The controversial Arizona immigration law, SB1070, ought to be used to create a discussion around how the United States can be a better destination for immigrants and make better use of human capital, and, at the same time, what other countries can do so that emigration is an option and not a forced decision.
This is one of the conclusions drawn by Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., who spoke at a virtual press conference with Central American journalists who contemplated the international consequences of domestic immigration policies.
"The importance of internal decisions on foreign policy is not sufficiently understood here. We are not paying attention to our partners, and I am surprised that there is not a channel to talk about immigration with Mexico," he said.
He explained, for example, that the Arizona law threatens the fight against narcotics that Mexican President Felipe Calderón leads, because it creates distance between the police and the immigrant community that could provide information.
"This breaks the relationship with the community; it divides it. It separates them and that is why many police officers in Arizona opposed the law," said Selee.
Selee said that Central and South American governments, in addition to protesting the law, must attack the causes of emigration. "In the end, here is where we have to start talking, how we are going to create opportunities so that people do not have to leave."
For this analyst, the Arizona law will be overturned by the courts, but this will not happen for four years, giving it time to have a legal impact. Selee does not think it is likely that economic pressure or protests will change the state legislators' minds.
As to whether the Arizona law reflects a general national feeling, Selee explained that surveys show that, on one hand, Americans believe that there are too many immigrants, and that they compete for jobs, but that on the other hand, they get along well with the immigrant community.
