In late November, incoming President Donald Trump declared his intent to enforce a 25 percent tariff on all products coming from Mexico and Canada. He touted this move as a measure to draw the two countries’ efforts to address key issues such as undocumented immigration and the illegal trafficking of the lethal synthetic opioid, fentanyl. Additionally, an extra 10 percent levy on imports from China was revealed. Mexico’s leader, Claudia Sheinbaum, quickly voiced her concerns that the imposition of tariffs would result in increased inflation and joblessness, instead of fostering positive change.
Sheinbaum also hinted at Mexico’s consideration of reciprocating with tariffs of its own. Moreover, both Trump and Sheinbaum also reportedly had a phone conversation, which appeared to be fruitful, but intriguingly, was recounted differently by the two. Trump declared that Sheinbaum resolved to stem the tide of migration towards the American border, a claim that Sheinbaum later clarified wasn’t the substance of her remarks during the conversation.
Let’s proceed to explore whether Trump’s tariff policies would have impacts on migration, the crisis surrounding synthetic drug overdoses, and the dynamic between the U.S. and Mexico. Several different elements contribute to the United States’ pattern of migration over the upcoming years, not merely policy changes spurred by raised tariffs. In fact, Mexico has been exerting its efforts to implement its harshest-ever restriction against immigrants and asylum seekers, an approach that began in the latter stages of 2023.
The hardline stance adopted by Mexico has somewhat curtailed immediate migration numbers, however, this is not a sustainable solution for the long term. The primary triggers that impel individuals to leave remain effective, with the American immigration and asylum systems still in a state of dysfunction and delay. Additionally, smugglers, often backed by corrupted officials, continue to exploit the situation and discover new ways to circumvent these stringent policies.
Initiating crackdowns doesn’t fundamentally resolve the deeper issues triggering migration; they merely suppress them temporarily. It is probable that Trump perceives tariffs as a lever to exert pressure on the Mexican government to increase arrests and drug interdiction, which have been recurring themes in the enduring ‘war on drugs.’ Nevertheless, such measures seldom yield positive outcomes for the American communities reeling under the impact of the fentanyl overdose crisis.
Neither the menacing prospect of tariffs nor their actual execution is likely to alter the underlying realities of the prohibition on drugs that fuels illicit drug trafficking. Proposed alterations to the tariff regime by Trump would undeniably have substantial repercussions for the economics of both the U.S. and Mexico. Tariffs augment the price of import goods, a burden borne directly by American consumers.
From the perspective of Mexico, the suggested tariffs have the potential to inflict a sharp blow on the sectors that are heavily export-oriented towards the U.S. market. Such a development could trigger increased unemployment and generate other adverse economic consequences. These plausible economic shocks may prompt workers and families in Mexico to consider migration to the U.S. as a key survival strategy.
Policies oriented towards curbing migration through the tough application of crack-downs often inadvertently lead to migrants embarking on more hazardous routes. These perilous paths expose them to threats such as exploitation and violence, and inadvertently nurture the business of human smuggling. The vicious cycle perpetuated by these practices yields scant opportunities to enhance bilateral ties and address pressing concerns like escalating migration, drug abuse problems, and a host of other matters.