SOPEMI Report for MEXICO - Institute for Latino Studies

Transcription

SOPEMI Report for MEXICO
Prepared by
Jorge A. Bustamante
Meeting of the SOPEMI Correspondents Paris,
10-12 December 2003
SOPEMI Report for Mexico
INTRODUCTION
In order to make legitimate sovereign decisions about migratory movements, Mexico
follows a guideline of immigration policy that goes beyond the control of irregular
entries of foreigners to the country. This line of thinking comes after learning that
migratory flows represent a demographic phenomenon that, adequately treated and
regulated, could be understood as a positive contributing factor to the economy of
Mexico, to the enrichment of our cultural patrimony, and to a better understanding
among the countries of the region and beyond.
In order to achieve a sustainable migratory policy, the Mexican Congress and the
Executive have created the Instituto Nacional de Migración—INM (National Institute of
Migration) through legislation that defines the mission, functions, and goals of this
institution in correspondence with constitutional law and applicable international
standards. Such legislation gives basis to INM’s strategies and actions, both of which are
congruent with the national interest of safeguarding our borders with full respect of
human rights.
Mexico has become a country both of immigration and emigration. This report
represents an account of both movements based on statistics produced and/ or compiled
primarily in Spanish by INM staff for the year 2002-2003. English translations were
made by Jorge A. Bustamante; texts in English were written by INM staff. These cases
are so indicated by a footnote. The report is divided into chapters identified with roman
numerals and sections for each chapter. Both chapters and sections are identified in the
index. An analytical chapter dedicated to the question of trafficking and smuggling of
persons was written by Jorge A. Bustamante. The responsibility of this report rests with
Jorge A. Bustamante. Any questions or comments can be addressed to:
[email protected].
Meeting of the SOPEMI Correspondents, Paris, 10-12 December 2003
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MIGRATORY REGULARIZATION
Paisano Program
About The Return of Migrants
Government’s Protection of Migrants
About Asylum and Refuge
Negotiating Meetings and Agreements
Eighth International Migration Regional Conference
Institutional Identity and Social Communications
Campaign Against Corruption
Public Participation
MIGRATION REGULARIZATION PROGRAMS IN MEXICO
REPATRIATION: ORDERLY AND SECURE REPATRIATION
MECHANISM IN MEXICO
I. Background
II. Objective
FIGHT AGAINST IRREGULAR IMMIGRATION I
SOUTH PLAN (PLAN SUR)
FIGHT AGAINST IRREGULAR IMMIGRATION II
INSPECTION VISITS TO WORK CENTERS
TEMPORARY MIGRATION
MEXICAN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN CANADA
TEMPORARY MIGRATION
GUATEMALAN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN MEXICO
NATURALIZATION IN MEXICO CURRENT LEGAL PROVISIONS*
REFUGEES, POLITICAL EXILES AND THEIR ACCESS
TO THE LABOR MARKET IN MEXICO
MIXED MARRIAGES BETWEEN MEXICAN CITIZENS AND FOREIGNERS
FOREIGN STUDENTS AND THEIR ACCESS
TO THE LABOR MARKET IN MEXICO
3
3
4
4
5
8
8
9
10
10
10
11
12
12
13
15
16
18
20
21
22
24
25
II. DICTIONARY OF MIGRATORY CATEGORIES AND CONCEPTS
25
III. TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN MEXICO
35
35
43
46
46
47
48
Basic concepts
The legal framework (international standards)
The case of the United States
The case of Mexico
—WORKS CITED
—APPENDIX
IV. MIGRATORY CONTROL I: (Entries and Exits)
•
•
•
•
*
MIGRATORY CONTROL, 1989-2002 (ENTRIES AND EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, 1989-2002 (ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, 1989-2002 (EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL MONTHLY STATICS,
This section was originally written by INM staff.
52
52
53
54
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
JANUARY-DECEMBER OF 2002 (ENTRIES AND EXITS)
JANUARY-DECEMBER OF 2002 (ENTRIES)
JANUARY-DECEMBER OF 2002 (EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003 (ENTRIES AND EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003 (ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, THE SUM OF NON IMMIGRANTS, IMMIGRANTS,
“INMIGRADOS” AND NATIONALS, BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003 (ENTRIES AND EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, THE SUM OF NON IMMIGRANTS, IMMIGRANTS,
“INMIGRADOS” AND NATIONALS, BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003 (ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL, BY REGIONAL DELEGATION,
JANUARY-JULY OF 2003 (ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT AIRPORTS, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT SEAPORTS, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT BORDER GATES, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROLS, SOME OF INM CATEGORIES
(FOREIGN TOURIST-FMT, BUSINESS PERSONS-FMN;
BUSINESS EXECUTIVES-FMVC; TRANSMIGRANTS-FM6)
MIGRATORY CONTROLS. SOME OF INM CATEGORIES
(FOREIGN TOURIST-FMT, BUSINESS PERSONS-FMN;
JANUARY-JULY OF 2003-2003 (ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST, BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY OF 2003 (ENTRIES AND EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST ENTRIES, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST EXITS, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF NON MIGRANTS BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY OF 2003 (ENTRIES-EXITS)
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TEMPORARY BUSINESS PERSONS
FROM U.S. AND CANADA-INM FROM FMN BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
AND BY NATIONALITY OF ORIGIN 2003 (ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TEMPORARY BUSINESS PERSONS
FROM U.S. AND CANADA-INM FROM FMN BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
AND BY NATIONALITY OF ORIGIN 2002 (EXITS)
TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF BUSINESS PERSONS INM FORM FMN
BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND BY REGIONAL DELEGATION,
JANUARY-JULY OF 2002 - 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES
OF BUSINESS PERSONS FROM U.S.A. AND CANADA.
INM FORM FMN BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION JANUARY-JULY 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF EXITS BUSINESS PERSONS
FROM U.S.A. AND CANADA. INM FORM FMN
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION JANUARY-JULY 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF FOREIGNERS:
NON IMMIGRANT, VISITORS, BUSINESS ADVISORS,
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION JANUARY - JULY OF 2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF FOREIGNERS,
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62-66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
•
•
NON-IMMIGRANTS, VISITORS AND BUSINESS ADVISORS
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION, JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES OF BORDER VISITORS
FROM BELIZE THROUGH QUINTANA ROO 2002 AND JANUARY-JULY 0F 2003
V. MIGRATORY CONTROL II
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- DOCUMENTS OF ENTRY USED BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS,
JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003
- DOCUMENTS USED AT ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS,
DOCUMENTS USED BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS
AT POINTS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION,
JANUARY-JULY 2002-2003
APPLICATIONS BY MIGRATORY REGULARIZATION
BY REGIONAL DELEGATION, MARCH-OCTOBER 2001
- ENTRY APPLICATIONS AUTHORIZED
- STATUS OF “INMIGRADO” GRANTED BY INM
-STATUS OF “INMIGRADO” GRANTED BY INM BY NATIONALITY,
JANUARY-JUNE OF 2003
- PERMITS TO LOCAL VISITORS, JANUARY-JULY 2003
- FOREIGNERS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER MEXICO AS REFUGEES
- NATURALIZATION SUGGESTIONS (SUBMITTED BY INM TO
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) JANUARY-JULY 2003
- NATURALIZED GUATEMALANS
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALITY,
JANUARY - DECEMBER OF 2002
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY REGIONAL DELEGATION,
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALITY, JANUARY - JULY OF 2003
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY REGIONAL DELEGATION,
JANUARY - JULY OF 2003
DETENTIONS OF FOREIGNERS BY NATIONALITY, JANUARY - DECEMBER OF 2002
DETENTIONS OF FOREIGNERS BY REGIONAL DELEGATION,
DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS BY NATIONALITY, JANAURY - JULY OF 2003
DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS BY REGIONAL DELEGATION,
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY NATIONALITY,
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
BY REGIONAL DELEGATION, JANUARY - DECEMBER OF 2002
BY NATIONALITY, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
BY REGIONAL DELEGATION, JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRANTS PROTECTION – BETA GROUPS ACTIONS OF PROTECTION,
JANUARY-JULY OF 2003
MIGRANTS PROTECTION – BETA GROUPS ACTIONS OF PROTECTION,
EVENTS OF MIGRANTS RETURNED TO MEXICO BY U.S. AUTHORITIES AND
DELIVERED TO INM AT THE BORDER, MONTHLY 2002
DELIVERED TO INM AT BORDER GATES, BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION,
83
84
85
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
•
DELIVERED TO INM AUTHORITIES, JANUARY-JULY 2003
VI. MEXICAN MINORS SMUGGLED INTO THE U.S. AND THEN DELIVERED
INTO INM AUTHORITIES THROUGH THE U.S. BORDER CITY’S MEXICAN
CONSULATE
•
•
•
•
•
MEXICAN CONSULATE IN U.S. (DOUGLAS)
MEXICAN CONSULATE IN U.S. (NOGALES)
MEXICAN CONSULATE IN U.S. (CALEXICO)
MEXICAN CONSULATE IN U.S. (SAN DIEGO)
STATISTICS ON CHILDREN’S RECEIVED AND/OR REGISTERED
BY INM AND DIF
VII. MIGRATORY CONTROL III
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENTREES TO MEXICO OF NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS
BY MIGRATORY FORMS, JANUARY 2002-JULY 2002, (INDIVIDUALS)
INM PROGRAM OF MIGRATORY REGULARIZATION
BY REGIONAL DELEGATION, MARCH-OCTOBER 2001
TOTAL OF EVENTS OF RECEPTION OF MEXICAN NATIONALS DELIVERED,
BY U.S. IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN AN ORDERLY AND SAFE MANNER,
JANUARY-JULY, 2002-2003
MIGRATORY CONTROL, 1989-2002, (INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES)
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES BY AIRPORTS, JANUARY-JULY 2003,
IN PERCENTAGES
EVENTS OF DENIAL OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALITY,
JANUARY-JULY 2003, IN PERCENTAGES
106
107
107-111
112
113
113
114-115
116
116
117
118
119
120
121
I
THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES
Migratory Regularization
Through INM, the Mexican government has organized a system of strict controls for
entries and exits of nationals and foreigners with the objective of achieving safe, orderly,
and legal migratory flows. Such a system is aimed at controlling our borders in such a
way that full potential of the migratory phenomenon in favor of national development is
achieved.
The present SOPEMI Report corresponding to the year 2003 accounts for entries to the
national territory of Mexico of 18,186,529 persons. This number corresponds to a five
percent increase over the previous year. For the period between January first and July
thirtieth of 2003, 11,186,629 individuals were recorded as entering, representing a 4.3
percent increase over the previous year. Of the total of entries within that period,
9,466,526 were entries of foreigners, and 1,720,103 were entries of Mexican nationals
returning home.
Of the foreigners who entered Mexico within the first seven months of 2003, 9,433,793
did so under non-immigrant status; 16,040 entered as immigrants. These numbers were
7.3 and 15.0 percent greater respectively than what was recorded in the period of
January – July of 2002. Within the same period 16,693 individuals entered under the
status of inmigrados (legal residents). This was 9.6 percent lower than the previous
year’s same category and period. These numbers are summarized in the following table
ENTRIES OF NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS TO THE MEXICAN TERRITORY, 2002-2003
(individuals)
Annual data
Category
Total
2002
Observed
January-July
2003
Projected
2002
2003 1/
Change in percentage
18 182 559
18 818 949
10 730 052
11 186 629
4.3
Mexicans
3 424 160
3 544 006
1 903 790
1 720 103
-9.6
Foreigners
7.3
14 758 399
15 274 943
8 826 262
9 466 526
Immigrants
24 649
25 512
13 948
16 040
15
Inmigrados
32 355
33 487
18 466
16 693
-9.6
Legal Residents
1 4701 395
15 215 944
8 793 848
9 433 793
7.3
- Farmworkers
39 321
40 697
24 181
27 380
13.2
- Maritime workers
5 155 231
5 335 488
2 888 572
3 480 858
20.5
- Local border crossers
1 571 231
1 626 224
978 292
776 648
-20.6
- Business advisors
- Businessmen
- Tourist
- Others
94 920
98 242
55 527
52 063
-6.2
303 496
314 118
174 906
181 470
3.8
7 245 723
291 733
7 499 323
301 852
4 506 930
165 440
4 738 278
177 096
5.1
7.5
1/ preliminary data
SOURCE: Secretary of Interior INM
3
INM solved 95.3 percent of migratory applications during 2002, in a period of less than
31 days. The time for responses to applications was reduced during 2003 to 28 days.
During the first trimester of 2003, 96.7 percent of applications were resolved.
Between January first and July thirtieth of 2003 INM issued a total of 1,245 of legal
resident’s cards. This number corresponds to a 21.2 percent increase over the previous
year for the same period.
In regard to the bilateral program for temporary agricultural workers signed between
Mexico and Canada, 10,856 work permits were issued to Mexican migrant workers, 17.5
percent more than permits issued in 2001 for the same category. From January through
July of 2003, 10,070 work permits were issued, a 0.2 percent increase over the same
period of the previous year.
Paisano Program
This program was created in 1989 (see, Diario Oficial de la Federacion—Federation
Journal—April, 6, 1989) in response to demands of Mexican migrants complaining
against the Mexican government’s excessive red tape, slow bureaucratic procedures,
verbal abuses, and extortions. As the result of these complaints, the Comision
Intersecretarial del Programa Paisano—CIPP (Inter-Secretarial Commission) was
created. This agency was aimed at improving the quality of federal public services for
migrants including periodical evaluations. The “Programa Paisano” was created to
facilitate the legal and dignified treatment of Mexican migrants as they enter, travel, or
leave the country. An evaluation of Programa Paisano for the months of most intensive
transit of migrants, from the end of 2002 through the summer of 2003, revealed an
increase in the number of sanctions against practices of corruption as well as in the
number of actions to facilitate safe entry for Mexican nationals who reside in the United
States and Canada on both a temporary and permanent basis. This evaluation reported a
19 percent decrease from the previous year in the number of migrants’ complaints and
denunciations.
About the Return of Migrants
An estimated 2,745,000 Mexican nationals entered Mexico from September 2002 to
August 2003. Approximately one million of them entered within the winter months of
2002–03. This concentration of migratory movements is indicative of the return flow for
traditional holiday festivities and family reunions.
4
The Institute of the Northern Border (El
Colegio de la Frontera Norte) completed a
2002 - 2003
(In percentages)
systematic random sample survey of
migrants as they returned to Mexico from
Jalisco
13.4
Michoacán
the United States, in which they were asked
12.0
how satisfied they were with the
implementation of the Paisano program. 98
11.3
percent—two percent more than the
52.7
Guanajuato
Others
previous year—responded that no money
6.0
4.6
México
(mordida) was asked of them by officials as
Zacatecas
they returned to Mexico. Of the total
1/ Data corresponding to the winter period of 2002-January 2003.
SOURCE: Ministry of Interior-INM
surveyed migrants, 13.4 percent were
returning to the State of Jalisco from the United States; 12.0 percent were returning to
Michoacan; 11.3 percent to Guanajuato; 6.0 percent to the State of Mexico and 4.6
percent to Zacatecas.
STATE OF MIGRANTS RETURN TO MEXICO
1/
During the winter of 2002-2003—migrant return season—114 complaint and
information modules were installed strategically close to the main entry points for
returning migrants. Installed in international airports, international bridges, toll-roads,
and bus terminals located in 69 cities and 29 States, the modules logged more than
300,000 migrant information requests or complaints related to the migratory journey.
The reception of migrants in these modules was double the number of the previous year
during the same season.
