Tag: guatemala

Mexican Immigration Policy Lowers the Cost of Central American Migration to the US

One persistent American complaint about the Mexican government’s opposition to immigration laws like Arizona’s SB-1070 is that Mexico’s immigration policy is far more restrictive than that of the United States or anything proposed in Arizona. In 2010, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) articulately pointed out the Mexican government’s blatant hypocrisy. Brutal Mexican immigration laws were not only bad policy for Mexico but exposed an absurd level of hypocrisy.

After Representative Poe’s comments, the Mexican government passed a Migratory Act in 2011 that went into effect on November 1, 2012. This law replaced the General Law of Population that created the oppressive Mexican immigration laws Rep. Poe and others rightly critiqued. The Migratory Act made a number of significant changes:

  • Guarantees the equal treatment of migrants and Mexican nationals under Mexican law, entitling them to due process, 
  • Establishes “family unity and the best interests of children and adolescents as the principal criteria for the admission and stay of foreigners for temporary or permanent Mexican residency, alongside labor and humanitarian causes,” 
  • Establishes offices for protection of migrants’ human rights and the investigation of crimes purportedly committed against migrants, including those committed by immigration officials,
  • Simplifies entrance and residence requirements,
  • Establishes a point system for those who apply for residence,
  • Creates a 3 day regional visitors visa for people from neighboring countries, 
  • Streamlines the visa application process.

Other legal changes to Mexican laws in 2008 reduced the punishment for illegal entry from up to ten years in prison to a maximum fine of 5000 pesos. The Mexican government also introduced temporary visas, valid for up to a year, for agricultural laborers from Guatemala and Belize working in Mexico’s southern states. In 2010, undocumented migrants were guaranteed the right to report human rights violations and receive medical treatment without prosecution.

Mexican Immigration Laws, Central American Free-Movement Zones, and the Increase in Central American Immigration

One unintended consequence of Mexico’s more liberalized immigration laws, partly in response to legitimate American criticism, is that now the migration of people from Central America to the United States through Mexico is much cheaper than it used to be. The biggest hurdle for Central American migrants used to be the militarized Southern Mexican border and the abuse by corrupt police, which the Migratory Act of 2011 mitigates.

Mexico isn’t the only country that changed its immigration and border control policies in recent years. In June 2006, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua signed the Central America-4 (CA-4) Border Control Agreement that created a common passport and obliterated border controls and movement restrictions between those four nations. The removal of political barriers to movement has decreased the costs of migrating northward toward the United States.

Liberalized Mexican and Central American immigration laws and border controls likely play a role in lowering the cost of migrating to the United States. Ironically, American complaints that partly spurred Mexican immigration policy changes are likely a contributing factor of the recent increase in Central American migration.

Nicaraguan Unaccompanied Child Migrants - Where Are They?

U.S. policy is equally generous to unaccompanied children (UAC) from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua – but today’s child migrants are not coming from Nicaragua.  Explaining why Nicaraguan UAC are not part of the recent surge may help explain why so many are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras - the so-called Northern Triangle. 

Nicaragua has low rates of violent crime, gang membership, and fewer family connections to the United States than the Northern Triangle.  If U.S. policy was the main reason why there is a sudden surge of UAC, it should also pull UAC from Nicaragua.  This suggests that other factors like the high levels of violence and strong family connections are the main reasons why UAC from the Northern Triangle are coming and why Nicaraguan UAC are absent.        

Nicaragua has a much lower homicide rate than El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.  According to the United Nations, there has been a dramatic increase in murder rates across Central America since 2006 – except in Nicaragua.    


Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime https://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.htm.

The Consequences of Our War on Low-Skilled Immigrant Labor

Credit: Chiapas state government website

Credit: Chiapas state government website

Authorities in Mexico intercepted two semi-trucks on Tuesday containing more than 500 migrants being smuggled across the border from Guatemala and presumably headed for the United States. An x-ray of one of the trucks that revealed the migrants struck me for its resemblance to those 18th century woodcarvings of slave ships crossing the Atlantic.

