Ana Saiz, head of the public defender's office: “Protecting and documenting migrants is cheaper than detaining them”

Ana Mercedes Saiz Valenzuela (53 years old, Mexico City) remembers when a Honduran migrant told her that the laws in her country did not work.

A guy who had cut off his hand went to jail, but in Honduras he wouldn't last long behind bars.

She knew that when she came out he was going to kill her.

Saiz, a Law graduate from UNAM and a Master in Public Law at the University of London, questions that all migrants leave their country only because of economic problems.

“Rule of law processes cause displacement,” she explains intensely.

The lawyer, director of the Federal Institute of Public Defender, went through numerous Mexican public institutions to defend the rights of the most discriminated against groups.

She was deputy general director of Studies, Legislation and Public Policies of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination at the state level, among many other positions.

She considers that her years most attached to migrants were those when she served as director of the NGO Sin Fronteras (2019-2023).

In those four years he read multiple academics to understand migration dynamics.

She now brings together some of them in

Displaced Lives

(Penguin Random House, 2023), made to understand the phenomenon globally based on the Mexican example.

This informative book - which will be presented on February 7 in Mexico City - places emphasis on the beginning of xenophobic policies against migrants: the 9/11 attack.

It also talks about how the migration of women and children has increased, the southern and northern borders and how to look at migration differently.

But, above all, the data and policies applied in Mexico, hand in hand with the United States, against - and not over - migrants.

Saiz describes them as “opposed to common sense.”

Ask.

In many Western countries, far-right discourse has associated migration with insecurity.

Why hasn't that happened in Mexico?

A.

I think it is due to the great migratory tradition.

It is difficult for people in a family from Michoacán or Zacatecas not to have someone who migrated to the United States.

It is a myth that has been magnified [that of insecurity] since September 11.

Link the enemy to the foreigner.

Although it is different in Mexico.

Here people are outraged or worried when they see migrants on the street or when they die in a trailer.

Q.

What do undocumented people face?

A.

First, they are exposed to working in unpaid or potentially frustrating employment for those with other qualifications.

Second, you may be exposed to labor exploitation.

And another problem is taxation.

If they are not registered, it will be difficult for them to pay taxes.

The third reason is security.

Being documented is a way of protection, you are safe from extortion, from corrupt police, from employers who threaten you.

Q.

How has the profile of the migrant changed?

R.

_

It is very difficult for someone who migrated to the United States 20 years ago to return without papers.

What started happening?

That people began to tell their children, “come, because if I come back we are going to die of hunger.”

She broke that circular migration that was so traditional in Mexico in which people went, saved, built, returned and saw their family.

What broke these cycles were the restrictive policies that were implemented starting in 2001.

Q.

Now many people arrive from Central America fleeing their country.

R.

There is something very perverse there.

As long as these countries' Gross Domestic Product depends on remittances, governments have no incentive to stop migration.

It happens a lot in Honduras.

When we talk about the Comprehensive Care Plan for Central America or Sowing Lives, we do not look at the social problems, which go far beyond that.

Q.

Knowing the humanitarian crisis of migrants in Mexico, we see candidates who practically do not talk about migration.

What is this about?

A.

Politicians are afraid of the issue because it is very complex.

They are afraid of what a statement might generate.

When López Obrador said that they were going to receive the migrants, it generated many reactions.

There is also ignorance and a lot of countryman in the United States.

Q.

In the United States, Trump constantly talks about migrants.

A.

Because it gives electoral results.

Here they are not so clear if it works.

One of the central points on the agenda should be that.

Here they talk as if they had a problem there and not here.

Q.

How much does the story vary from reality in Mexico?

A.

The president talks all the time about the protection of migrants, about Mexico's cooperation.

But what you see is that they are treated like packages, they are turned over to extortionists, to labor exploitation.

Q.

This year the record for migrant arrests in Mexico was surpassed.

A.

Imagine the cost of that.

Economic and human.

It's huge.

If we sought to protect people, document them and give them initial support, it would be much cheaper than arrests.

And with better results.

Q.

Has López Obrador been Trump's wall?

A.

The one who has put the most resources and elements into it has been López Obrador.

And it is not fair that our National Guard, which has many internal security problems to solve, is acting as border patrol.

Because the discourse that they are going to protect migrants is totally contradictory to what one sees.

When the Mexican Army goes to protect someone, they wear another uniform, blankets.

And here they go with assault weapons.

In people's imagination, if they see that they send the National Guard, they think “it's just that pure evil people are going to come.”

Q.

What could be the benefits of migration in Mexico?

A.

If you had people documented, you would have them more protected.

I believe that crimes against migrants make us all more insecure.

The tranquility and strength of a rule of law must be reflected in the weakest links in the chain.

Migrants are the easiest prey for organized crime.

Human trafficking is a million-dollar business.

Q.

There is a very difficult situation in Chiapas.

Migration, organized crime and lack of Government.

What can happen?

A.

Migrants are good business for organized crime.

Having them exposed there is very risky for them and very profitable for this type of economy.

What happens is that the Government's margin of action is very limited.

A cheap and viable measure is to document people.

Q.

Can the situation of migrants change in the future?

A.

Sadly no, because there is a deep-rooted situation with xenophobia and prejudice.

I think there are a little more possibilities in policies at the city level.

There are good practices of resettlement programs in Saltillo, in Monterrey, in Mexico City.

Local politics can help.

That's where I see hope.

Subscribe here

to the EL PAÍS México newsletter and receive all the key information on current events in this country

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_