Government’s Protection of Migrants
In order to provide protection to migrants from officials’ abuse, human rights violations,
and weather related problems along the migratory return routes, a task force called
Grupo Beta was created by the Mexican government to institutionalize governmental
protection to migrants. The last Beta Group was installed in Sasabe, Sonora. Previous
Beta Groups have been in operation in the cities of: Tijuana, Tecate, Mexicali, Agua
Prieta, Ciudad Juarez, Piedras Negras, Matamoros, Acayucan, Tapachula, Comitan, and
Tenosique. The last four Beta Groups cover the South East border region of Mexico and
Central America. In all, are thirteen Beta Groups operating around the country.
A Beta Group’s function is to enforce the UN Convention of International Protection of
All Migrant Workers and Their Families, which recently went into effect (July 2, 2003).
5
GOVERNMENT’s PROTECTION TO MIGRANTS, 2002-2003
(Individuals)
January - July
Category
2002
Change %
2003
TOTAL
Migrants served
192 157
374 218
166 997
337 275
94.8
102
Migrants located
207
104
-49.8
Social assistance
20 890
34 130
63.4
Legal assistance
2 597
1 742
-32.9
Legal representation of migrants for
crime prevention
1 466
967
-34
SOURCE: Ministry of Interior. INM
In regard to law enforcement actions related to the trafficking of persons, there was a
45.6 percent increase in the number of indictments from 2002 to 2003. In the period of
January to July of 2003, 230 traffickers were indicted in contrast to 168 during the same
period in 2002.
NUMBER OF INDICTMENTS
FOR TRAFFICKING OF MIGRANTS?
300
NUMBER OF MIGRANTS’ DEATHS
REPORTED BY PROTECTION AGENTS?
90
59
58
200
60
49
38
230
100
0
158
2002
30
2003
0
2002
Northern Border
2003
Southern Border
?Numbers for the period of January to July
INM’s legal framework includes preventive and operative actions aimed at the full
control of Mexican borders. These actions are conducted at INM stations permanently
located at both the northern and southern borders with the mission of maintaining a
record of all entries and exits of both Mexican nationals and foreigners through border
gates.
At the end of 2002 Beta Groups reported the death of 153 migrants (80 at the northern
border and 73 at the southern border). From January to July of 2003, 97 migrant deaths
were reported (59 deaths at the northern border and 38 deaths at the southern border),
representing a 9.3 percent decline from the figures reported for the same categories
during the first seven months of the previous year.
Within the framework of the US-Mexico agreement for a bilateral program of orderly
and safe repatriation, 583,408 Mexican nationals were repatriated during 2002—a
6
system whereby Mexican nationals expelled by US immigration authorities are received
by INM authorities at previously agreed upon border points. This number is 26.3 percent
lower than that of 2001. From January to July of 2003, 358,813 Mexican nationals were
repatriated. This represents 6.1 percent less than the number observed the previous year
for the same category.
INM’s mission includes all law enforcement activities related to migratory controls
required for purposes of national security. These controls are conducted with strict
respect for Mexican immigration laws and migrants’ human rights corresponding to
international standards ratified by the Mexican Senate.
Within that legal framework an increasing number of foreigners were transferred from
INM’s border migratory stations where foreigners were detained, to those closer to cities
where foreigners’ consular representations were located. The main purpose of these
transfers is to obtain proper traveling documents and proper nationality certification
from the detainee’s consular representatives.
NUMBER OF FOREIGNERS DETAINED AND RETURNED, 2002 – 2003
(individuals)
Category
2002
January – July
2002
2003
% change
Detained foreigners
138 061
86 302
109 534
26.9
Returned foreigners
Detained / Returned %
110 573
80.1
70 340
81.5
101 458
92.6
44.2
138,061 foreigners were detained during all of 2002. 109,534 foreigners were detained
between January and July of 2003. This represents 26.9 percent more foreigners
detained than those corresponding to the first seven months of 2002, out of whom 92.6
percent were returned to their country of origin.
Within INM’s objectives for the year 2002-2003 was to implement streamlining
regulations and procedures to improve the level of transparency in favor of migrants and
to specify more strictly the leeway of INM officials about discretionary actions.
INM’s activities during the same period, were a) to participate in international
negotiations on migration matters as well as in the drafting of new international
standards; b) to update rules and regulations to improve the transparency of
governmental actions and accountability of officials’ responsibilities; c) to respond to
legal consultations from other government agencies on immigration matters; and d) to
elaborate reports within the time limits and systems requested by other agencies,
specifically those requested by the National Commission of Human Rights.
7
About Asylum and Refuge
The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (Comision Mexicana de Ayuda a
Refugiados—COMAR) aimed its activities toward the improvement of the program for
regularization of Guatemalan refugees who had settled in the States of Campeche,
Chiapas, and Quintana Roo, as well as to assist in their socioeconomic integration into
Mexican society. For this purpose COMAR reported the following set of actions:
• The Committee for Refugee’s Eligibility received 224 refugee applications. 31 of
them were granted the migratory status of refugee; 124 applications were denied;
40 applications were withdrawn and; 29 are still pending.
• COMAR has committed itself to the support of Guatemalan refugees in Mexico
by issuing the migratory document known as FM2. This is a type of I.D. card that
was issued to 2,601 Guatemalan refugees residing in the states of Chiapas,
Campeche, and Quintana Roo in the first eight months of 2003With the same
spirit of assistance COMAR issued 54 FM3 migratory documents in the same
time period, which gives the bearer the status of non-immigrant refugee. These
numbers are equivalent to 60 and 40 percent, respectively, of the expected
numbers for the full year of 2003.
• Within COMAR’s naturalization program for Guatemalans, 1,521 naturalization
documents were granted to Guatemalan refugees. Material, health, and
educational assistance was provided to 26,729 Guatemalan refugees who had
settled in the States of Campeche, Chiapas, and Quintana Roo. Within the first
eight months of 2003, COMAR is expected to issue 1,331 naturalization
documents, which represents 53 percent of the objective planned for this year.
• In coordination with the Secretary of Agrarian Reform through the program for
land tenure entitlements for Guatemalan refugees, COMAR issued 802 property
titles drawn from public lands in the State of Campeche. In addition, 500 land
contracts for agricultural exploitation were granted on public lands of the State of
Quintana Roo from January through August 2003. This represents the
accomplishment of 100 percent of the programmed objective.
Negotiating Meetings and Agreements
On July 2, 2003, the Ministry of the Interior and authorities of INM hosted a conference
attended by Representatives of NGO’s and Mexican government agencies to celebrate
the implementation of the UN Covenant on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and
their Families. A seminar on the UN Human Rights Commission was held at INM. A
preparatory meeting on the visit to the US-Mexico border by the US-Mexico bi-national
8
group on international bridges and crossings was held at INM in Mexico City. INM
organized a video conference on the protection of migrants, in which US immigration
officials participated.
Officials from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of Canada visited INM in
Mexico City for a meeting on technical matters related to national security issues, on
March 17–21, 2003. Letters of intention were exchanged between INM and the
Canadian government on migratory issues of mutual interest such as sanctions, refugees,
and trafficking of persons. INM and Canadian government’s visitors reached an
agreement on training of immigration officials, specifically on the detection of forged
documents. A series of workshops were held with the Guatemalan government on topics
such as migratory children and trafficking of minors for sexual purposes. Held with INM
officials in the department of San Marcos, Guatemala, this meeting included various
executive agreements on intergovernmental cooperation between Guatemala and Mexico
to combat this problem.
INM representatives also participated in the OECD conference on bilateral agreements
and various forms of foreign worker recruitment within the framework of the OECD
intergovernmental group on International Migrations, held in Montreux, Switzerland on
June 19-20, 2003.
Within the activities of the Inter-institutional program for the assistance of border
minors, which is coordinated by the department of children’s assistance (known in
Mexico by its acronym in Spanish as DIF, Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral
de la Familia), officials of INM received a total of 46,577 minors during the year of
2002. Out of this total, 11,545 minors were transferred to other government programs
within the network of transit shelters and other programs for children’s assistance.
Eighth International Migration Regional Conference
This is an inter-governmental organization conducted at a vice-minister level that
includes Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, United States of America, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. This international
organization constitutes a forum for dialogue aimed at reaching consensus about the
migratory phenomenon in the region. This includes agreed upon decisions for concrete
actions on international migrations.
9
Institutional Identity and Social Communications
Aiming at the transparency of governmental actions and public information about the
Mexican government’s migratory policies, a program for the production of audio and
video material detailing INM’s campaign for the protection of migrants was
implemented. This program includes the dispersal and synthesis of news about migration
and news analysis on the subject produced by regular mass media.
In addition leaflets and pamphlets were designed to disseminate information about
governmental actions on the migratory phenomenon, such as Guia Paisano (Guidance
for the Countrymen), Cartilla de Derechos Humanos para los Migrantes (Charter of
Human Rights for Migrants), and Guia de Senalamientos Preventivos para Migrantes
(Guide of Orientations and Preventive Suggestions for Migrants).
Campaign Against Corruption
More efficient control over records and the institution of procedures for migratory forms
are important measures to fortify the struggle against corruption in Mexican migration.
INM together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs created a system that required all its
departments to report periodically about the issuing, use, and misuse of all forms
relevant to the various migratory statuses derived from Mexican immigration laws.
During 2002, INM authorities filed with the judicial authorities (Agentes del Ministerio
Publico Federal) 1,280 accusations against traffickers of persons involving 2,176
persons, out of whom 230 were indicted. During the first six months of 2003, INM
authorities filed 847 accusations involving 1,527 persons, out of whom 230 were
indicted.
Public Participation
Beginning in 2001, INM started the National Consultation on Migration, a series of open
meetings at which the public could present ideas, criticisms, suggestions on migration
matters. Issues discussed included the needs and particular programs related to regional
matters, suggestions for the redefinition of concepts and migratory categories, and the
update and improvement of migratory services and other activities connected to INM’s
institutional objectives. During the first public meetings of the National Consultation on
Migration during the year of 2001, 1,039 proposals were presented. During 2003, two
workshops were organized in the cities of Tijuana, Baja California, and Tuxla Gutierrez.
In these events 160 persons participated, including representatives of NGO’s and
governmental offices such as the National Commission for Human Rights. These
10
presentations are now being analyzed to serve as contributions to the design of public
policies and improvements to the legal aspect of migration.
Many of the products of public participation have corresponded to INM’s goals and
opportunities for 2004. Some of these are the following:
• To design and disseminate through the INM website a new manual for migration
services to facilitate the communication between INM authorities and the public.
This manual will provide the elements for the evaluation and quality control of
services provided by public officials of INM.
• To dignify all the waiting rooms, lounges and physical areas where the public and
migrants wait for official responses to their requests. This will require
construction, renovation, and maintenance of all INM locations around the
country. The main purpose of this program is to ensure the Mexican government’s
commitment to establish full compliance with the human rights of the public,
migrants, and especially undocumented immigrants (the majority of whom are
from Central America) while they await resolution of their claims.
• To expand the circulation of the Paisano Program to a larger audience in the
United States through the production of spots and bulletins for the mass media.
These actions will be targeted particularly to US residents of Mexican descent and
the Mexican-origin US population with the idea of promoting travel to Mexico.
They would also be able to enter Mexico with the ability to present complaints
and pursue specified follow-up procedures.
MIGRATION REGULARIZATION PROGRAMS IN MEXICO*
2000 AND 2001
The objective of the Mexican Migration Regularization Programs of 2000 and 2001 was
to offer foreign citizens of all nationalities who lacked valid and legal migratory
documents an opportunity to obtain them and regularize their stay within the Mexican
territory.
The regularization programs considered those foreign citizens who arrived in Mexico
before specifically established dates and who possessed one of the following
requirements:
• Having a job offer or the possibility to perform a legal and honest activity to
benefit of country.
*
11
• Having a family link with Mexican or foreign citizens legally established in the
country.
Migratory Regulation within the scope of these two programs did not consider eligible
those foreign citizens holding the migratory status of non-immigrant tourists, cult
ministers or religious associates, persons given political asylum, refugees, distinguished
visitors, local visitors, temporary visitors, or correspondents.
Likewise, among the applications refused were those received from foreign citizens in
any of the situations stated in Article 37 of the General Population Law, Fractions IV, V,
VII, and VIII, which are as follows:
• When the stay of the foreigner in the country is considered harmful for the
economic interests of nationals
• When the foreign citizen has infringed national laws or has a negative background
abroad
• When the foreigner is not mentally or physically healthy according to the Health
Authorities
• When any other legal provision considers it pertinent
In the year 2000, a total of 7,807 foreign citizens applied for regularization within the
scope of these programs while in the year 2001, 6,432 requests were presented.
REPATRIATION:
ORDERLY AND SECURE REPATRIATION MECHANISM IN MEXICO*
I. Background
Until 1993, the repatriation of Mexicans was carried out without prior notice, in any
place on the border and at any time, without the intervention of the Mexican Migration
Authority, and without the certainty that only Mexicans were expelled.
During the bi-national meeting held in 1993, agreement was reached on the “Orderly
and Secure Repatriation Mechanism”—an operation aimed especially at the needs of
minors—allowing for the immediate repatriation of children abandoned in vulnerable
conditions.
*
12
Since 1995, the Mexican government has requested that the United States organize
repatriation activities; having achieved verbal agreements they seek the following
objective and actions:
II. Objective
To offer repatriated Mexican migrants an orderly and secure return, guaranteeing the
due respect for their human rights.
Action items
• Agreement on orderly and secure repatriation to
the border
• Voluntary repatriation inland
The above actions allowed the start of operation Frontier Link Mechanism between the
authorities of the three government branches on both sides of the border. The
aforementioned mechanism is summoned upon request of the Mexican and American
consuls. It is important to note that, based on this mechanism, the subcommittee for
migratory affairs was included in order to attend to all repatriation matters.
Deriving from the agreements reached during the Mexico-United States meeting held in
February 1995, in Zacatecas, Zacatecas, the regional delegates of the National Migration
Institute (NMI) situated near the northern border celebrated verbal agreements with the
migratory authorities of the United States to carry out orderly and secure repatriations.
As a result of such agreements, 16 repatriation points were initially installed along the
border in Baja California (5), Chihuahua (2), Coahuila (2), Sonora (2), and Tamaulipas
(5). Reception schedules were set between 8:00am and 10:00pm, although some operate
around the clock in the five border delegations. The delivery of co-nationals should in
all cases be made accompanied by name lists and the timely notification of the events of
repatriation, with the purpose of having Mexican authorities present during the reception
of Mexican citizens.
During the XII Bi-national Commission Meeting of Mexico and the United States, held
on May 16, 1995, Mexican and American migratory authorities defined and agreed upon
the procedures for repatriation, schedules to carry out these repatriations, points of entry,
etc. During the bi-national meeting held in Mexico City in May 1997, the American
contingent expressed its commitment to develop more efficient repatriation procedures
in conjunction with the Mexican government; the subgroup for migration and consular
affairs was created for that purpose.
13
This subgroup held a meeting in August 1997 in Washington and agreed on the general
principles and specific criteria for repatriation, which has been the reference point for
elaborate agreements and local arrangements along the North border. These include:
time and place for repatriation, presence of the Mexican migration authority, previous
notice of repatriation, and family reunion—with special attention given to pregnant
women or women with children, handicapped persons, and unaccompanied minors.
On October 21-22, 1997, in El Paso, TX, a regional meeting was held on INS
consultation mechanism about its functions and consular protection for the central area.
During this meeting, the Mexican delegation proposed local agreements for the orderly
and secure repatriation of Mexican nationals to the states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and
Tamaulipas. The following arrangements were established:
• Acuña, Coahuila, with borders in Del Río and Eagle Pass, Texas, October 31,
1997.
• Juárez, Chihuahua, with border in El Paso, Texas, December 10, 1997.
On December 11, 1997, in Dana Point, California, a regional meeting was held on INS
consultation mechanism about its functions and consular protection for the western area.
The local agreements for repatriation to Baja California and Sonora only achieved the
following agreement:
• Tijuana, B.C., with border in California, December 17,1997.
