migration

According to data from U.S. Census reports, it has been shown that immigrants from

Mexico assimilate themselves into American society far less rapidly than other groups.96

Mexicans are frequently portrayed as having a sort of idealized view of the United States-

and for some migrants, this is true. However, more and more reports of the persecution

that migrants face in the United States decrease the appeal of the country, and the glittering

rapport that the country used to have.97 With media coverage of the horrors that asylees

face at the Mexican-United States border, and the bigotry that immigrants and Mexican

94
Rafael Romo, After Nearly 200 Years, Mexico May Make the Name Official, CNN, Nov. 26, 2012,
https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/americas/mexico-name-change/index.html
95
Mexico’s President Calderon Seeks to Change Country’s Name, BBC NEWS, Nov. 23, 2012,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-20457443
96 Edward P. Lazear, Mexican Assimilation in the United States, NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARH,

May 2007, https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0099/c0099.pdf

97
Richard Wike, The Tarnished American Brand, PEW RESEARCH, June 26, 2017,
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/06/26/tarnished-american-brand/

22

Americans face in the country, Mexican citizens have shifted in their idea of the United

States as the ideal world power.98

By contrast, or rather by similarity, Mexico has been shown to treat illegal

immigrants with prejudice. Immigration law in Mexico is thorough and sharply detailed. In

Mexico’s law on materia migratoria, Title 4 details law pertaining to the “International

Movement of People and the Stay of Foreigners.” The country has received criticism and

accusations of hypocrisy for critiquing the immigration law in the United States when they

themselves treat illegal immigrants unjustly.99 Migrants who pass through from Central

America and other countries have reported severe treatment from both average citizens in

Mexico and from law enforcement in the country.100 Additionally, many Hispanic

immigrants in the United States actively supported the movement to “Build a Wall”, and the

current president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has shown respect to former

President Donald Trump.101 There are large groups of advocates in Mexico who fight for the

treatment of migrants in the country, but the current immigration system is not effective,

and most migrants are left to fend for themselves.

C. What the Future May Hold

As the demographics shift within the United States, so does the perception of

Mexican culture. According to the 2020 United States Census, the number of people who

98 Natalia Molina, How Mexican-Americans Assimilate into U.S. culture, Nov. 23, 2016,

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-mexican-americans-molina-20161123-
story.html
99
Hawley, Chris, Activists Blast Mexico’s Immigration Law, USATODAY,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-mexico-migrants_N.htm
100 Mexico: Abuses Against Asylum Seekers at US Border, Mar. 5, 2021,

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/05/mexico-abuses-against-asylum-seekers-us-border
101 Sabrina Rodriguez, Why Mexico’s President Is Buddies With Trump Despite Years of Insults, POLITICO, July

07, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/07/mexico-president-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-

friends-trump-350974

23

are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity in the United States is now 62.1 million, or 18.7% of the

total U.S. population, with Mexicans ranking as the largest Hispanic subgroup.102 As the

ratio of immigrants and people of color to white people in the United States,

What if the current relationship stays the same?

In terms of their relationship concerning counterdrug efforts, the two countries are

aware of the rise in transnational crime and organizations that perpetuate drug

trafficking.103 The United States has taken an active interest in aiding Mexico with

decreasing the degree of narcotic production and crime within the country. However, the

damage to Mexico’s reputation may be irreparable. As shown in surveys, the words

“Mexico” and “drugs” have become almost synonymous to many Americans.104 These

Americans disregard the fact that the largest amount of drug demand comes from the

United States, and the majority of drug production is done outside of Mexico.

V. CONCLUSION

It is clear why the Mexican cultural identity has struggled to thrive in and out of its

own nation. The United States has long imposed a paternalistic hand over Mexico on all

aspects, from its politics to its economy. At the same time, the United States has

disregarded the equal economic dependence that the two countries have on each other.

Without proper acknowledgement of Mexico’s power and contributions to the United

States, it remains largely unknown that to the average American citizen that Mexico is a

102
Nicholas Jones, 2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country, US Census, Aug. 12,
2021, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-
states-population-much-more-multiracial.html
103
U.S. Assistance to Mexico: State Department Could Improve Its Monitoring of Mérida Initiative Projects
GAO-20-388 1 (2020-05-12), page 7, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.gao/gaobaebcb0001&i=1
104
See YouGo Survey, supra at 5

24

country that deserves respect. This treatment diminishes Mexico’s importance in the public

eye of both countries’ citizens, and influences how U.S. citizens view Mexico.

Economically, Mexico and the United States are balanced in terms of their mutually

beneficial agreement. However, their diplomacy is in need of reparation; if the relationship

between the United States and Mexico stay the same, the two countries will both suffer.

American citizens will still have a negative view of Mexico, and solely associate the country

with narcotic and immigration issues. Mexicans in the U.S. will continue to face unequal

treatment, and the work that immigrants do will go unrecognized.

The United States government should consider increasing their focus on their

current trade partnership with Mexico and how they can emphasize its importance, so as to

create a better relationship with Mexico and portray a different view of Mexico from what

is typically held. Additionally, the Mexican government must modify the treatment of

migrants within their country, and offer additional aid. The Mexican government as a

whole has much to work on, but the key aspects that must be modified in order to better its

relationship with the United States are its immigration policies and its counternarcotic

efforts.

Ultimately, taking a broad overview of the history between Mexico and the United

States, it is evident that the relationship between the two countries is one that will not be

terminated. Their geographic position in relation to each other, along with their mutual

dependence in import-exports and labor/employment, makes either country withdrawing

in the relationship near-impossible. If the United States works closely with Mexico, the two

countries can create a better system for its citizens to thrive in.

25