That analogy shouldn’t be taken too far, of course. According to the news reports, the migrants voluntarily paid $7,000 each for the chance to be smuggled into the United States. But like the slave ships, the conditions in the trucks were horrific, putting the lives of the men, women and some children in real danger.

People across the spectrum will try to make hay from this, but to me it argues that the status quo is unacceptable. No respectable party is in favor of illegal immigration. The real debate is over how to reduce it and all the underground pathologies that accompany it.

We can continue to ramp up border and interior enforcement, as we have relentlessly for more than a decade, driving low-skilled migrants further underground while driving smuggling fees higher and higher. Or we can expand opportunities for legal entry into the United States, and by doing so shrink the underground network of smuggling and document fraud.

Like the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, real immigration reform would go a long way to eliminating the human bootlegging that was exposed in Mexico this week. A robust temporary worker program would allow foreign-born workers to enter the country in a safe, orderly, and legal way through established ports of entry. It would allow resources now going to smugglers to be collected as fees by our government and otherwise put to work in our economy. It would save the lives of hundreds of people who needlessly die each year trying to re-locate for a better job.

If Congress enacted the kind of immigration reform we have long advocated in my department at Cato, our economy would be stronger and the human smuggling networks a lot less busy.

The Spirit and Influence of Manuel Ayau (1925-2010)

Manuel Ayau, one of the people I most respected and admired, died today. Muso, as his friends called him, was a major figure in the international movement to promote liberty. He was a president of the Mont Pelerin Society and served on the board of directors of Liberty Fund and as a trustee of the Foundation for Economic Education. He will be most remembered, however, as the founder and president emeritus of the influential Francisco Marroquin University in his native Guatemala. He leaves an enormous legacy because he successfully combined clear thinking, entrepreneurship, intellectual curiosity, and a belief in the potential of free individuals to create what has become the center of classical liberal thinking in Latin America.

Well before he founded Francisco Marroquin University in 1971, Muso Ayau started a think tank (Centro de Estudios Economicos-Sociales) with a small group of Guatemalan friends in 1959. Thus began a lifelong project to discover and disseminate those ideas that best explain and provide solutions to underdevelopment. The process led him to the writings of the great market liberals—some of whom he invited to Guatemala for lectures or established friendships with, such as Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman—and culminated in the founding of FMU. Muso was not an academic (he had a degree in engineering), but he understood how the power of ideas can influence society, so he set about the long-term task of running an institution that would teach generations of Guatemalans about “the ethical, legal and economic principles of a society of free and responsible persons,” no matter what degree students pursued.

In his inaugural address in 1972, Muso stated:

We firmly believe in the capacity of imperfect human beings to be better able to realize their destiny when free and not when compelled by the collective entity personified by the state.

It took courage to found the University. When it began, the intellectual and political climate was not only hostile to libertarian ideas, it was violently opposed. Guatemala was in the midst of a civil war and neither side—with the military and business establishment on one side and leftist guerrillas on the other—particularly welcomed the message of limited government, free markets, and private property rights. In the early days, Muso gave graduation speeches wearing a bullet proof vest under his toga. In the 1980s, he would sometimes wear disguises when traveling in public and took extra security measures at home.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Guatemala’s civil war in the 1990s, public opinion was of course much more open to market liberal ideas, but Guatemala’s mercantilist society still ensured that the battle against entrenched interests—business groups, unions, government bureaucracies—remained tough. By then, though, the prestige of Muso Ayau and of the university faculty and its well-trained graduates had grown as had the presence of their ideas. Anyone who has visited Guatemala during the past 20 years, as I have, can attest to the fact that market liberal ideas can be found every day in the op-ed pages and articles of the country’s leading newspapers and the electronic media as well. In some cases, this has translated into radical policy change—as in the case of Guatemala’s successful telecom reform or its law legalizing competing currencies.

Muso was proud of the progress classical liberal ideas had made despite the fact that statism still prevails in much of Guatemala. He was at once an optimist with an ambitious vision and a realist with a modest view of himself. He was not surprised that much of the left and right resented his call for an end to all government-established privileges. Though Muso could have been fabulously successful going along with the established framework of Guatemalan society, he chose not to. In this, he was a rare Latin American specimen, a champion of truly progressive ideas that peacefully challenged formidable political forces.