On February 18, 1998, in Atlanta, Georgia, a regional meeting was held on INS
consultation mechanism about its functions and consular protection for the eastern area.
The local agreement for repatriation presented was:
• Nuevo Laredo and Laredo, Texas, signed on February 20, 1998.
On July 1, 1998, in Mc Allen, Texas, a local agreement for the orderly and secure
repatriation of Mexican nationals to the cities of Miguel Alemán, Reynosa, and
Matamoros was signed. This arrangement substituted the procedural notes for
repatriation that prevailed in this area since 1997.
On February 2, 1999, the last local agreements for an orderly and secure repatriation of
Mexican nationals to the regions of San Luis Río Colorado, Nogales, Agua Prieta, Naco,
and Sonora were signed with the state of Arizona.
14
Finally, on March 23, 2002, in Del Río, Texas, an amendment to the arrangement for the
orderly and secure repatriation of Mexican nationals was signed:
• Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Eagle Pass, Texas
• Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila, Del Río, Texas
The amendment under consideration contemplates two modifications. The first refers to
the bridge to be exclusively used for repatriation in Piedras Negras, Coahuila
2000/Camino Real, respecting the time schedules and criteria established in the
agreement signed on October 31, 1997. The second modification establishes that
American authorities will always notify the consulate and the National Migration
Institute via fax and phone with 30 minutes notice before any delivery is made.
SIGNATURE DATE
October 31, 1997
March 23, 2000
December 10, 1997
December 17, 1997
February 20, 1998
July 1, 1998
February 2, 1999
BORDER
Coahuila-Texas
Coahuila-Texas (amendment)
Chihuahua-Nuevo Mexico and Texas
Baja California-California
Nuevo Laredo-Texas
Miguel Alemán-Reynosa-Matamoros-Texas
Sonora-Arizona
The consolidation of agreements and the decisions of both migratory authorities have
allowed for increasing the number of entry points for an orderly and secure repatriation
by 10, amounting to a total of 26 current border points: Baja California (5), Chihuahua
(5), Coahuila (2), Sonora (6), and Tamaulipas (8).
FIGHT AGAINST IRREGULAR IMMIGRATION I
SOUTH PLAN (PLAN SUR)*
South Plan was created in the states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Quintana Roo,
Yucatán, Veracruz, Oaxaca, and their bordering municipalities (the main routes in the
south used by undocumented immigrants to enter the country) with the aim of
controlling undocumented migration flows and strengthening the prosecution of illegal
migrant traffickers. The plan promotes respect for migrants’ human rights, and its basic
objectives are the following:
*
15
a) To make inspection operations and migratory surveillance more efficient along
the Mexican southern border, specifically within the Itsmo area, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean.
b) To unify the support of state governments and municipalities and to join
institutional efforts to fight clandestine migration.
In order to accomplish these objectives, South Plan coordinates the participation of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs (Secretaría de Gobernación—SEGOB), the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores—SRE), the Attorney General’s
Office (Procuraduría General de la República—PGR), the Ministry of Public Security
(Secretaría de Seguridad Pública—SSP), and the Investigation and National Security
Center (Centro de Investigación y Seguridad Nacional—CISEN) in the following duties:
1) follow-up and evaluation of the joint institutional operations against migrant
traffickers; 2) procedures for processing and expelling undocumented migrants; 3) the
stay of undocumented migrants at migratory stations; 4) strategic actions to make INM
inspection duties more efficient; 5) main routes and means of transportation for
migratory flows; 6) evaluation of Beta Group activities within the south zone; and 8)
periodical meetings among the delegations in the south zone.
According to the statistics in 1999, 131,486 foreigners were taken into the migratory
stations—about 360 cases per day. In 2000 this figure reached 166,457, increasing to
456.04 per day. In 2001, 151,405 events were registered with about 414 cases per day.
During the first semester of 2001, 71,732 cases occurred, 56.91 percent of them in the
regional delegation at Chiapas, 14.41 percent in the delegation at Tabasco, 13.81 percent
in the delegation at Oaxaca, and 11.63 percent in the delegation at Veracruz. Most
foreigners taken into the migratory stations at the national level are from Guatemala
(43.84 percent), Honduras (31.26 percent), El Salvador (21.43 percent), and Nicaragua
(1.14 percent).
FIGHT AGAINST IRREGULAR IMMIGRATION II
INSPECTION VISITS TO WORK CENTERS*
With the aim of fighting illegal work in Mexico, INM Regional Delegations
implemented periodical migratory verification visits in November 2000 to workplaces
that traditionally engage foreign labor, and to those reported by foreigners as a place of
work. These visits allow officials to identify foreign workers who might be working
*
16
with expired work permits or without legal permission to carry out economic activities
in the country.
Officers working for legal departments in each Regional Delegation carry out these
monthly inspections based on lists of companies with foreign staff. Such lists are
produced by the Migration File Control System (Sistema De Control De Expedientes De
Archivo Migratorio—SICEAM) and contain the files of those foreigners whose
migratory documents may have expired. The visits can also take place as a result of
denunciations or after having requested migratory procedures, which indicates that
certain foreigners perform unauthorized activities in the country. An official report must
be produced after each inspection visit.
The companies inspected are asked to produce the personnel registry, and foreign
citizens are contacted to verify their migratory status. When the foreigner is still
working, he or she is required to go before the local Migratory Regulation Department
accompanied by the company’s legal representative to declare his or her status. In case
the foreigner no longer works at the company in question, a representative will locate
the foreigner’s home and bring him or her in to the delegation office as asegurado
(secured) in order to define his or her migratory status.
According to the findings, foreign workers may be given an opportunity to regularize
their migratory status or, in case of working without permission, are taken to the local
regional delegation to resolve their migratory situation. Those companies engaging
foreign citizens without job permits are assigned established penalties.
According to statistics, the Regional Delegations that identified the most illegal workers
in 2001 and through October 2002 were Campeche with 68 inspection visits performed
in 2001 and 21 illegal foreigners identified, and Tlaxcala with 20 inspection visits and
10 illegal workers. As for 2002, the Regional Delegation in the Federal District
performed 273 inspection visits identifying 55 illegal workers; in Oaxaca 39 inspection
visits and 26 illegal workers; in Tlaxcala 24 inspection visits and 26 identified illegal
workers; and in Puebla 62 inspection visits and 53 illegal workers.
In 2001, the Regional Delegation at Matamoros performed 637 inspection visits finding
149 illegal workers, and at Tampico performed 98 visits and 89 identified illegal
workers. In 2002, Matamoros performed 784 visits and identified 113 irregular workers,
while Tampico performed 106 visits and found 107 irregular workers.
17
In 2001, the Jalisco Regional Delegation performed 11 inspection visits and found only
3 irregular workers; however, in 2002 they performed 21 visits and found 64 workers of
irregular status. In 2002, Guanajuato reported 48 inspection visits and 8 illegal workers.
TEMPORARY MIGRATION
MEXICAN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN CANADA*
The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program of Mexico-Canada was launched in 1974
with the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the twp countries’
governments. The program, bearing no connection to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), was established with the aim of addressing the needs of Canadian
farmers and Mexican agricultural workers and has been functioning for 25 years.
Under this bilateral program, the governments of Canada and Mexico work jointly on a
continuous basis to ensure the protection of workers’ rights and to guarantee the
reciprocal respect of their immigration laws and the appropriate selection of skilled
Mexican agricultural workers.
The authority responsible for the selection of agricultural workers for this program is the
Mexican Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión
Social—STPS). The selection procedure does not include the participation of the
Canadian Embassy in Mexico City, the support of Canadian consulates, or the
intervention of any other local organization.
The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE) supports the development of this
program by issuing required documents for workers; the INM prepares the “beneficiary
format”—an ID document given to a person the agricultural worker designates as
recipient—and prints the seal on the worker’s passport authorizing him or her to leave
the country. Given the low level of literacy among temporary workers, INM assists by
filling out the Statistical Migratory Form for Mexicans.
Under this program, the agricultural workers sign a contract to work with a Canadian
farmer for a period ranging from six weeks to 10 months. They may work in the fields,
greenhouses, or packing houses performing heavy manual labor. If the employer is
satisfied with their work, the workers may be selected again for the following season
within the scope of the same program. Currently, more than 70 percent of participants
have returned to work on several occasions, leaving other workers limited opportunities
to join the program.
*
18
The candidate enrollment and selection procedure operates as follows: the employment
service (ES) sponsored by the Mexican Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS)
identifies the main agricultural regions in the different Mexican states. ES then promotes
the recruitment of agricultural candidates through the local radio stations, its mobile
units, and advertisements. ES does not accept intermediaries representing any worker;
rather, each worker must enroll personally.
The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program requires persons to have knowledge and/or
expertise on seeding and collecting cereals, vegetables, fruits, flowers, and tobacco, as
well as tree felling and apiculture procedures.
The applicant should fulfill the following requirements: to be married or have a
common-law spouse, be between 22 and 45 years of age, and to have completed at least
three years of secondary school or have reached the high school level.
An ES counselor interviews all candidates and, after establishing compliance with
document requirements, verifies that the candidates fulfill the required profile and that
the name that appears on the applicant’s voting ID card is the same appearing on his or
her birth certificate.
The Employment counselor selects candidates, registers their data in the format migra,
and produces a letter of introduction for the candidates. The selected candidates are
informed and briefed on the next set of requirements. In case a group of workers
includes more than 50 people, officers from STPS travel to the regions in question to
perform the final selection. A monthly report is to be given to the ES, including the
number of accepted and rejected workers, to be included in the employment report.
During the first years of operation, the program registered the participation of nearly 200
Mexican workers and a small number of Canadian farmers. According to STPS data, in
2001 the program included 10,529 Mexican workers; in 2002 this figure reached 10,681
workers on farms in the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta.
From January through August 2003, 10,225 Mexican agricultural workers have been
sent to Canada.
19
TEMPORARY MIGRATION
GUATEMALAN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN MEXICO*
Given the number of Guatemalan workers seeking work in Mexico, the National
Migration Institute (INM) launched the “Program for the Documentation of Legal
Migratory Security for Guatemalan Agricultural Workers” in 1997. The program’s goal
is to provide Guatemalan agricultural workers with the Agricultural Visitor Migratory
Form (Forma Migratoria para Visitante Agrícola—FMVA). Such documents grant
migrants legal entry into Mexico, as well as the possibility of participating in
compensated activities within the country. This way Guatemalan workers acquire the
migratory status of non-immigrant visitor.
The procedure is the following: a Mexican farmer or ejidatario registers his property or
farm in any migration office in the state of Chiapas. Each worker arrives at the border
bearing an identifying document with a seal proving Guatemalan nationality, and three
small recent photos. Application forms for FMVAs are supplied free of charge at all
points of entry. However, given that about 90 percent of the agricultural workers are
illiterate, and others have only two years of elementary school, they often need help
filling out the application form. Once this has been completed, a permit is issued,
allwoing them to remain in Chiapas for up to a year with multiple entries. Each worker
is authorized to work only within the state of Chiapas, and on a certain farm or ejido for
a designated employer.
At first, these workers were documented through lists held by the migration authorities
and formed by recruiters or intermediaries. They were issued on ordinary paper, which
created a problem, since the forms wore out with handling and soon became illegible
and easily counterfeited.
The new FMVA is a plastic credential read by optic readers being installed at all entry
points along the Mexican-Guatemalan border. 42,475 Guatemalan agricultural workers
crossed this border during 2001. Between January and October 2002, this figure
amounted to 28,433, with 9,731 crossings through Ciudad Hidalgo, 10,075 through
Talisman, 1,687 through Ciudad Cuauhtémoc, and 6,540 at other entry points.
*
20
NATURALIZATION IN MEXICO CURRENT LEGAL PROVISIONS*
The constitutional reform of Articles 30, 32, and 37 that were carried out on March 20,
1997 resulted in the modification of 31 regulations and in the creation of a new
Nationality Act, which in turn regulates the aforementioned articles. The New
Nationality Act replaces the previous act, dated June 21, 1993.
The main reason for this global constitutional reform was the adoption of the so-called
“double nationality” in Mexico, which in legal terms was considered “The benefit of not
loosing Mexican nationality by birth.” This measure would favor the protection of
Mexican nationals living abroad who had been asking for this reform for a long time.
Before this reform nationality was considered unique, and the possibility of losing it did
indeed exist. For this reason, the previous act included a chapter exclusively about
loosing Mexican nationality by birth or naturalization.
With the constitutional reform, loosing Mexican nationality by birth is no longer
possible, since according to article 37, section A, of the Political Constitution of the
Mexican United States, “no Mexican by birth can be deprived of his/ her nationality.”
Mexican nationality obtained by naturalization did not receive the same consideration
since—according to both the previous and the current act—naturalized Mexicans can
loose their nationality when they fall into any of the categories established in Article 37,
part B, of the Mexican Constitution (Carta Magna).
Recovering Mexican Nationality, treated in chapter V of the previous act, is eliminated
from the current act because, in view of the fact that Mexican nationality by birth cannot
be lost, a recovery resource is no longer necessary.
Once Mexican Nationality obtained through naturalization is lost it cannot be recovered.
To recover Mexican Nationality, the procedure must be initiated once again and all the
requirements established by the act must be fulfilled.
The naturalization procedure was also modified in the current act as follows:
The previous act stated that in order to comply with the requested period of residence
(five or two years, according to each case), legal stay within the country had to be
*
21
proven, and the resident’s main objective could not be recreation or studies. Thus, the
possibility of granting Mexican nationality to a student or tourist was excluded. The
current act does not mention whether or not residence must be legal, nor does it restrict
migratory status for the acquisition of Mexican Nationality.
As for cases of naturalization by Patria Potestad (adoption), the new act specifies that
residence shall not be interrupted, thus the applicant cannot leave the country during the
year previous to the application, a requirement that was not part of the previous act. As
for the acquisition of nationality after two years of residence in the country, the
requirement of being a direct descendant of a Mexican citizen by birth was added.
In regards to acquiring Mexican citizenship through marriage, the new act considers
marriages in which one spouse is a Mexican citizen living abroad either by choice or by
assignment of the Mexican Government. It also offers the possibility of Mexican
citizenship through naturalization to one spouse in the event that the other acquires
citizenship by the same means.
Articles 23 and 31 of the new act state that the opinion of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs will be considered for every case of naturalization or loss of Mexican nationality
(but not for the recovery of nationality since—as mentioned—this possibility
disappeared from the new legislation).
REFUGEES, POLITICAL EXILES, AND THEIR ACCESS TO THE LABOR
MARKET IN MEXICO*
Mexican Legislation allows political exiles and refugees to carry out productive
activities that guarantee them an income source to support themselves their dependents.
A refugee, according to the General Population Law, is a foreign citizen who enters the
country with the aim of protecting his or her life, security, or freedom when those rights
have been threatened in their country of origin when situations of general violence,
external aggression, internal conflict, massive human rights violations, or other
circumstances have seriously disturbed the public order and forced him or her to leave
his or her country (Article.42, fraction VI LGP). The final judgment on a refugee or
political exile application comes from the Central Service of the National Migration
Institute, specifically to the Coordination of Migratory Regulation. This office takes into
consideration the opinion of the Eligibility Committee, as stated in Articles 166 and 167
of the law for the regulation of the General Population.
*
22
The Eligibility Committee is chaired by the Under Secretary of Population, Migration,
and Religious Affairs from the Ministry of the Interior. Other participating members of
the committee are the Foreign Affairs Secretariat (Under Secretariat for Human Rights
and Democracy) and the Secretariat of Work and Social Welfare. The committee’s
Technical Secretary is the Commissioner of the National Migration Institute, while the
Coordinator General of the Mexican Commission for Aid to Refugees from SEGOB is
the Executive Secretary. Representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (Alto Comisionada de las Naciones Unidos para los Refugiados—ACNUR)
may also be invited as observers.
