Nationalist outrage and accusations of hypocrisy over the prospect have filled airwaves and front pages in Mexico, as expected, fueled by presidential campaigns in which appeals to national pride are in no short supply. But, surprisingly, another view is gaining traction: that good fences can make good neighbors.
The clamorous debate over a border wall has confronted President Vicente Fox of Mexico at every stop during a visit to the United States that began Tuesday. While he did not publicly endorse the idea, he made clear that his government was prepared to live with increased border security as long as it comes with measures that opened legal channels for the migration of Mexican workers.
Outside his government, several immigration experts have even begun floating the idea that real walls, not the porous ones that stand today, could be more an opportunity than an attack.
A wall could dissuade illegal immigrants from their perilous journeys across the Sonora Desert and force societies on both sides to confront their dependence on an industry characterized by exploitation, they say.
The old blame game — in which Mexico attributed illegal migration to the voracious American demand for labor and accused lawmakers of xenophobia — has given way to a far more soul-searching discussion, at least in quarters where policies are made and influenced, about how little Mexico has done to try to keep its people home.
"For too long, Mexico has boasted about immigrants leaving, calling them national heroes, instead of describing them as actors in a national tragedy," said Jorge Santibáñez, president of the College of the Northern Border. "And it has boasted about the growth in remittances" — the money immigrants send home — "as an indicator of success, when it is really an indicator of failure."
Indeed, Mr. Fox — who five years ago challenged the United States to follow Europe's example and open the borders and then barely protested when President Bush announced plans to deploy troops — personifies Mexico's evolving, often contradictory attitudes on illegal immigration.
Gabriel Guerra, a political analyst, said the presidential election in July and the negotiations over immigration reform in Washington have put Mr. Fox on unsteady political terrain.
Toning down his country's opposition to a wall might be the best way for Mr. Fox to convince conservatives in Congress to adopt reforms to legalize the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States and expand guest worker programs.
On the other hand, bowing to what critics have described as a "militarization of the border," without winning legalization programs, could open Mr. Fox to criticism that he surrenders to the will of the United States. It could also hurt the aspirations of Felipe Calderón, the candidate Mr. Fox supports to succeed him in the July 2 election.
"This is a very risky trip," Mr. Guerra said. "If he comes out too strong, he will rattle the conservatives up there. And if he is not strong enough, he will be clobbered by his opponents here."
"Whatever the discourse, it's going to be hard to get it right," Mr. Guerra said. "I think we might be better served by quiet diplomacy."
Deputy Foreign Relations Minister Gerónimo Gutiérrez acknowledged the challenge facing the president. "We are in the middle of a Ping-Pong of reactions that reflect valid concerns on both sides of the border, as well as an unusually complex moment in the bilateral relationship," he said.
Mr. Fox stepped into the middle of the game on Tuesday, beginning a sweep through Utah, Washington and California, states that have become important trading partners to Mexico and that have experienced both the pains and benefits of illegal immigration.
In Utah, where officials estimate that the illegal immigrant population has tripled since 1990, to 90,000, smatterings of protesters followed Mr. Fox's visit to Salt Lake City. "Take care of your own people, so they don't have to come here," some shouted.
Wary of inflaming the passions of American conservatives as the United States Senate winds down debate over immigration reform, Mr. Fox did not respond directly to the attacks. But he did have his say.
In his public remarks in Utah, he recognized that Mexico must do more to create jobs "so migration becomes a decision and not a necessity," and he conceded that it was the right of the United States to take steps to fortify its borders.
But, he said, it would take more than police enforcement to really resolve the challenges of illegal immigration. "A comprehensive reform," Mr. Fox said, "will help both our countries concentrate our forces and resources in tending to our security and prosperity concerns."
Analysts said it was unlikely that Mr. Fox would ever speak publicly in favor of a wall. But in recent communications to Washington, his government, as well as leaders of all Mexican political parties, have hinted about building walls of their own.
Last March, in a document published in three of America's largest daily newspapers, including The New York Times, the Mexican government, along with leaders of the political establishment and business community, explained its position on immigration reform.
In that document, the Fox government said that if the United States committed itself to establishing legal channels for the flow of immigrant workers, Mexico would take new steps to keep its people from leaving illegally.
"If a guest country offers a sufficient number of appropriate visas to cover the largest possible number of workers and their families," the document read, "Mexico should be responsible for guaranteeing that each person who decides to leave does so following legal channels."
In a column in the Mexican newspaper Reforma, Jorge G. Castañeda, a former foreign minister, suggested a "series of incentives," rather than law enforcement strategies to keep Mexicans from migrating. They included welfare benefits to mothers whose husbands remained in Mexico, scholarships for high school students with both parents at home, and the loss of land rights for people who were absent from their property for extended periods of time.
"None of this is inevitable or desirable," Mr. Castañeda wrote. "Nor is it written that this would necessarily produce a quid pro quo with the United States.
"But the elites here should reflect on this matter," he went on, "whether we want something in exchange for nothing?"
There are, of course, still many people in Mexico who staunchly oppose the idea of walls. Senator Sylvia Hernández, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Commission for North America, summed up those feelings, saying: "Walls do not speak of dialogue. They speak of closure." Rafael Fernández de Castro, editor of the magazine Foreign Affairs en Español, said, "We are getting the stick, but not the carrot."
The presidential candidates have also hewed closely to the old script.
"The more walls they build," said Mr. Calderón, of the conservative National Action Party, "the more walls we will jump." Andrés Manuel López Obrador, of the left-leaning Democratic Revolutionary Party, called Mr. Fox a "puppet" of the United States for his tepid response to the planned deployment of troops along the border.
Still, signs of a slow but steady change in attitudes emerge in the most improbable places.
"It's fantastic," said Primitivo Rodríguez, an immigrant activist in Mexico, when asked about plans to build walls. "It's the best thing that could happen for migrants, and for Mexico."
Mr. Rodríguez, who has served as an adviser to the Mexican government and an organizer in the United States for the American Friends Service Committee, said the porous border had for years been an important safety valve of stability for Mexico's economy, allowing elected officials to avoid creating jobs and even taking legal measures to stop the migration of an estimated 500,000 or more Mexicans a year.
Government reports indicate that the Mexican economy has created about one-tenth of the one million jobs it needs to accommodate that country's growing labor force.
Meanwhile, remittances from immigrants — estimated last year at about $20 billion — have grown larger than some state and municipal budgets.
If Mexicans were really shut inside their country, Mr. Rodríguez said, Mexico might be forced to get its own house in order.
And if illegal workers were shut inside the United States, Mr. Rodríguez said, the United States might be forced to give them greater legal rights and pay the real value of their labor.
"Until now," Mr. Rodríguez said, "the policy of the United States has not been to close the border to illegal migration, but to detour it. And by detouring it they have caused unprecedented levels of death, abuse and organized crime."
