Introduction
Under the Trump administration, immigration raids intensified, with workplace arrests, deportations, visa restrictions, and a “zero-tolerance” rhetoric. Simultaneously, the U.S. economy faced labor shortages in key sectors heavily reliant on immigrant workers, such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, and caregiving. This article explores the underlying logic connecting these seemingly contradictory phenomena.
Historical Context and Labor Market Dynamics
First Idea: Territory does not equate to population. In 1848, Mexico lost land, not people; this historical continuity predates modern immigration policies and maintains familial and labor ties on both sides of the border.
Second Idea: The labor market and immigration law interact in a tense, creative relationship. Congress closes one valve—previously targeting Chinese, Japanese, and European immigrants—only to see demand shift towards Mexican workers. The state channels labor through programs while the market finds alternative routes; amnesty is combined with penalties, and the system adjusts accordingly.
Third Idea: Twenty-first-century border militarization unintentionally discouraged return migrations, instead promoting family settlement.
Current Situation and Policy Analysis
Under President Trump, immigration policies hardened, with visible raids at workplaces, deportations, visa restrictions, and a “zero-tolerance” rhetoric. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy grappled with labor shortages in sectors crucially dependent on immigrant workers, such as agriculture, construction, and services. The article examines the logic behind this apparent contradiction.
The logic is straightforward: raids serve as a signal of compliance; temporary programs sustain production; and the outcome is a necessary labor force with diminished bargaining power. This does not eliminate shortages but manages them.
A methodological caution is warranted: some labor statistics interpretations suggested a decrease in immigrant workers’ proportion in 2025, while others disputed this claim with measurement adjustments. For a legal perspective, the central issue is not winning decimal battles but avoiding dogmatism. The U.S. economy continues demanding large-scale immigrant labor, and politics manages this tension with varying social costs.
Consequences of Current Policies
- In Communities: Families are torn apart, U.S.-born children witness parental deportation, and fear erodes trust in institutions.
- In Markets: Labor costs rise, crops are lost, and construction projects slow down.
- In the Rule of Law: There’s a tension between what the law proclaims and what the economy requires. The legal challenge is to assess the consistency and proportionality of a system that reinforces expulsion while depending on productive inclusion.
Mexico’s Role and International Public Law
Mexico bears historical and present responsibility: from braceros to H-2A jornaleros, service workers, and transborder families. Labor diplomacy should evolve from informal notes to public policy, actively defending rights, coordinating labor inspections, providing legal guidance, and implementing development policies that reduce out-migration due to necessity. Academia must avoid myths, refine language, and accurately interpret data without turning them into dogmas.
The article emphasizes that excluding a group pushes demand towards another, amnesty without verification perpetuates incentives, and costly borders reduce circular migration and encourage settlement. The Interpretive Public International Law is not a technical backdrop but a toolbox for managing migration and labor dilemmas between Mexico and the U.S.
This law articulates a useful triangle: labor rights (ILO conventions), economic rules with teeth (T-MEC and its Rapid Response Labor Mechanism), and cooperation against human trafficking. Consequently, temporary mobility programs, supply chain inspections, and consular agreements must be preemptively assessed for rights impacts, incorporate non-regression safeguards, and be publicly accountable through metrics like cases addressed, response times, on-site verifications, and effective reparations.
Intergovernmental coordination across both sides of the border should rely on data interoperability, independent advocacy, and external verification—both academic and societal—to translate rhetoric into practice. In essence, effectively using Interpretive Public International Law transforms fleeting tensions into stable, measurable, and State-of-Law-compatible arrangements, crucial for a mature Mexico-U.S. relationship.
Final Thoughts
This article calls for a legal, historically sensitive, and empirically grounded approach to migration. Each law has a chain of causes and effects; each figure represents a family; each border conceals a history that predates fencing. Let our profession—teaching, deliberating, and learning—meet this challenge with precision, decorum, and respect for every life in motion. And remember the words of an old bracero still echoing in my mind: “We were called illegal, but without us, the fields would be empty.” Let this simple truth guide our debate and compel us to name things as they are.