Refugees are allowed to remain in the country for one year with the possibility of yearly
renewal. Before May 2002 when the Eligibility Committee began, refugees were given
the migratory status of visitors, with or without the permission to engage in
remunerative activities. Their migratory documents state that they were backed by
ACNUR and /or by COMAR. From May 2002 up to November 2002, refugee status was
granted to 5 foreigners.
Refugees’ labor market access in Mexico: the juridical base is stated in Article 166,
Fraction VIII, sections a & b of the law Regulating the General Population, which reads
that all foreign citizens admitted into the country as refugees will be subject to the
following conditions:
a) SEGOB will determine the residence of each refugee and the economic activities
in which he or she will be allowed to participate. Other regulatory measures
related to a foreigner’s stay would be stipulated by SEGOB when circumstances
require.
b) Refugees can apply for their spouse, children, and parents to enter national
territory if they are financially dependent on the refugee.
A Political exile is a foreign citizen who enters Mexican territory in order to protect his
or her freedom or life from political persecution in his or her country of origin (Article
42, Fraction V LGP). It is of the exclusive domain of the Coordination of Migratory
Regulation to resolve such an asylum application. Political exiles are allowed to perform
any economic activity within Mexican territory as long as it is legal. Permissions to stay
in Mexican territory are valid for one year and can be renewed yearly. Political exiles
require the approval of Central Service at the National Migration Institute to change
their economic activity. They can also apply for other migratory status, even if reasons
remain the same for their status as political exiles. They do, however, lose the rights of
23
political exiles when acquiring a different migratory status (Article 165, Fraction
RLGP).
Political exiles entering the labor market in Mexico: the juridical base is stated in Article
165, Fraction VII, sections a & b, of the law for Regulating the General Population and
stipulates that all foreign citizens admitted into the country as political exiles will be
subject to the conditions stated hereunder:
a) The Ministry of the Interior will determine the location of the refugee’s residence
as well as the economic activities in which he or she will be allowed to
participate. Other regulatory measures related to a political exile’s stay would be
stipulated by SEGOB when circumstances require.
b) The political exile will be allowed to bring his or her spouse and children as
economic dependents. These family members will hold the migratory status of
political exile as economic dependents. The parents of political exiles will be
admitted with the appropriate status as determined by the Ministry of the Interior.
MIXED MARRIAGES BETWEEN MEXICAN CITIZENS AND FOREIGNERS*
A foreign citizen may marry a Mexican citizen under current laws. However, the foreign
citizen is required to prove his or her legal residence in the country before the Judge who
proceeds over the marriage. Moreover, the foreign citizen is required to show the
permission issued by the National Migration Institute. Such permission is based on
Article 68 of the General Population Law, which states the following:
“Article 68—Official Judges at the Civil Registry will only be able to register births or
deaths of foreign citizens without proof of legal residence in the country. Any other
registries must be made in accordance with the terms established in the Regulation of
this Law. When it is a matter of mixed marriages between foreigners and Mexican
citizens, foreigners will be required to present the permission issued by the Ministry of
the Interior... Marriages and divorces between Mexican and foreign citizens will be
registered in the National Registry of Foreigners, within the 30 days following such
proceedings.”
In addition, the Regulation of this Law establishes that the authorization given by the
INM to allow foreign citizens to marry Mexican citizens will be subject to the following
clauses:
*
24
• The written application and a valid migratory document must be presented by the
foreign citizen or his or her representative.
• The application must be supported by the future Mexican spouse, who will be
required to prove his or her nationality.
Authorization to marry will be valid for no longer than 30 days and must be
performed within the terms of the migratory document.
FOREIGN STUDENTS AND THEIR ACCESS
TO THE LABOR MARKET IN MEXICO*
According to Article 42, Fraction VII of the General Population Law, a Non-Immigrant
Student is a foreign citizen who enters the country legally with the sole purpose of
initiating, finishing, or perfecting his or her studies in official educational institutions or
other officially recognized institutions. Foreign students are allowed to remain within
the national territory only for the duration of their student programs and the period
required to obtain their final scholastic documents.
According to the provisions of Article 168, Fraction X of the General Population Law,
non–immigrant students are not allowed to carry out paid or lucrative activities except
for professional practices and social services considered part of their student programs
with the previous authorization of SEGOB.
Foreign students must leave the country at the end of their student programs, as stated in
Article 68, Fraction XII of the aforementioned law. In case the foreign student requires
an extension of the period to request and obtain his or her respective documents, to
produce a thesis, or to take a professional exam, SEGOB shall evaluate each case and
will define the period allotted for legal stay.
II
DICTIONARY OF MIGRATORY CATEGORIES AND CONCEPTS
Asegurados, Devueltos, and Rechazados
Tables and graphs with these headers present data by nationality of foreigners
involved in the situations designated by the categories. These definitions have
been taken from those established by the Mexican General Law of Population.
25
Detained—Asegurado This is an administrative sanction assigned to a foreigner
who has been placed temporarily in a migratory station pending INM’s decision
whether or not to expel.
In accordance with Article 37 of the Mexican General Law of Population, the
Secretary of the Interior could deny entry to Mexico or deny an application for
change of migratory status under the following circumstances:
I.
II.
III.
There is no international reciprocity.
It is required to maintain the national demographic equilibrium;
It is beyond the quotas established by Article 32 of the Mexican General
Law of Population.
IV. It is deemed harmful to national economic interest by the Mexican INM
authorities.
V.
The foreigner has broken Mexican laws or has criminal records abroad.
VI. The foreigner has broken the regulations of the Mexican General Law of
Population or of any of his rulings or other administrative rules applicable
to his or her case. The foreigner is found not to comply with the
requirements established in the above mentioned laws.
VII. The foreigner is found not to be physically or mentally sane according to a
Mexican public health authority.
VIII. His or her case is found to be included in any prohibition established by
Mexican law.
Rejected—Rechazado This is an administrative sanction assigned to a foreigner
who has not been authorized to enter Mexico due to incomplete, improper, or
missing migratory documentation (Article 27).
Returned—Devuelto This is an administrative sanction assigned to a foreigner
who has violated the regulations of the Mexican General Law of Population
(Article 125 and 126), from which it follows that the foreigner so sanctioned
should immediately abandon Mexican territory.
Farm Worker Visitor
This permit to enter Mexico could be granted to Guatemalan farm workers by the
Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the text of Memorandum 247
(Circular 247) of October 2, 1997 as issued by INM’s Office of Control of
Foreigners’ Stay.
26
This permit is valid exclusively as a work permit for the indicated farm and
employer with the understanding that any change of employer requires the written
authorization of INM authorities of the local INM delegation.
It is strictly prohibited to perform activities different than those authorized in the
permit for this migratory category.
It is understood that, for the duration of this permit, multiple entries and exits
exclusively between Guatemala and Chiapas are authorized provided that the
bearer of the permit presents it to INM authorities upon each passage.
It is understood that family members and farm workers’ companions should be
documented separately and individually.
This permit grants free border transit only to and from the State of Chiapas.
Immigrant—Inmigrado
A foreigner who has legally entered Mexico with the purpose of residing there on
a permanent basis.
The subcategories of an immigrant are:
Assimilated—Asimilados This category is granted to a foreigner who has been
assimilated to the Mexican national milieu, who has married a Mexican, or who
has had a Mexican child and is not included in any other migratory category
established by the regulations of the Mexican General Law of Population. Under
this category a foreigner can enter Mexico to perform any legal and honest
activity.
Artist and Athletes—Artistas y Deportistas This category is granted to a
foreigner to enter Mexico to perform art, sport, or analogous activities, provided
that those activities have some benefit to the country according to the Secretary of
the Interior.
Family Members—Familiares This category is granted to a foreigner to enter
Mexico to live as an economic dependent of a spouse, a next to kin, an immigrant
(inmigrante), or an inmigrado (an immigrant recognized as a Mexican resident on
a permanent basis).
27
Foreigners under this category can be authorized by the Secretary of the Interior
to perform the activities outlined by the regulations of the Mexican General Law
of Population.
Foreigners who are children or brothers of immigrants, inmigrados, or Mexican
citizens can only be admitted under this category when they are minors, except in
cases that the foreigner is certified to be a student or physically handicapped.
Investor—Inversionista This category is granted to a foreigner who enters
Mexico in order to invest his capital in accordance to national laws in industrial
activities, trade, and services. These investments must contribute to the social and
economic development of Mexico and be maintained in the country for the
duration of residence in the minimum amount determined by the Mexican
Population Laws.
Position of an Executive in a Business Corporation—Cargo de Confianza This
category is granted for a foreigner to enter Mexico to perform a corporate
executive position in companies or private institutions established in Mexico. The
Secretary of the Interior will establish if the job description merits the permit and
that there is no duplication of positions.
Professional—Profesional This category is granted to a foreigner who enters
Mexico to perform a professional activity. For certain professional activities
established by Article V of the Mexican Constitution, a university certificate
proving completed studies must be submitted.
Rentist—Rentista This is granted to a foreigner after he or she has proven that he
or she will live in Mexico by economic resources from abroad, including: interest
from investments abroad—in the form of bank certificates, titles, state bonds,
valid banking documents, or by others approved by the Mexican Secretary of the
Interior—and those derived from any other of the foreigner’s permanent income
originating abroad. The Secretary of the Interior will determine the minimum
amount required (as established in the rules of the Mexican Population Law) for
these resources and for any other permanent income received by the foreigner that
originates abroad. The Secretary of the Interior can authorize rentistas to work as
teachers, scientists, scientific scholars, or technicians if they determine these
activities to be of benefit to the country.
Scientist—Cientifico This category is granted to a foreigner who enters Mexico
to direct or perform scientific research, to disseminate his or her scientific
28
knowledge, to train scientific researchers, or to perform teaching activities. The
Secretary of the Interior determines that these activities are aimed at the national
development of Mexico and consults institutions about said scientist.
Technician—Tecnico This category is granted to a foreigner who enters Mexico
to perform applied scientific research or to perform technological or specialized
functions that the Secretary of the Interior determines cannot be performed by
other residents in the country.
Inmigrado
This category is granted to a foreigner who has previously been granted the status
of “inmigrante” and has acquired rights as a permanent legal resident of Mexico
according to the regulations of the Mexican General Law of Population.
Migratory Forms: (Definition and Description)
FM3: Migratory form issued for the category of non-immigrant.
FMC: Migratory form issued for the category of trans-migrant.
FME: Migratory form issued for statistical purposes only to a Mexican citizen
who resides in Mexico or abroad and is returning to Mexico.
FMN: Migratory form issued for the category of business-person of US or
Canadian origin in any of four modalities: merchant-investor, professional,
transfer, or business visitor.
FMT: Migratory form issued for the category of tourist foreigner.
FMVA: Migratory form issued for the category of temporary farm work visitor
who wants to enter Mexico through the southern border (Chiapas).
FMVC: Migratory form issued for the categories of immigrant or inmigrado in
any of nine modalities: artist, athlete, assimilated, business executive, scientist,
family member, investor, professional, rentist, and technician.
FMVLF: Migratory form issued for the category of local border visitor from
Guatemala or Belize who wants to enter through Chiapas or Quintana Roo.
FMVLM: Migratory form issued for the category of local maritime visitor.
29
Non-Immigrant
A foreigner who, with the authorization of the Mexican government, enters
Mexico on a temporary basis under any of the following categories:
Political Asylum This status is granted to foreigners who prove that their entry to
Mexico is to protect life and freedom from political persecution in their country of
origin. INM authorities determine the duration of stay according the
circumstances of each case with the understanding that if the refugee breaks any
Mexican law he or she will loose the privileges derived from asylum status,
beyond the repercussions of breaking Mexican law. In such a case the Secretary
of the Interior could grant him or her the migratory category that office deems
appropriate for the continuation of his or her legal stay in the country.
In addition, if the political asylee is found to be absent from the country of
Mexico, he or she will loose any right to re-enter Mexico within the previously
granted migratory status, unless he or she proves to have left the country under
proper authorization.
Distinguished Visitor This courtesy permit is granted only under exceptional
circumstances to enter and reside in Mexico for up to six months. This category
could be granted to scholars, scientists, or humanists of accredited international
prestige or to journalists or other persons of high prominence. The Secretary of
the Interior can renew this permit when he considers it appropriate.
Local Visitors This category can be granted by Mexican immigration authorities
to foreigners who visit Mexican seaports or border cities for stays of no more than
three days.
Media Correspondent This category is granted to foreign journalists to perform
research, inquiry, or coverage of special events for a limited time, provided that
they duly certify their status as journalists under the terms established by the
Secretary of the Interior. This permit could be granted for up to a year and
extended on a yearly basis with multiple entries and exits.
Minister of Cult or Representative of a Religious Organization This category
is issued by the Mexican government to foreigners who lawfully enter Mexico to
serve as Ministers of a Cult, for religious activities of any Church of any
denomination, or for social or philanthropic activities sponsored by religious
organizations provided that the religious organization has been previously
30
registered with the Secretary of the Interior and that said foreigner certifies being
a minister of a cult or representative of a religious organization in accordance with
the Mexican Law of Religious Associations and Public Cults. This migratory
authorization issued by the Mexican government could be for one year, eligible
for one-year four extensions with multiple entries and exits.
Provisional Visitor This category is granted by the Secretary of the Interior under
exceptional circumstances for up to thirty days, for the purpose of provisional
disembarkation of foreigners who arrive at seaports or airports authorized for
international transit and whose migratory documents reveal a secondary requisite
missing. In the event that the foreigner does not produce the missing requisite
during the time granted, he or she must make a deposit or bond as a guarantee for
his or her return to his or her country of origin or nationality.
Refugee This category is granted to the foreigner who enters Mexico to protect
his or her life or freedom when these had been threatened by generalized violence,
foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights, or other
circumstances that have seriously disrupted the public order in his or her country
of origin.
Those individuals who have been subjected to political persecution should not be
included within this category. The Secretary of the Interior may renew this
migratory permit as many times as is deemed appropriate. If the refugee breaks
any national law, he or she will loose the privileges of this migratory category
independently of the sanctions that would be applicable to his or her violation of
Mexican laws. In this case, the Secretary of the Interior could grant the refugee
the appropriate migratory status to legally continue his or her stay in the country.
In addition, if the refugee is found to be absent from Mexico, he or she will loose
every right to re-enter Mexico under the previously granted migratory status
unless he or she attests to leaving the country under authorization of the Secretary
of the Interior. The refugee could not be returned to his or her country of origin
nor sent to any other country where his or her life or freedom would be
threatened.
The Secretary of the Interior may waive the corresponding refugee sanction
brought about by illegal entry to Mexico in accordance with international
standards and the humanitarian sense of protection inherent to refugee status.
Student This category is granted to a foreigner who enters Mexico in order to
initiate, finish, or pursue specialization in Mexican educational institutions, public
31
or private legally registered schools, or in order to pursue studies that do not
require official certification. This category is eligible for extension on a yearly
basis with authorization to remain in the country for the duration of his or her
studies and all the necessary time to obtain the documents of final certification.
This foreigner could be authorized to leave the country each year of his or her
legal stay up to 120 days per year in total—unless his or her studies are pursued in
a border city and the student is a resident of a border community, in which case
the limitations for absences to the country would not apply.
Tourist This is a foreigner who lawfully enters Mexico for the purpose of
recreation, health, or non-lucrative cultural, artistic, or sports activities for a
maximum of six months.
Trans-migrant This is a foreigner who lawfully enters Mexico in transit to
another country with a maximum stay in the country of thirty days.
Visitor This is foreigner who lawfully enters Mexico to dedicate him or herself to
some activity—lucrative or not—as long as such activity is lawful and honest,
with a maximum stay in the country of one year.
