Mexican Ambassador to US: "Reform must also take place in Mexico"

As Mexico's ambassador to Washington [Arturo Sarukhan] warns, even the "rosiest, peachiest" reform in the US won't end the flow of poor migrants.

Well, heck. Even I know that, as do many of my readers. But it seems that the proponents of the Illegal Immigration Compromise (IIC) haven't thought probabilities out that far.

More:

For the past seven months, Mexico has been at war with itself, literally.

And what is the definition of such a war?

A new president, Felipe Calderón, has dispatched 24,000 troops into battle with the most corrosive influence in Mexico's economy: powerful drug cartels.

These violent syndicates, which mainly transport drugs into the US, have exploded in the past decade. They've escalated crime and political corruption, hindering creation of well-paying jobs for would-be migrants. At election time, they provide cash for many campaigns.

This domestic war, which resembles the Iraq war in tactics and killing rates, was Mr. Calderón's opening gambit for wholesale reform. It is widely popular but faces an uncertain future. The cartels are fighting back with gruesome murders. And the Army, one of the few respected institutions in Mexico, is not good at policing, a task it must do to root out local drug networks. Some of its elite soldiers have joined the cartels.

Still, the war gives Calderón enough public support to conduct a quiet and pragmatic battle with the ruling opposition in the legislature. In March, he was able to win reform of state pensions. This week, he will propose tax hikes to reduce the government's risky reliance on oil-export revenues. And he was helped this month by a Supreme Court ruling that struck a blow at the broadcasting giant Televisa, one of many monopolies controlled by powerful, vested interests.

Opening up these key parts of the economy – telecommunications, oil, cement, and electricity – to fair competition under the law would be Calderón's greatest legacy. It would build on two other major reforms: the opening of Mexico's markets since the mid-1990s through NAFTA and the establishment of real democracy with the end of one-party rule in 2000

Any reforms would do little to stem migration, however, unless they reach the poorest regions in the south, such as Chiapas and Michoacán. These areas are the main source of migrants to the US, and a better economy there would help keep valuable workers in Mexico. Among his reforms, Calderón has offered help to young entrepreneurs and launched job-training programs.

How can the US help? For one, effective border enforcement would keep more Mexicans in Mexico where they can contribute to the economy. The US can also better crack down on the flow of arms to Mexico's cartels and the flow of drugs into the US. [SNIP]

[A]s one of the world's 15 largest economies and an oil exporter, it doesn't need money – just reform.

The US Congress should see its immigration reform in the larger picture of Mexico's needs. The ultimate solution truly lies south of the border.

(All emphasis mine.)

It's interesting to note that Sarukhan would rather take the much tougher (and, possibly, bloodier) route of real reform for his country rather than the "easier" one which the US government would like to offer. Because, if Mexican reform doesn't happen--if the Civil War escalates to the recognized Mexican government's detriment--the flow north will never stop. And no matter how many IICs are in our future, there will be a tipping point--for both countries.

(Thanks to Hot Air, which has some other interesting links on the topic.)

ON THE OTHER HAND: As I said in my earlier post on the subject of Mexican civil war, it's possible that our leaders have thought possible future events out this far, but are willing to take what they think is the least bad of a bushel of bad options.