Yet not everybody cared to understand this. Lawrence Harrison famously and inexplicably described Muso as “an archtypical, far-right, Latin oligarch” who is also a libertarian. Harrison’s incoherent description came in the summer of 2001 when it was discovered that the U.S. embassy in Guatemala was secretly distributing a document to other embassies describing Muso and the university as enemies of democracy and progress.  The whole sorry episode, described by Mary O’Grady in the Wall Street Journal, hardly shocked Muso and his colleagues, who had long been denouncing Washington’s heavy-handedness in Guatemala and the region. (Muso later drew up business cards with his name, followed by “Archtypical far-right, Latin libertarian oligarch.” Even in the face of ridicule, Muso kept his famous, good sense of humor.)

The ideas that Muso Ayau began promoting in Spanish in Guatemala in the 1950s, soon drew in brilliant thinkers from other parts of Latin America and influenced the classical liberal movement throughout the region. FMU continues to draw the world’s leading thinkers in a range of disciplines including business, philosophy, law, economics, and literature to its state-of-the art campus and it has served as the model for other such universities in countries as diverse as Chile, Montenegro and Georgia. That so many students and professionals in Mexico, Central and South America and beyond understand and support the free society today is in no small part due to his efforts, whether they know it or not.

Muso always admired the Cato Institute and he was delighted, as were we, that Cato and FMU began a yearly, week-long seminar for Latin American students in classical liberal thought in Guatemala. I will never forget how, during the first such event in January 2009, Muso took a quick, round-trip flight from Houston, where he was receiving treatment for the cancer that he ultimately succumbed to, just to give his scheduled lecture to the students. His enthusiasm, wit and warm personality filled the lecture room.

Muso was a living embodiment of the classical liberal spirit. He was also a friend. He will be missed, but his spirit will continue to infuse the work of Francisco Marroquin University and many, many advocates of liberty around the world who knew him or were somehow influenced by him.

A Weekend’s Worth of Hayek Interviews

The estimable Francisco Marroquin University in Guatemala has just posted 15 hours of interviews with F. A. Hayek, conducted in 1978, four years after he won the Nobel Prize for Economics.

You know the interviewee is important when the interviewers include James M. Buchanan, Robert Bork, Armen Alchian, Axel Leijonhufvud, and Leo Rosten. Along with the streaming video, there’s a complete transcript posted. What an amazing resource! We are indebted to Armen Alchian, Bob Chitester, the Earhart Foundation, the Pacific Academy of Advanced Studies, and now Francisco Marroquin for making these interviews available.

A few years later Cato Policy Report published two exclusive interviews with Hayek, in print form. Find them here and here.

Worrying Delevopments in Guatemala

In the last week there’ve been deeply worrying developments in Guatemala. Rodrigo Rosenberg, a highly respected Guatemalan lawyer, was killed Sunday outside of his house by unknown gunmen. On Monday, a posthumous video recorded by Rosenberg was released where he blames the country’s president, Alvaro Colom, for his assassination. Constantino Díaz-Durán, former editor of elcato.org, tells the story in a piece appearing in the Daily Beast.

Since Monday, thousands of Guatemalans have flocked to the streets demanding Colom’s resignation, but they have been met by an equal number of government supporters who are resorting to violence and intimidation against the protesters. This is the modus operandi of the hard-left in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and Ecuador. But nobody would’ve expected a center-left government led by a mild-manner president like Colom to employ such tactics.

However, there are more worrisome signs that the government is planning to crack down on dissenters. Yesterday a man was arrested after encouraging people through Twitter to withdraw their savings from Banrural, the bank involved in the corruption charges that Rosenberg made against the Colom administration. He’s been charged with “inciting financial panic.” Hours later, another man was arrested for distributing copies of Rosenberg’s video in the streets. The government claims he was “inciting the public.”

Whatever happens in the following weeks will determine the future of Guatemala’s institutional democracy. The United States should be paying closer attention to the situation, considering Guatemala’s position as Central America’s most populous democracy.