This category is eligible for four year-long extensions, with multiple entries and
departures under the following conditions: when the foreign visitor makes a living
in Mexico with resources imported from abroad or with the interests or dividends
produced by such resources or any other income originated abroad; when his or
her entry is aimed at investing or exploring investment options in Mexico; when
the foreign visitor intends to pursue scientific or technological activities, or to
advise on sports, the arts, or similar matters; or when the foreign visitor enters
intends to hold positions of trust, or attend advisory board, board of directors, or
other business meetings for the decision-making body of a private corporation.
OTHER TERMS USED IN THE TABLES OR STATISTICAL INFORMATION
PRESENTED
Beta Groups
Task forces created by INM for the protection of migrants’ human rights
Migrants Informed—Orientados Individual migrants selected by members of
Beta Group to share information about their human rights, the various supports
32
offered by Beta Group agents, or about the risks or dangers that the migrant might
encounter in the area
This service includes handing out INM leaflets and pamphlets to individual
migrants regardless of the migrants’ national origin.
Migrants Assisted—Asistencia Social Migrants encountered in the field who are
transported to hospitals or social assistance INM centers where they receive food,
temporary refuge, first aid medical assistance, or guidance and information about
various migratory procedures
Persons Found—Personas Localizadas Persons who were found by Beta Group
agents in response to a request
Legal Assistance—Asistencia o Gestoria Juridical Migrants who request
accompaniment to a judicial authority to present a denunciation or complaint
about violations to his or her human rights
Migrants Rescued—Protegidos de Conductas Delictivas Migrants who were
protected following an attack by criminals and migrants who have been rescued
from dangerous or life-threatening situations
Complaints Received—Quejas Recibidas Complaints received by a Beta Group
agent about violations of a migrant’s human rights
Complaints Responded—Quejas Atendidas Follow-up on a complaint about
violations of a migrant’s human rights
Detention of Person(s) for Violation to Article 138 of the General Law of
Population—Aseguramiento de Presuntos Traficantes
Detention of a Person(s) Arrested Red-Handed—Arresto de Personas en
Delito Infraganti
Business Visitors Flow
Statistics on the flow of business-persons are presented in compliance with
NAFTA’s provisions
Denunciations Presented by INM to Judicial Authorities for Prosecution Purposes
(by Regional Delegation)
Denunciations related to crimes defined by Article 138 of the Mexican General
Law of Population (trafficking of persons)
Entries to Mexico
Entries by both foreigners and Mexicans as they enter Mexican territory
This excludes foreigners who enter Mexico as irregular or undocumented persons
as well as Mexican nationals who are residents of border cities.
33
Exits from Mexico
Departures from Mexico of both foreigners and nationals
Foreign Tourist Flow
Data is presented by Regional INM Delegations in alphabetical order, which
allows the identification of the most important points of entries/exits in the
country.
Joined Protection Actions—Acciones de proteccion realizadas
Actions conducted jointly or in coordination with both national and foreign law
enforcement authorities
Actions of Protection to Migrants performed in cooperation or jointly with
other law enforcement agencies—Acciones conjuntas con otras dependencies
A. Joint actions with federal authorities—Acciones conjuntas con
dependencias federales
B. Joint actions with state authorities—Acciones conjuntas con
dependencias estatales
C. Joint actions with municipal authorities—Acciones conjuntas con
autoridades municipales
Joint actions of Protection to Migrants performed jointly with foreign law
enforcement agencies (Acciones para la proteccion a migrantes realizadas en
coordinacion con corporaciones extranjeras)
Patrolling Actions (Patrullajes o recorridos realizados)
Data on actual patrolling from one identified point to another, aimed at the
protection of migrants (by number of patrolling actions performed and distance
involved)
Special Protection Actions (Acciones de proteccion especiales)
Data on the number of non-ordinary routine actions performed by Beta Group
agents
Mexican Citizens delivered at the border to INM by US Immigration authorities
(Mexicanos repatriados de Estados Unidos de America)
Mexican citizens who are delivered to INM authorities by US immigration
authorities after their detention for irregular entry to the United States
34
Data under this category refers to events rather than individuals, since one
individual could have been detained and delivered across the border more than
once in a single time frame.
Persons taken to Judicial authorities (Personas puestas a dispocision de las
autoridades)
Persons delivered to judicial authorities after being accused of a crime or of
violations to the Mexican General Law of Population
Total Migratory Flow
Statistical category used to reference the sum of entries and/or exits of persons to
the country
Used to determine the evolution of the migratory flow across Mexican borders
into Mexican territory
III
TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN MEXICO
This is a research report on the trafficking of persons between Mexico and the United States with some
comparative analysis of applicable international standards and specific reference to the legal framework
in Mexico.
Basic concepts
A proper understanding of the person trafficking phenomenon requires distinguishing
carefully between trafficking and smuggling—designations that entail essential
differences with major policy and practical implications. These distinctions, often lost in
current public and political debate, are outlined in the “Palermo Protocols.” For
example, the “Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children,” defines trafficking of persons as the recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of threat, force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, or abuse of power for the purpose
of exploitation.
Crucial to this definition is that trafficked persons should be considered victims as
opposed to perpetrators. It is implied that the violations of human rights and labor
standards inherent in the “use of force, coercion, fraud, deception and/or abuse of power
… for purposes of exploitation” places the trafficked persons as victims not as agents of
35
the illicit behavior of trafficking. This is important because some countries have
produced anti-trafficking legislation that results in steeper punishment for the subjects of
trafficking, rather than for the criminals who recruit, “market” and exploit them. This
then results in a double victimization: one, by the subjection of persons to the various
dimensions of the illicit “marketing” implied in trafficking, and, two, by the subjection
of the same persons to the enforcement of the law that fails to make the aforementioned
distinction.
There is another “Palermo Protocol” that focuses on the “smuggling of migrants,” which
defines it as “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or
other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the
person is not a national or a permanent resident.”1
Given the ambivalent attitude in some countries toward addressing the gap between
labor demands and restrictive admissions, combating smuggling—without providing
adequate legal migration channels and regulations on conditions of employment in
migrant recruiting sectors—will further stigmatize migrant labor, driving irregular
migrant workers deeper into an underground condition, and increasing the abuse of
migrants.
By contrast, the abuse and exploitation inherent to trafficking command commensurate
responses. Much of the subsequent discussion focuses on addressing the trafficking
phenomenon (distinct from smuggling).
By definition a smuggler will be involved only in the transportation phase of migration,
deriving a profit from providing assistance to achieve undocumented entry into a foreign
country and to obtain departure from highly restrictive situations.
Smugglers and traffickers may both play roles as “labor brokers,” promising to provide
persons seeking work abroad with assistance in getting to destinations where
employment is available or specific jobs are waiting. Smuggling operations—sometimes
difficult to distinguish from legitimate travel agencies or labor recruitment agencies—
may assist migrants with obtaining passports, visas, funds for traveling (travel loans),
transportation, and directions to job openings or opportunities. The Council of Europe
has characterized the law that refers in particular to trafficking as the gap-filler,
1
See: “After Palermo: An Overview of what the Convention and Protocols Hope to Accomplish,” at
www.undcp.org/palermo/sum1.html
36
operating between the high demand for migrant labor on one hand and the diminished
legal channels for migration in most countries on the other.2
Trafficking involves conditions, services, and outcomes that go far beyond the
transportation and border crossing elements. It involves forced labor of victims for an
indefinite period of time, putting them in a contemporary form of debt bondage and
deriving considerable profit from this exploitation.3 It is the concept of debt bondage
that is at the root of the most common form of modern day slavery.
Anti-Slavery International is the oldest human rights organization and is revered as one
of the ultimate authorities on the subject of modern day slavery. The following
definition of debt bondage supplied by Anti-Slavery International is commonly found in
literature on the subject.
A person enters debt bondage when their labor is demanded as a means of
repayment of a loan or of money given in advance. Usually, people are
tricked or trapped into working for no pay or very little pay (in return for
such a loan) in conditions that violate their human rights. Invariably, the
value of the work done by a bonded laborer is greater than the original sum
of money barrowed or advanced.
Human desperation is at the very core of two phenomena with the same roots: human
trafficking and debt bondage. Desperation drives individuals into risky situations in
which they become vulnerable; they are then victimized into working in slavery
conditions under the pretext of repaying their loan. Both phenomena are particularly
widespread in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Indonesia, and the Philippines, where
two thirds of the trafficked persons and the world’s captive labor can be found.2
The other third of modern day slaves in debt bondage are also led by desperation into
victimization and exploitation. This contingent of bondage laborers mostly consists of
migrants who take great risks and desperately seek out a better life. The migrants are
trafficked to foreign countries with the promise of work from a vast range of people
2
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation, Campaign Against Trafficking in Women, provisional
edition, Recommendation 1545 (2002) at 2.
3
While smuggling of migrants often involves a mutual interest between the smuggler and the smuggled, trafficking in
human beings constitutes a crime against persons.
2
The September 2003 edition of National Geographic included Andrew Cockburn’s article “21st Century Slavery,”
specifically addressing the issue of modern day slavery. Included in the article (pages 6-7) is a moving photo depicting the
inhumanity of exploitation in India. A weathered woman carries about twenty, just-fired bricks on her head as others behind
her do the same. The citation below the image reads, “Debt traps entire families in bondage for generations. Mothers and
daughters haul hand made bricks at a southeast India kiln, while fathers and sons stock the fires.”
37
looking to take advantage of them. In extreme situations even friends or acquaintances
lure them into known danger.
An example of this profound despair by an acquaintance who was already in debt
bondage was mentioned on PBS’s Wide Angle Special a documentary shown on
September 25th 2003 entitled, Dying to Leave. A Columbian woman was offered a job
cleaning hotels in Japan by her friend/acquaintance who said that she to was working in
the hotel. However, no friend was waiting to greet her at the airport upon her arrival in
Japan; instead, there were traffickers. They immediately took her money and passport,
and that night she was coerced into prostitution. This sad situation is a good
representation of the extreme desperation by both those willing to migrate and those
already in debt bondage. The friend who was already in debt bondage and forced into
prostitution was so desperate to reduce her debt that she decided to lure a friend into the
same miserable situation. As for the woman who came from Columbia to Japan just to
get a job cleaning hotels, in addition to the difficulties she had suffered prior to
departure, she found how vulnerable she really was upon arrival in a country where she
knew neither a friend nor the language.
Migrants are already vulnerable due to their intensive level of poverty and are made
even more so because of strict border patrol regulations. These increasingly stringent
regulations force more migrants to cross international borders illegally. Unable to legally
cross and the desperate need for money guide migrants right into the den of exploitation.
Migrants are forced to entrust strangers, smugglers, and traffickers with their passage,
money, or future debt. All of these components together work against any power the
migrant may posses. This extreme vulnerability turns the migrant into a commodity or a
slave for countless people, groups, and organizations waiting and ready to exploit their
defenselessness for personal profit.
Andrew Cockburn in “21st Century Slavery” supports this description when he quotes
executive director of Anti-Slavery International, Mike Dottridge: “Today vulnerable
people are lured into debt slavery in the expectation of a better life. There are so many of
them because there are so many desperate people in the world.” After the migrant is
smuggled across the border, a human trafficker pays off the migrant’s debt to the
smuggler/trafficker. This is the beginning of entrapment by increased debt; as all
previous promises of work and opportunity are altered or shattered, the migrant is in the
most desperate situation of all, desperate for freedom.
This illegal entrance into a foreign country and outstanding debt to a trafficker puts the
migrant in a powerless and vulnerable situation that leads to enslavement. Once the
vulnerability is recognized, violence is the last major step to instill the necessary fear
38
that will grant the salve-holder total control to ruthlessly exploit the migrant. AntiSlavery International’s Summary of this method of modern day slavery pinpoints the
nature of debt bondage upheld through one key element—fear: “There are very few
cases where chains are actually used, but the constraints on the people concerned are
every bit as real and as restricting” (see Dottridge, quoted at
http//:www.devp.org/slavery/bondage.html).
The victims who are trapped are bonded to such a situation because of their extreme
hopelessness and fear of losing what may be their only source of food or shelter. Most
individuals bonded to such a situation are considered the poorest of the poor, where the
pursuit of food and shelter represents a daily struggle for survival. A fourteen year old
prostitute from Honduras who was living in Mexico encapsulates this level of poverty
when she responded to a question asking if she would consider going home to Honduras,
“ ‘No,’ she answered, ‘There you die of hunger’ ” (see, Cockburn, opus sit pp. 2-29).
Modern day slaves are not possessions as they were in the past. Slavery is exercised
through total domination and control over one’s life through violence. Kevin Bales is
considered to be the world’s leading expert on contemporary slavery and has authored a
great deal of internationally recognized literature on the subject, including Disposable
People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, which was translated into ten languages.
In Disposable People he sites a horrific example violence used as a means of fear and
submission when recounting a story of an eleven year old girl in Brazil who refused to
prostitute herself to a miner: “After decapitating her with a machete, the miner drove
around in his speed boat, showing off her head to other miners, who clapped and
shouted their approval.”
Globalization has moved money and goods all over the world. As mentioned in Dying to
Leave, this that means in locations like Mexico, traditional goods or products that were
depended upon for subsistence are drying up as the market moves to more dominant
international competitors. In brief, the more global the economy becomes, the more
displacement of money from one place to the next. The displacement of money displaces
workers as well. Cockburn also notes the effects of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, “For every ton of corn imported to Mexico, two Mexicans migrant to the
United States.” This is where human smugglers come to fill the void. Many smugglers
go directly to the towns that have lost their traditional forms of subsistence and other
impoverished towns to recruit workers who will ultimately be enslaved.
The lack of an effective governing body over international trade has made goods from
around the world more accessible. There is a direct correlation between this fact and the
39
facility of trafficking humans into slavery. Kevin Bales notes this in New Slavery: a
Reference Handbook,
Globalization is seen in the ongoing loss of governmental control over
international trade… No one seems to be in control of international trade,
which means that no one is protecting people from the worse outcomes of
trade. The trade in human beings is also difficult for governments to
control. (pg. 19)
Traffickers exploit impoverished and vulnerable individuals who are seeking a better life
in a foreign country. They exploit countries with chronic unemployment, widespread
poverty, or a lack of economic opportunity (see, US Department of State 2003
Trafficking in Persons Report pg. 7). Furthermore, traffickers take advantage of the
unequal status of women and girls in many countries. They use harmful stereotypes of
women as property, servants, and sexual objects for their own profit. Traffickers
therefore see people, specifically women and children, as highly profitable, low risk,
expendable, reusable, and resalable commodities (see, US Central Intelligence Agency,
International Trafficking in Women to the United States: A Contemporary Manifestation
of Slavery and Organized Crime, pg. 1). Both women and ethnic minorities are not as
highly valued as other persons, which also makes them more vulnerable and perpetuates
trafficking (see, US Department of State, pg. 8). The average age of a trafficking victim
in the United States is roughly twenty years old (see, US CIA, pg. 3). However, it has
not been uncommon to find in other countries that many victims are between the ages of
twelve and sixteen, as found by Beyrer, 2001 pp. 543-550.
There is a large element of deception that takes place while luring a women or a child to
be trafficked. Traffickers typically lure women to the US with false promises of jobs as
waitresses, nannies, models, factory workers, or exotic dancers (see, US CIA, pg. 5; US
Department of State, pg. 6). They may recruit the women and children through
advertisements in the paper, or they may be a family friend or someone well known in
the community who will convince families that children will be safer in the foreign
country. On some occasions, traffickers might kidnap their victims (see, US Department
of State, pg. 7). They promise high wages and good working conditions when victims
apply to work for what is a seemingly reputable employment agency (US CIA, pg. 5).
These promises are not fulfilled as passports and travel documents are taken when the
women arrive in foreign countries. Their movements are restricted and their wages are
withheld until an inflated debt is repaid. Victims of trafficking generally avoid
authorities out of fear of being jailed or deported because of their fraudulent documents.
Furthermore, victims are often isolated, unable to speak the language and lacking
familiarity with the culture of the recipient country (see, US Department of State, pg. 6).
