`Los dos amigos'? Vicente Fox & George W. Bush.

Until September 11, Mexico's President Vicente Fox and George W. Bush were soul mates. They called themselves the "two amigos," exchanged muscular bear hugs, and trumpeted a new era in bilateral affairs. With an eye on propitiating the swelling ranks of Mexican American voters, Bush committed himself to normalizing the status of the 4 million-plus Mexicans who reside illegally north of the Rio Grande, issuing more visas to Fox's countrymen, and greatly enlarging the program that authorizes Mexican guest workers in the United States. For his part, the democratically elected Fox pledged to cooperate closely in the antidrug war, crack down on smugglers of humans and contraband, and generate opportunities for Mexicans to work at home.

After September 11, however, relations began to deteriorate. While the White House was seeking unambiguous, no-nonsense support for its crusade against terrorism, Fox's top ministers clashed over the stance their nation should take. Frustrated by his skimpy domestic achievements, Fox began to play the time-tested anti-American card. He huffily cancelled a late-August 2002 visit with Bush in Texas, because of the Texas execution of a Mexican citizen convicted of murder. Mexico followed this petulant act by proclaiming its intention to pull out of the Inter-American Reciprocal Defense Treaty. True, this pact is as outmoded as a Pancho Villa mustache, but Mexico's timing--several days before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack--raised hackles among U.S. policy mavens.

Meanwhile, back in Mexico, Fox proved unable to gain his own Congress's approval for crucial tax, energy, and labor initiatives. Although a masterful campaigner, the tall, boot-wearing leader disdains the schmoozing and back scratching required to forge legislative coalitions. Another impediment to alliance building is the eagerness Jorge Castaneda, Fox's bright but hyperarrogant foreign secretary, to pick fights gratuitously with senators, deputies, and fellow ministers. Indeed, the preference of Fox's entourage for self-expression over teamwork has earned them the sobriquet of the "Montessori cabinet."

In October, when the UN Security Council, on which Mexico sits in one of the ten rotating seats, debated the U.S. resolution to compel Iraq to surrender its weapons of mass destruction, Mexico sided with France against the initial U.S. proposal. That decision helped forge the consensus eventually adopted unanimously last month by the Security Council, but it did not endear Mexico or Fox to the Bush administration. In view of the overwhelming economic and political importance of the United States to its southern neighbor, Mexico might have opted for private rather than public diplomacy on this sensitive issue. Bush did nothing to hide his frostiness toward Fox when the two men met at a summit of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Los Cabos, Mexico.

Many Mexico-watchers believe that Fox was playing hard-ball over Iraq to "leverage" the Bush administration on immigration. Reportedly, the Mexicans believe a window of opportunity will fly open when the new Congress convenes in January. Then, they hope, the White House--backed by labor, business, and Mexican American lobbies--will throw a full-court press on lawmakers to enact measures championed by Mexico City. This theory sounds plausible, but a medley of factors--the prospect of war, divisions among advocacy groups, the late-October arrival of Haitian boat people in Florida, rising unemployment, and the illegal status of the seventeen-year-old alleged D.C.-area sniper--may frustrate such a game plan. Moreover, even the most tin-eared lawmakers sense that the American public never shared Bush's zeal for relaxing border controls. In a fall 2001 poll, Zogby International found that an overwhelming proportion of whites (79 percent), African Americans (72 percent), and Hispanics (68 percent) in the United States favored stricter, not weaker, immigration enforcement. The events of September 11 undoubtedly influenced these numbers, but Zogby's results are consistent with those of earlier surveys. Furthermore, Bush failed to emphasize immigration after the GOP's midterm victory.

Regardless of his motivation, Fox, standing tall against the gringos at the UN and elsewhere, has won accolades in Mexico, and may help his National Action Party pick up seats in the mid-2003 state and federal elections. Still, had Fox been astute, he would have understood the change in America's agenda and reformed his own government's immigration practices. Before trying to rewrite U.S. statutes, for instance, he might spearhead root-and-branch changes in the treatment accorded defenseless foreigners, especially Guatemalans, in his own country. After visiting Mexico's southern frontier, Gabriela Rodriguez, a UN human rights expert, recently said: "Mexico is one of the countries where illegal immigrants are highly vulnerable to human rights violations and become victims of degrading sexual exploitation and slavery-like practices, and are denied access to education and health care."

U.S.-bound Central Americans and other undocumented aliens who cross the porous 280-mile border from Guatemala into Chiapas state frequently fall victim to bribe-hungry officials, Mafia-style criminals, and street gangs like the Crips and Bloods of Los Angeles. "For these people, Chiapas is not the way of the cross but a hellish crucifixion," stated Father Flor Maria Rigoni, who directs the Belen Shelter in Tapachula.

In addition, local planters are notorious for their mistreatment of dirt-poor Guatemalan guest workers. The wealthy growers prefer Guatemalan to Mexican workers, claiming that Mexicans will no longer do the hard labor of harvesting mangos, bananas, coffee, and dozens of other crops. Ranchers may avail themselves of a program operated by the Mexican and Guatemalan labor ministries or they can contract workers directly from jury-rigged employment offices in Tecun Uman, a mushrooming town called "little Tijuana," because of its unbridled lawlessness and eighty-three brothels. The vast majority of the 50,000 to 150,000 workers hired annually go through private channels. Typically, migrants, known as jornaleros, harvest coffee or mangos for 35 pesos ($3.40) a day. That's cheaper than the 38.3 pesos ($3.72) official minimum wage. Moreover, ranchers seldom pay Social Security, year-end bonuses, or other benefits. Even worse, some large farmers deduct the cost of two rudimentary daily meals and rustic housing from this paltry remuneration.

Payoffs, intimidation, and political pressure ensure that Labor Ministry and Social Security inspectors avoid these farms like the plague lest they "make waves," in the words of one former high-level official. Should a gutsy guest worker dare to report abuses to the state labor tribunal, he must take time from work to lodge his complaint, return a week later to find out the court's response, and personally deliver any tribunal-issued summons to the rancher, who may be surrounded by armed bodyguards. The court will not request a plantation owner to appear before he receives several summonses, and--with continuances, political pressure, and red tape--the worker will either have withdrawn his grievance, completed his contract, or been sent packing before the hearing date.

Although Fox has every right to lobby U.S. policy makers on immigration, he could do so with greater credibility if he put his own house in order.

George W. Grayson teaches at the College of William & Mary. This article is adapted in part from an essay, "Mexico's Forgotten Southern Border," published by the Center for Immigration Studies, of which he is a board member.