40
Oftentimes the trafficker will move the victim from city to city, insuring their clients a
“fresh face” while also continually disorienting the victim. The goal is that they never
learn how to contact law enforcement or build relationships with clients who might try
to help them (see, US Department of State, pp. 11-12). One example is found in a case
in which Mexican women and girls were rotated between thirteen sites in Florida and
South Carolina every fifteen days (see, US Department of State, pg. 12).
Traffickers work both freelance and as part of organized crime rings (see, US
Department of State, pg. 6). The trafficking-in-persons industry usually employs
enforcers, transporters, recruiters, documents forgers, brokers, brother owners, and
employment agencies that all work together (see, US CIA, pg. 14). Overseas, major
organized crime groups are heavily involved in trafficking and therefore can have
control of all aspects of the business. Thus far, in the US, trafficking is being conducted
primarily by smaller crime rings loosely connected to criminal networks. There is a fear
that the US’s trafficking business will be turning to more organized crime as law
enforcement has found that the industry is closely related to other criminal activities
such as extortion, racketeering, money laundering, bribery of public officials, drug use,
document forging, and gambling. This is not to say that the current trafficking industry
in the US is any less brutal than the trafficking done by larger organized crime rings or
to undermine the victimization that presently occurs (see, US CIA, pg. 13). Countries
that have recently suffered hardships caused by war, political change, and economic
upheaval are the most vulnerable to trafficking and to the power that organized crime
groups hold (see, US Department of State, pg. 9).
Trafficking is also highly profitable and seen as low risk to the traffickers. The United
Nations estimates that the trafficking-in-persons business generates $7 to $10 billion
annually for traffickers. Human cargo is easier to move than narcotics or weapons and
humans can be re-trafficked if caught and can be resold to a new employer for even
more money. It is estimated that traffickers may earn up to a few thousand dollars for
each child laborer and a brothel owner may make a few thousand to tens of thousands
for each woman forced into prostitution (see, US Department of State, pg. 9). In most of
the recent trafficking cases in the US, the trafficker made anywhere between $1 and $8
million in 1 to 6 years. In one case, the smuggler made 7,500 to 9,000 per woman who
was smuggled into the US from Thailand (see, US CIA, pg. 19).
The issue of trafficking holds great implications for the future of US immigration. The
way in which the US deals with issues of trafficking will be a great indication for how it
deals immigration issues as a whole. At the present moment, the trafficking of human
persons in the US is beginning to be dealt with by government and law enforcement
officials more seriously. The greatest problem that arises is the misunderstanding of
41
what trafficking is relative to other forms of immigration, of the victimization that
occurs, and the lack of resources to combat trafficking through governments and law
enforcement agencies. These issues all parallel the issues of immigration and are most
likely caused by the current perspective on irregular migration, largely blind to US
demand of immigrant labor and dominated by a view of trafficked persons as criminals,
as stated by “proposition 187” in California (see quotation below). Until the public,
government officials, and law enforcement agents educate themselves on the causes and
effects of both immigration and trafficking and realize that the trafficking laborer is not
a criminal but a victim, the human rights and health violations will not be resolved.
It is encouraging that the US government has begun to look at the issues of trafficking
from the perspective of the victims. The “Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000” was the first legislation passed in the United States against
trafficking and has helped to provide definitions of trafficking along with clear laws on
trafficking of persons. Not only is the law focused on trafficking in the US but it also
regulates the standards that must be met by other countries to receive assistance from the
US. The hope is that by defining the problem and providing clear regulations on how to
deal with it, this legislation will help to resolve some of the issues of ambiguity and
uncertainty on the part of law enforcement and prosecutors and set guidelines for who is
responsible for dealing with these issues. It is obvious that the issues of trafficking are
complex and need the support of many, which will hopefully be facilitated by this
legislation.
The US State Department began issuing an annual report on the trafficking of persons
around the world the same year that the Protection Act was passed. This report will be a
key tool in fighting the battle against trafficking as it has continued to investigate more
closely the situation in countries around the world. It also gives insights into the
minimum regulations that each country needs to follow and how to prevent and protect
human right issues. The front page address of the 2003 report is a letter from General
Colin Powell, which states:
“The report emphasizes the human side of trafficking through victim stories
and highlighting innovative measures some countries are using to prevent
trafficking in persons, prosecute those who traffic in human misery, and
protect those most vulnerable to the transnational crime… This year,
because of tough provisions in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000, there is a cost for turning a blind eye to trafficking in persons. Some
countries could potentially loose some form of US aid if their antitrafficking efforts do not significantly improve between the issuance of this
report and a sanction decision by later this autumn (opening letter).”
42
The Protection Act and the Annual Report are two good first steps by the US
government to help fight against the trafficking of human persons. Now that the
precedence has been set it is necessary to start enforcing the laws and using the
guidelines to truly fight for the victims of these human rights violations. It seems
inevitable that if a movement is begun to push the leaders of this country and others to
start taking trafficking seriously by caring about the victim, the effects will also be seen
in how the world treats immigrants as a whole. Immigrants and the victims of trafficking
operations will no longer be seen as criminals who need to be punished, but instead the
deeper issues of victimization, weak economies, and policy enforcement will become
the focus.
The legal framework (international standards)
In addressing the demand for cheap labor at a recent “Europe Against Trafficking in
Persons” conference in Berlin, it was stated that “the current labor market allows forced
labor and trafficking in persons, notwithstanding, that the general public denies the
existence of substantial economic activity outside of the law.”4
A major incentive for trafficking in labor is the lack of application and enforcement of
international labor standards in countries of destination and countries of origin. These
standards include respect for minimum working conditions and consent to working
conditions. It involves a de facto tolerance of restrictions on freedom of movement, long
working hours, poor or nonexistent health and safety protections, non-payment of
wages, substandard housing, etc., all contributing to expanding the market for trafficked
migrants who have no choice but to work in conditions simply intolerable or
unacceptable for legal employment. Worse still is the absence of worksite monitoring
particularly in such already marginal sectors as agriculture, domestic service, and sexwork. This is monitoring that would help to identify whether migrant workers may be in
situations of forced and compulsory labor.
The Palermo Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols on
Combating Trafficking in Persons and Against Smuggling of Migrants were adopted in
December 2000 in the spirit of the fight against organized crime. The focal point in these
procedures is clearly how to weaken organized criminal groups through law
enforcement. The main provisions of the Convention and Protocols reflect this by
dealing almost exclusively with providing for the criminalization of such groups and
improving measures to fight them. In adopting these instruments governments commit
4
See: Conference Report of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (EOSC), Berlin 15-16 October 2001.
43
themselves to the prosecution of offenses perpetrated by organized groups, seizing
proceeds of crime, expediting and widening extradition of the richest members of
criminal groups, and tightening law-enforcement cooperation to seek out and prosecute
suspects.4 The logic of these measures is that the interception and prosecution of the
members of criminal groups will lead to the group’s downfall.
A distinguishing feature of the movement of people, as compared to the movement of
illicit goods by criminal groups, is the question of choice by the people moved as to how
they will be moved. People, unlike commodities, are conscious actors exercising choices
in their decisions and activities. Furthermore, people have inalienable human rights,
which must be protected. The trafficking paradigm is particularly complex because by
definition it violates both the possibilities for choice and fundamental rights by such
features as coercion, physical and sexual abuse, deception, and kidnapping.
Experience of International Labor Organization, ILO, constituents and ILO’s own
research demonstrates that restrictive barriers placed between strong push and pull
factors make trafficking and smuggling a lucrative business. On the adoption of the
Palermo Convention, the Minister of State of the United Kingdom, Barbara Roche,
stated that “a European Union report on migration has found that almost all illegal
entrants now make use of criminal groups to facilitate their travel.”5
The UN International Covenant of 1990 on the Protection of all Migrant Workers and
their Families, entered into effect on July 2, 2003. In contrast to the United States who
has not ratified this international instrument, Mexico ratified it in 1999 and its standards
on the question of trafficking have become the law of the land; thus, the Mexican
government is legally obliged to its full implementation.
Globalization and trade liberalization have had contradictory impacts on employment
conditions in countries of destination. Demand for cheap, low skilled labor in
industrialized countries as well as a considerable number of developing nations in
Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East remains evident in agriculture, food
processing, construction, semi-skilled or unskilled manufacturing jobs (textiles, etc.),
and low wage services like domestic work, home health care, and the sex market sector.
Small and medium size companies and labor-intensive economic sectors do not have the
option of relocating operations abroad. Responses in these sectors include downgrading
manufacturing processes, deregulation, and flexibilization of employment, with
4
See: “After Palermo: An Overview…” at www.undcp.org/palermo/sum1.html
UN Press Release L/T/4356, “Aspects of UN Convention against transnational organized crime discussed by 19
government representatives.
5
44
increased emphases on cost-cutting measures and subcontracting.6 In a considerable
number of countries, these measures have expanded the number of jobs at the bottom of
the employment scale. These jobs are often those referred to as the “3-D” jobs: dirty,
degrading, and dangerous. Such employment needs are only partially met or unmet by
available or unemployed national workers for reasons of minimal pay, degrading and
dangerous conditions, and/or low status in those jobs and sectors, as well as alternative
access available for the unemployed in some countries to social welfare, etc.
The resulting demand for migrant workers provides a significant impetus for labor flows
and facilitates the incorporation of undocumented immigrants.7 Empirical evidence of
this was summarized by a conclusive remark in a research report of the US Department
of Labor:
In effect, migrant workers, so necessary for the success of the labor-intensive US
agriculture, subsidized that very system with their own and their families’ indigence.
The system functions to transfer costs to workers who are left with income so marginal
that, for the most part only newcomers and those with no other options are willing to
work on our nations’ farms (emphasis added).8
Thos most relevant point of this statement is the contrast that it marks with prevalent
perceptions in the United States, which supported Proposition 187 in 1994 with nearly
two thirds of California voters. What voters took for granted is summarized by the
following paragraph taken from Section 1 of the text of Proposition 187 entitled
“Findings and Declarations”
The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are
suffering economic hardships caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That
they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal
conduct of illegal aliens in this state.9
The contrast between the above quotations clearly means that one of the two is wrong.
However, the statement from the US Department of Labor Research Report is explicitly
based on empirical research conducted under strict rules of scientific rigor.
6
See: Lim, Lin; Growing Economic Interdependence and its Implications for International Migration, in: United Nations:
Population Distribution and Migration, New York, 1998, p.277.
7
Bustamante, Jorge, Migraciones Internacionales y Derechos Humanos, Instituto de Investigaciones Juridicas, UNAM
(National University of Mexico) Mexico, D.F.: 2002. See: Chapter VI
8
US Department of Labor, Migrant Farmworkers: Pursuing Security in an Unstable Labor Market. Research Report No. 5,
published in May of 1994, based on data from a national agricultural workers survey conducted by the US Department of
Labor. Washington, D.C. 1994. p.40.
9
See: http://ca94.election.digital.com/e/prop/187txt.html
45
The Case of the United States
Such a contrast refers to an ideology of denial of the realities of US labor demand. This
is relevant for the discussion of trafficking of persons in the US because there has been a
similar ideological denial of the demand that exists in the United States for trafficked
persons from other countries.
Evidence of this came from a report produced by the CIA under the title International
Trafficking in Women to the United States: A Contemporary Manifestation of Slavery,
which reveals that several thousands of persons trafficked to the United States are
brought from Mexico. The importance of this study was highlighted in a report written
by Joel Brinkley and published on page 18 of the New York Times on April 2, 2002. This
report accounts for the trafficking of 50,000 women and children from Asia, Latin
America, and Eastern Europe who are brought every year to the United States under
false promises of jobs and, once in the United States, are forced to work as prostitutes,
servants, and other types of forced labor. The absence of public consciousness in the
United States was noted in a report by the US Department of State entitled Report of
Trafficking in Persons, July 2001.
New legislation in the United States against trafficking was approved in the year 2000.
This new legislation establishes substantial protection for the victims of trafficking. It
also recognizes various forms of trafficking such as forced labor, slavery, and
involuntary servitude. It also authorizes the issuing of temporary resident visas to
trafficked persons under certain conditions and includes permits to work in the United
States. It establishes assistance for the creation of prevention programs and assistance in
other countries to victims of trafficking. It also establishes training programs for the
federal personnel involved in the identification and protection of trafficking victims.
The Case of Mexico
Article 138 of the Mexican Population Law (Ley General de Población) reads as
follows:
An imprisonment of six to twelve years of jail and a fine equivalent to 100 to 10,000
days of the current minimum wage for Mexico City (D.F.) will be imposed, from the
moment of performance of the sanctioned behavior, on anyone who, by himself or
herself or through another person or other persons, with purposes of trafficking takes
or attempts to take Mexicans or foreigners to another country without the
corresponding legal documentation.
46
The same sanctions will be imposed on anyone who, by himself or herself or through
another or other persons, brings one or more foreigners into Mexican territory
without the correspondent legal documentation issued by the proper authority or, for
the purpose of trafficking, harbors them or transports them through Mexican territory
with the purpose of hiding them in order to evade migratory inspection by the
Mexican authorities. Also, on anyone who knowingly provides the needs or lends
himself or herself to assist others to perform the illicit behavior described in the
previous paragraphs, a sanction consisting of one to five years of jail and a fine
equivalent to 5,000 days of the minimum wage that is current in Mexico D.F.
Sanctions established in the previous paragraphs should be increased one half of
them, when the illicit behavior above described is performed against minors or; under
conditions or by means that endanger the health or the physical integrity of the life of
the irregular migrants or; when the performer of the illicit behaviors mentioned above
is a government official. (translated from Spanish by JAB)
Mexican Senator Susana Stephenson Perez of the National Action Party (Partido Accion
Nacional), has been expressly concerned with the question of trafficking of migrants to
and from Mexico. She has recently introduced legislation to increase the penalties
established by Article 138 of the Mexican Population Law (translated from Spanish
above).
Senator Stephenson’s concern about trafficking has been explicitly related to a
recommendation for the cooperation of Mexico with the national security concerns of
the United States after September 11. No legislative action has been taken by the
Mexican Congress thus far.
Works Cited
Bales, Kevin. Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1999.
Bales, Kevin. New Slavery: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: Contemporary
World Issues, 2002.
Beyers, Chris: “Shan Women and Girls and the Sex Industry in Southeast Asia: Political
Causes and Human Rights Implications.” Social Science and Medicine. Volume 53
Issues 4 (2001): 543-550. www.sciencedirect.com
47
Cockburn, Andrew. “21st Century Slavery.” National Geographic Sept. 2003: 2-29.
Dottridge, Mike. Anti-Slavery International. 8 Oct. 2003. online,
http//:www.devp.org/slavery/bondage.html
Gushulak, Brian and MacPherson, Douglas. “Health Issues Association with the
Smuggling and Trafficking of Migrants.” Journal of Immigrant Health. Vol. 2, No. 2
(2000): 67-78.
United States. Central Intelligence Agency. Internatioal Trafficking in Women to the
United States: A Contemporary manifestation of Slavery and Organized Crime. By Amy
O’Neill Richard. Nov. 1999. 17 Sept 2003.
www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/women/trafficking.pdf
United States. Dept. of State. 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report. June 2003. 17 Sept.
2003. www.state.gov/documents/organization/2155.pdf
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. Pub. L. 106-386. 28 Oct.
2000.
Wide Angle Special. “Dying to Leave.” PBS. WNIT, South Bend, IN. 25 Sept. 2003.
Free the Slaves. 8 Oct. 2003. online, http://www.freetheslaes.net/about_bios_bales.html
APPENDIX
The following text was prepared by the National Institute of Immigration (INM) of the
Mexican government:
In order to understand the context of immigration to Mexico, special
attention should be given to immigrants coming from Central America.
These immigrants have received special governmental attention only in the
last ten years. In the bordering states of Southern Mexico several immigrant
flows of relative persistence are coming from Central America. An
immigrant flow of temporary farm workers, chiefly from Guatemala, come
regularly to work in banana, coffee, and other tropical fruit crops. The
numbers have varied in the last 10 years from 50,000 to 100,000. Another
immigration flow provoked by the internal wars in Central American
48
countries consists of refugees coming principally from El Salvador,
Nicaragua and Guatemala—an estimated 50,000 refugees from Guatemala
arrive primarily from the regions of Quiche, Peten, and Huehuetenango.
After nearly 2 years of their stay close to Mexico’s Southern border, over
75 percent have returned voluntarily to Guatemala. Those who did not
return and decided to stay in Mexico on a permanent basis were granted
legal permanent residence in Mexico. Another immigration flow from
Central America consists of trans-immigrants—persons coming from
Central American countries (with the exception of Costa Rica) who enter
Mexico with the intention of entering the United States, basically as
undocumented or irregular immigrants. These flows of trans-immigrants are
estimated to include approximately 200,000 persons per year. Mexican
arrest statistics of irregular immigrants coming from Central America
indicate that in the last ten years the number of them has surpassed 100,000
apprehensions per year.
Mexico’s immigration policy is guided by the notion that immigration
flows represent a phenomenon that, when properly regulated and managed,
can contribute positively to the Mexican economy and to the enrichment of
cultural patrimony as well as to a better understanding with the migratory
countries of origin. The basis of Mexican immigration policies is to
preserve the national interest and to enforce immigration laws with strict
respect for human rights. The mission of the National Institute of Migration
of Mexico is to promote and facilitate the migratory flows that favor the
economic, social, and cultural development of the country, as well as the
control and verification of immigrant information required for purposes of
national security according to Mexican laws and migrants’ human rights.
INM aspires to be an Agency of the Mexican government that enjoys
autonomy and is recognized as a leader in migration matters by the
international community. It also aspires to be recognized as an authority on
information about immigration flows. It hopes to use that information to
manage immigration flows in such a way that they have a positive impact
on the development of Mexico. For this purpose INM has planned the
acquisition of a state of the art technology to process that information with
highly trained public servants who have demonstrated a high regard for
human dignity as well as impeccable honesty in the performance of their
endeavors.
INM strategic objectives include:
49
• Encourage migratory flows that are beneficial to the country and do
so with a high regard for human dignity and openness to the
globalization process
• To conduct immigration law enforcement activities after verification
of information gathered about immigrants in compliance with
national security legislation and with the full respect to the human
rights of migrants
In order to reach these strategic objectives INM is planning to reinforce and
continue the program for migratory regularization. This program’s
objective is to assist foreigners who for different reasons don’t have legal or
current documentation to prove their lawful stay in the country, or who
desire to lawfully reside in the country to be engaged in activities other than
tourism.
In the year 2000 INM launched a program of regularization of
undocumented foreigners from all the countries of the world with special
consideration to those with more than two years or residency in the country.
Through its 32 offices (delegaciones) in the country INM has worked to
reinforce and promote the program for regularization of migrants aimed at
those non-immigrant foreigners who for different reasons do not have the
proper documentation to stay legally in the country and whose economic
activities could be of benefit to the country.
For this purpose, from March 1 to August 31 2003 through its 32 regional
offices through out the country INM has implemented a new program of
regularization of migrants with the following achievement: 2,236
applications of foreigners were received; 1,457 were reviewed positively;
29 were resolved negatively; and 750 are pending final resolution. Of the
total applications of foreigners in irregular migratory situations, 88.8
percent were family members of a Mexican citizen, technicians, and
middle- and upper-level executives.
This new program includes the issuance of migratory documents
(inmigrado) to those foreigners who have proven a lawful stay in the
country and a desire to stay on a permanent bases.
INM issued 584 migratory documents (inmigrado) of permanent residence
to foreigners coming from the United States, Spain, and Argentina.
50
INM authorities are making special efforts to regulate immigration through
Mexico’s southern border. The objective is to issue 27,968 migratory
documents for guest workers (FMVA) coming from Guatemala and 7,596
with the migratory status of local visitor (FMVL) for citizens of Guatemala
who want to go beyond the border zone as local visitors.
It is important to emphasize this program’s objective to regularize the
immigration of temporary farm workers from Guatemala through the
FMVA document in which the main objective is to allow the Mexican
government reasonable control over these foreigners’ entry status,
whereabouts during their stays in the country, and proper return to their
countries of origin, with full respect of their human rights.
With the signature of the free trade agreement the free flow of persons has
intensified both bilaterally and multilaterally. INM wants to be fully
involved in facilitating that process; within this policy, INM documented
53,084 foreigners with visitor and consultant (FMVC) status from January
to August of 2003. Within this period INM issued migratory documentation
for 242,053 visiting business-persons (FMMN). This represented 80.2
percent of the total business-persons who were documented within this
program.
51
IV
MIGRATORY CONTROL I
(Entries and Exits)
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
19941/
8,545,451
8,932,699
9,014,497
8,521,552
8,956,479
9,400,902
LOCAL VISITORS TO MEXICAN SEAPORTS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,670,293
6,195,828
7,025,118
7,417,024
10,222,304
(FMVL)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,955,741
2,179,908
1,571,231
BUSINESS VISITORS
-
-
-
-
-
30,422
63,580
90,954
112,815
231,478
313,124
547,490
378,875
510,144
VISITORS
95,993
126,354
149,743
171,091
201,435
84,368
195,885
205,128
225,543
246,585
258,558
269,312
259,954
326,629
TRANSMIGRANTS
179,908
186,299
221,352
204,326
212,734
142,561
162,833
151,557
154,674
158,594
163,023
347,968
169,141
163,434
FMA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
64,691
69,036
46,355
39,321
TEMPORARY VISITORS (FMVC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,703
16,815
24,492
40,155
51,411
156,892
106,678
163,141
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
43,946
50,192
46,199
42,584
42,847
11,485
32,174
36,204
37,395
33,564
24,737
15,493
10,371
12,751
STUDENTS
25,496
24,488
19,777
15,382
16,347
7,992
15,700
15,734
20,877
24,366
22,691
14,539
9,400
12,825
58
288
1,286
192
0
2,011
1,228
1,206
2,681
1,514
4,339
5,384
4,272
5,923
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
199
786
946
1,624
826
1,305
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
7,045
6,467
6,811
4,852
7,754
3,431
5,684
3,082
2,041
2,363
760
513
642
1,523
MEDIA CORRESPONDENT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
68
127
47
29
202
479
423
225
139
102
21
24
21
9
29
1
3
2
0
94,907
98,602
92,563
80,071
93,167
32,247
80,748
84,646
91,808
95,999
88,043
80,201
66,924
61,449
64,400
59,940
54,101
50,301
44,220
46,778
51,843
51,460
INM's CATEGORY
FOREIGN TOURIST
PROVISIONAL VISITORS
CHURCH OFFICIALS
POLITICAL ASILEES
PERMANENT RESIDENTS (INMIGRADO)
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS
1995
1996
1998 2/
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
10,514,074 11,933,167 13,311,006 13,430,700 14,249,378 14,606,385 14,092,180 13,363,740
44,793
48,533
52,870
49,528
66,095
26,505
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
9,038,076
9,474,345
9,605,323
9,089,717
9,596,960
9,741,945
11,139,033 12,598,454 14,037,647 19,986,795 21,481,877 25,142,524 24,794,424 26,507,382
MEXICAN NATIONAL RESIDENTS OF MEXICO
2,289,035
2,569,308
2,589,137
2,715,318
3,037,388
3,274,117
2,322,344
2,828,627
3,158,237
3,442,376
3,778,888
4,420,423
4,157,458
4,282,131
MEXICAN NATIONAL RESIDING ABROAD
1,717,933
2,029,324
2,093,005
1,493,283
1,382,695
1,324,370
1,398,004
1,493,781
1,548,655
1,501,438
1,400,418
1,443,382
1,690,819
1,847,234
TOTAL NATIONALS
4,006,968
4,598,632
4,682,142
4,208,601
4,420,083
4,598,487
3,720,348
4,322,408
4,706,892
4,943,814
5,179,306
5,863,805
5,848,277
6,129,365
TOTAL FLOW
13,045,044 14,072,977 14,287,465 13,298,318 14,017,043 14,340,432 14,859,381 16,920,862 18,744,539 24,930,609 26,661,183 31,006,329 30,642,701 32,636,747
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
INM's CATEGORY
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
4,006,968
4,598,632
4,682,142
4,208,601
4,420,083
4,598,487
3,720,348
4,322,408
4,706,892
4,943,814
5,179,306
5,863,805
5,848,277
6,129,365
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
9,038,076
9,474,345
9,605,323
9,089,717
9,596,960
9,741,945
11,139,033 12,598,454 14,037,647 19,986,795 21,481,877 25,142,524 24,794,424 26,507,382
TOTAL FLOW
13,045,044 14,072,977 14,287,465 13,298,318 14,017,043 14,340,432 14,859,381 16,920,862 18,744,539 24,930,609 26,661,183 31,006,329 30,642,701 32,636,747
TOTAL OF MEXICAN NATIONALS
24,930,609
13,045,044
14,072,977
14,287,465
13,298,318
14,017,043
14,340,432
14,859,381
16,920,862
9,038,076
4,006,968
1989
9,474,345
4,598,632
1990
9,605,323
4,682,142
1991
9,089,717
4,208,601
1992
9,596,960
4,420,083
1993
9,741,945
4,598,487
1994
3,720,348
1995
12,598,454
4,322,408
1996
31,006,329
30,642,701
32,636,747
18,744,539
19,986,795
11,139,033
26,661,183
21,481,877
25,142,524
24,794,424
26,507,382
14,037,647
4,706,892
1997
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
4,943,814
1998
5,179,306
1999
5,863,805
2000
5,848,277
2001
6,129,365
2002
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
52
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(ENTRIES)
INM's CATEGORY
1989
FOREIGN TOURIST
4,937,532
1990
4,926,365
1991
1992
4,917,275
4,644,830
1993
1994
4,873,825
1/
5,150,902
1995
1996
5,755,687
6,569,391
1997
1998
7,369,524
2/
2001
2002
7,534,422
7,824,125
1999
7,922,750
2000
7,573,226
7,245,723
3,104,005
3,477,554
3,701,774
5,155,061
1,955,741
1,964,913
1,571,231
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,855,065
(FMVL)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BUSINESS VISITORS
-
-
-
-
-
30,422
63,580
90,954
112,815
136,931
184,798
318,008
300,972
303,496
-
VISITORS
51,749
67,074
75,437
90,655
132,036
46,735
129,746
140,618
158,215
177,129
181,446
177,935
169,486
183,296
TRANSMIGRANTS
102,234
103,129
120,168
113,948
114,668
77,532
83,173
83,465
85,282
88,324
90,228
172,039
97,918
90,074
-
-
64,691
69,036
42,475
39,321
FMA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,688
11,402
16,675
22,657
28,765
91,368
96,971
94,920
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
22,224
25,385
22,877
23,625
23,533
6,166
17,578
20,564
21,888
20,188
14,026
9,325
6,901
6,948
STUDENTS
12,051
11,250
9,512
8,308
8,829
3,874
5,773
6,269
9,512
11,433
10,569
6,269
8,979
6,693
29
62
868
0
0
1,144
762
800
1,604
944
2,338
2,831
3,648
2,892
-
-
-
-
-
-
91
440
485
683
811
700
3,671
3,347
2,755
4,025
1,650
1,483
1,103
1,440
337
237
642
900
MEDIA CORRESPONDENT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
35
70
33
29
140
266
229
97
63
34
6
7
2
3
11
0
1
2
0
47,717
44,999
40,830
49,899
18,588
40,157
43,155
46,158
48,632
42,191
41,119
35,732
32,355
CHURCH OFFICIALS
POLITICAL ASILEES
46,415
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS
21,539
3,428
23,416
33,221
2,748
25,345
25,533
14,801
29,983
29,205
25,314
22,693
24,163
26,149
24,649
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
5,197,710
5,207,974
5,220,006
4,950,547
5,240,070
5,351,820
6,130,882
6,997,308
7,849,930
27,055
10,922,965
11,570,767
14,269,092
14,030,628
14,758,399
1,147,968
1,283,591
1,335,887
1,439,983
1,613,088
1,739,561
1,261,860
1,521,119
1,705,457
1,879,147
2,073,099
2,416,805
2,291,377
2,325,915
1,281,519
1,470,741
1,451,558
944,102
881,176
855,460
910,460
981,597
1,015,102
971,379
902,499
878,691
991,230
1,098,245
TOTAL NATIONALS
2,429,487
2,754,332
2,787,445
2,384,085
2,494,264
2,595,021
2,172,320
2,502,716
2,720,559
2,850,526
2,975,598
3,295,496
3,282,607
3,424,160
TOTAL OF ENTRIES
7,627,197
7,962,306
8,007,451
7,334,632
7,734,334
7,946,841
8,303,202
9,500,024
10,570,489
13,773,491
14,546,365
17,564,588
17,313,235
18,182,559
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(ENTRIES)
IMM CATEGORY
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
2,429,487
2,754,332
2,787,445
2,384,085
2,494,264
2,595,021
2,172,320
2,502,716
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
5,197,710
5,207,974
5,220,006
4,950,547
5,240,070
5,351,820
6,130,882
TOTAL OF ENTRIES
7,627,197
7,962,306
8,007,451
7,334,632
7,734,334
7,946,841
8,303,202
1998
1999
8,007,451
7,334,632
3,295,496
3,282,607
3,424,160
6,997,308
7,849,930
10,922,965
11,570,767
14,269,092
14,030,628
14,758,399
9,500,024
10,570,489
13,773,491
14,546,365
17,564,588
17,313,235
18,182,559
14,269,092
10,922,965
5,197,710
2,429,487
1989
5,207,974
2,754,332
1990
5,220,006
2,787,445
1991
5,240,070
4,950,547
2,384,085
1992
2,494,264
1993
5,351,820
2,595,021
1994
6,130,882
2,172,320
1995
18,182,559
14,030,628
14,758,399
11,570,767
7,849,930
6,997,308
2,502,716
17,313,235
14,546,365
10,570,489
9,500,024
8,303,202
7,946,841
7,734,334
2002
2,975,598
13,773,491
7,962,306
2001
2,850,526
17,564,588
7,627,197
2000
2,720,559
2,720,559
1996
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
1997
2,850,526
1998
2,975,598
1999
3,295,496
2000
3,282,607
2001
3,424,160
2002
TOTAL OF ENTRIES
SOURCE: INM
53
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(EXITS)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
19941/
1995
1996
1997
1998 2/
1999
2000
2001
2002
3,607,919
4,006,334
4,097,222
3,876,722
4,082,654
4,250,000
4,758,387
5,363,776
5,941,482
5,896,278
6,425,253
6,683,635
6,518,954
6,118,017
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,815,228
3,091,823
3,547,564
3,715,250
5,067,243
BUSINESS VISITORS (FMN)
-
-
-
-
-
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
94,547
128,326
229,482
214,995
206,648
TRANSMIGRANTS
77,674
83,170
101,184
90,378
98,066
65,029
79,660
68,092
69,392
70,270
72,795
175,929
77,903
73,360
VISITORS
44,244
59,280
74,306
80,436
69,399
37,633
66,139
64,510
67,328
69,456
77,112
91,377
90,468
143,333
INM's CATEGORY
FOREIGN TOURIST
FMA
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,015
5,413
7,817
17,498
22,646
65,524
71,223
68,221
21,722
24,807
23,322
18,959
19,314
5,319
14,596
15,640
15,507
13,376
10,711
6,168
3,880
5,803
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
13,445
13,238
10,265
7,074
7,518
4,118
9,927
9,465
11,365
12,933
12,122
8,270
9,707
6,132
29
226
418
192
0
867
466
406
1,077
570
2,001
2,553
3,470
3,031
3,374
3,120
3,383
2,097
3,729
1,781
2,936
1,599
938
923
423
276
421
623
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
108
346
461
941
624
605
CHURCH OFFICIALS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
33
57
14
15
62
POLITICAL ASILEES
213
194
128
76
68
15
17
19
6
18
1
2
0
0
FMVL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
FMVA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
48,492
50,885
47,564
39,241
43,268
13,659
40,591
41,491
45,650
47,367
45,852
39,082
31,192
29,094
STUDENTS
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS
23,254
25,117
27,525
23,995
32,874
11,704
34,417
30,735
27,046
24,987
21,527
22,615
25,694
26,811
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
3,840,366
4,266,371
4,385,317
4,139,170
4,356,890
4,390,125
5,008,151
5,601,146
6,187,717
9,063,830
9,911,110
10,873,432
10,763,796
11,748,983
1,141,067
1,285,717
1,253,250
1,275,335
1,424,300
1,534,556
1,060,484
1,307,508
1,452,780
1,563,229
1,705,789
2,003,618
1,866,081
1,956,216
436,414
558,583
641,447
549,181
501,519
468,910
487,544
512,184
533,553
530,059
497,919
564,691
699,589
748,989
TOTAL NATIONALS
1,577,481
1,844,300
1,894,697
1,824,516
1,925,819
2,003,466
1,548,028
1,819,692
1,986,333
2,093,288
2,203,708
2,568,309
2,565,670
2,705,205
TOTAL EXITS
5,417,847
6,110,671
6,280,014
5,963,686
6,282,709
6,393,591
6,556,179
7,420,838
8,174,050
11,157,118
12,114,818
13,441,741
13,329,466
14,454,188
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(EXITS)
INM's CATEGORY
1989
1990
1,577,481
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
3,840,366
TOTAL EXITS
5,417,847
1991
1,844,300
1992
1,894,697
4,266,371
4,385,317
6,110,671
1993
1,824,516
4,139,170
6,280,014
1994
1,925,819
4,356,890
5,963,686
1995
2,003,466
4,390,125
6,282,709
1996
1,548,028
5,008,151
6,393,591
6,556,179
1997
1,819,692
5,601,146
7,420,838
1998
1,986,333
6,187,717
8,174,050
1999
2,093,288
9,063,830
9,911,110
11,157,118
12,114,818
13,441,741
11,157,118
5,417,847
6,110,671
6,280,014
5,963,686
6,282,709
6,393,591
6,556,179
7,420,838
3,840,366
1,577,481
1989
4,266,371
1,844,300
1990
4,385,317
1,894,697
1991
4,139,170
1,824,516
1992
4,356,890
1,925,819
1993
4,390,125
2,003,466
1994
1,548,028
1995
5,601,146
1,819,692
1996
2001
2,568,309
10,873,432
13,441,741
13,329,466
2,565,670
10,763,796
13,329,466
2002
2,705,205
11,748,983
14,454,188
14,454,188
12,114,818
8,174,050
9,063,830
5,008,151
2000
2,203,708
9,911,110
10,873,432
10,763,796
11,748,983
6,187,717
1,986,333
1997
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
2,093,288
1998
2,203,708
1999
2,568,309
2000
2,565,670
2,705,205
2001
2002
TOTAL EXITS
54
MIGRATORY CONTROL MONTHLY STATISTICS
JANUARY-DECEMBER OF 2002
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
SEP
OCT
NOV
1,192,582
JAN
1,231,963
1,573,824
1,155,281
984,839
1,161,235
1,150,407
1,126,686
682,874
857,645
996,606
1,249,798
13,363,740
898,365
752,845
940,220
965,612
851,180
655,965
711,187
726,493
569,338
923,003
1,080,934
1,147,162
10,222,304
(FMVL)
160,396
130,861
181,767
135,364
126,360
128,471
115,073
118,895
115,372
86,226
124,957
147,489
1,571,231
BUSINESS VISITORS
39,166
43,847
42,700
47,051
44,987
44,295
38,688
46,641
40,769
47,739
41,028
33,233
510,144
VISITORS
27,794
20,828
25,766
24,577
25,194
25,890
27,365
28,809
21,995
29,332
30,915
38,164
326,629
TRANSMIGRANTS
14,766
9,562
13,815
14,977
11,216
12,804
13,924
12,668
10,410
14,345
11,893
23,054
163,434
7,514
3,012
1,893
3,973
2,890
2,299
2,600
2,215
2,248
2,746
5,707
2,224
39,321
11,706
14,638
12,136
14,735
13,544
13,855
13,389
12,860
12,432
15,771
14,636
13,439
163,141
INM's CATEGORY
FOREIGN TOURIST
FMA
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
DIC
TOTAL
674
714
1,238
581
673
847
710
703
778
4,692
549
592
12,751
2,165
657
994
761
988
1,268
1,168
1,370
715
695
758
1,286
12,825
572
436
415
656
639
445
353
522
495
472
491
427
5,923
CHURCH OFFICIALS
67
100
45
107
155
68
124
148
100
137
94
160
1,305
92
73
105
95
33
40
469
71
51
337
121
36
1,523
MEDIA CORRESPONDENT
4
0
1
0
4
3
0
18
14
124
10
24
202
POLITICAL ASILEES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,059
3,586
5,122
4,655
5,299
5,044
5,940
5,804
4,568
5,187
4,661
6,524
61,449
STUDENTS
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS
5,160
3,420
3,890
4,401
4,068
3,574
4,894
5,050
3,785
3,867
3,828
5,523
51,460
2,366,082
2,216,542
2,803,931
2,372,826
2,072,069
2,056,103
2,086,291
2,088,953
1,465,944
1,992,318
2,317,188
2,669,135
26,507,382
315,852
243,422
335,882
315,318
330,065
337,324
463,184
458,941
322,829
361,577
338,207
459,530
4,282,131
191,175
175,493
241,774
94,502
108,953
210,399
206,136
113,788
89,750
98,678
102,169
214,417
1,847,234
TOTAL NATIONALS
507,027
418,915
577,656
409,820
439,018
547,723
669,320
572,729
412,579
460,255
440,376
673,947
6,129,365
2,873,109
2,635,457
3,381,587
2,782,646
2,511,087
2,603,826
2,755,611
2,661,682
1,878,523
2,452,573
2,757,564
3,343,082
32,636,747
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
INM's CATEGORY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DIC
TOTAL
507,027
418,915
577,656
409,820
439,018
547,723
669,320
572,729
412,579
460,255
440,376
673,947
6,129,365
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
2,366,082
2,216,542
2,803,931
2,372,826
2,072,069
2,056,103
2,086,291
2,088,953
1,465,944
1,992,318
2,317,188
2,669,135
26,507,382
TOTAL FLOW
2,873,109
2,635,457
3,381,587
2,782,646
2,511,087
2,603,826
2,755,611
2,661,682
1,878,523
2,452,573
2,757,564
3,343,082
32,636,747
3,381,587
2,873,109
3,343,082
2,635,457
2,782,646
2,603,826
2,511,087
2,757,564
2,755,611
2,661,682
2,452,573
1,878,523
2,366,082
2,803,931
2,216,542
2,372,826
2,072,069
2,056,103
2,086,291
2,088,953
1,465,944
507,027
418,915
577,656
409,820
439,018
547,723
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
669,320
572,729
412,579
460,255
440,376
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
2,669,135
2,317,188
1,992,318
673,947
DIC
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
55
(ENTRIES)
INM's CATEGORY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DIC
TOTAL
FOREIGN TOURIST
600,266
658,087
843,927
572,504
537,866
652,582
641,698
582,757
358,954
464,000
568,553
764,529
7,245,723
449,327
376,487
470,382
483,079
425,808
327,843
355,646
360,461
285,496
494,619
542,273
583,640
5,155,061
(FMVL)
160,396
130,861
181,767
135,364
126,360
128,471
115,073
118,895
115,372
86,226
124,957
147,489
1,571,231
BUSINESS VISITORS
24,379
25,664
23,782
28,097
25,145
24,927
22,912
28,279
26,778
28,179
25,557
19,797
303,496
VISITORS
20,412
12,508
14,146
14,970
13,521
13,485
14,553
17,806
14,156
16,210
17,141
14,388
183,296
TRANSMIGRANTS
8,288
5,510
7,896
9,099
6,379
6,820
7,939
6,605
6,568
6,064
6,463
12,443
90,074
FMA
7,514
3,012
1,893
3,973
2,890
2,299
2,600
2,215
2,248
2,746
5,707
2,224
39,321
7,382
8,730
6,885
8,710
7,992
7,909
7,919
7,526
6,988
8,954
8,328
7,597
94,920
422
420
805
311
356
476
376
391
363
2,396
323
309
6,948
1,906
318
307
490
334
250
569
1,014
396
400
467
242
6,693
271
179
218
314
320
202
173
271
251
241
236
216
2,892
CHURCH OFFICIALS
48
57
20
50
87
25
64
82
58
80
47
82
700
41
37
93
83
26
20
239
44
37
219
43
18
900
MEDIA CORRESPONDENT
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
16
9
101
6
1
140
POLITICAL ASILEES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,307
1,948
2,317
2,789
2,887
2,608
2,610
3,626
2,635
2,785
2,521
2,322
32,355
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
STUDENTS
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
3,191
1,592
1,485
2,239
1,625
1,464
2,352
2,870
2,078
2,097
1,830
1,826
24,649
1,287,154
1,225,410
1,555,924
1,262,072
1,151,598
1,169,381
1,174,723
1,132,858
822,387
1,115,317
1,304,452
1,557,123
14,758,399
183,639
128,371
163,907
178,904
172,468
177,081
223,130
272,243
184,715
204,019
194,812
242,626
2,325,915
79,960
91,163
138,890
55,948
67,295
122,943
120,091
66,556
55,628
60,646
70,615
168,510
1,098,245
263,599
219,534
302,797
234,852
239,763
300,024
343,221
338,799
240,343
264,665
265,427
411,136
3,424,160
1,550,753
1,444,944
1,858,721
1,496,924
1,391,361
1,469,405
1,517,944
1,471,657
1,062,730
1,379,982
1,569,879
1,968,259
18,182,559
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DIC
TOTAL
TOTAL NATIONALS
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
INM's CATEGORY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
263,599
219,534
302,797
234,852
239,763
300,024
343,221
338,799
240,343
264,665
265,427
411,136
3,424,160
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
1,287,154
1,225,410
1,555,924
1,262,072
1,151,598
1,169,381
1,174,723
1,132,858
822,387
1,115,317
1,304,452
1,557,123
14,758,399
TOTAL FLOW
1,550,753
1,444,944
1,858,721
1,496,924
1,391,361
1,469,405
1,517,944
1,471,657
1,062,730
1,379,982
1,569,879
1,968,259
18,182,559
1,968,259
1,858,721
1,550,753
1,496,924
1,444,944
1,517,944
1,469,405
1,391,361
1,569,879
1,471,657
1,379,982
1,062,730
1,555,924
1,287,154
1,557,123
1,262,072
1,225,410
1,151,598
1,169,381
1,174,723
1,132,858
1,304,452
1,115,317
822,387
263,599
219,534
JAN
FEB
302,797
MAR
234,852
239,763
APR
MAY
300,024
JUN
343,221
338,799
JUL
AUG
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
240,343
264,665
265,427
SEP
OCT
NOV
411,136
DIC
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
56
(EXITS)
INM's CATEGORY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DIC
TOTAL
FOREIGN TOURIST
592,316
573,876
729,897
582,777
446,973
508,653
508,709
543,929
323,920
393,645
428,053
485,269
6,118,017
449,038
376,358
469,838
482,533
425,372
328,122
355,541
366,032
283,842
428,384
538,661
563,522
5,067,243
14,787
18,183
18,918
18,954
19,842
19,368
15,776
18,362
13,991
19,560
15,471
13,436
206,648
TRANSMIGRANTS
6,478
4,052
5,919
5,878
4,837
5,984
5,985
6,063
3,842
8,281
5,430
10,611
73,360
VISITORS
7,382
8,320
11,620
9,607
11,673
12,405
12,812
11,003
7,839
13,122
13,774
23,776
143,333
FMA
4,324
5,908
5,251
6,025
5,552
5,946
5,470
5,334
5,444
6,817
6,308
5,842
68,221
252
294
433
270
317
371
334
312
415
2,296
226
283
5,803
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
259
339
687
271
654
1,018
599
356
319
295
291
1,044
6,132
STUDENTS
301
257
197
342
319
243
180
251
244
231
255
211
3,031
51
36
12
12
7
20
230
27
14
118
78
18
623
19
43
25
57
68
43
60
66
42
57
47
78
605
CHURCH OFFICIALS
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
2
5
23
4
23
62
POLITICAL ASILEES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FMVL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FMVA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,752
1,638
2,805
1,866
2,412
2,436
3,330
2,178
1,933
2,402
2,140
4,202
29,094
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS
1,969
1,828
2,405
2,162
2,443
2,110
2,542
2,180
1,707
1,770
1,998
3,697
26,811
1,078,928
991,132
1,248,007
1,110,754
920,471
886,722
911,568
956,095
643,557
877,001
1,012,736
1,112,012
11,748,983
132,213
115,051
171,975
136,414
157,597
160,243
240,054
186,698
138,114
157,558
143,395
216,904
1,956,216
111,215
84,330
102,884
38,554
41,658
87,456
86,045
47,232
34,122
38,032
31,554
45,907
748,989
TOTAL NATIONALS
243,428
199,381
274,859
174,968
199,255
247,699
326,099
233,930
172,236
195,590
174,949
262,811
2,705,205
1,322,356
1,190,513
1,522,866
1,285,722
1,119,726
1,134,421
1,237,667
1,190,025
815,793
1,072,591
1,187,685
1,374,823
14,454,188
OCT
NOV
DIC
TOTAL
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
(EXITS)
INM's CATEGORY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
243,428
199,381
274,859
174,968
199,255
247,699
326,099
233,930
172,236
195,590
174,949
262,811
2,705,205
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
1,078,928
991,132
1,248,007
1,110,754
920,471
886,722
911,568
956,095
643,557
877,001
1,012,736
1,112,012
11,748,983
TOTAL FLOW
1,322,356
1,190,513
1,522,866
1,285,722
1,119,726
1,134,421
1,237,667
1,190,025
815,793
1,072,591
1,187,685
1,374,823
14,454,188
1,522,866
1,374,823
1,322,356
1,285,722
1,190,513
1,237,667
1,134,421
1,119,726
1,187,685
1,190,025
1,072,591
815,793
1,248,007
1,078,928
1,110,754
991,132
920,471
956,095
911,568
886,722
1,112,012
1,012,736
877,001
643,557
243,428
199,381
JAN
FEB
274,859
MAR
174,968
199,255
247,699
APR
MAY
JUN
326,099
JUL
233,930
172,236
195,590
174,949
262,811
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DIC
TOTAL OF FOREIGNERS
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
57
MIGRATORY CONTROL
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
JANUARY-JULY
JANUARY-JULY
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE
2002
2003 1/
JAN-JUL 2003/2002
FOREIGN TOURIST
8,450,131
8,941,160
5.8
5,775,374
7,020,910
21.6
FMVL (LOCAL BORDER VISITORS)
978,292
776,648
(20.6)
300,734
294,989
VISITORS
INM's CATEGORY
(1.9)
22.0
177,414
216,449
TRANSMIGRANTES
91,064
86,903
(4.6)
FMVA
24,181
27,380
13.2
94,003
92,412
(1.7)
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
5,437
3,833
(29.5)
STUDENTS
8,001
7,337
PROVISIONAL AUTHORIZATION
CHURCH OFFICIALS
(8.3)
(25.4)
3,516
2,622
666
737
10.7
907
121
(86.7)
MEDIA CORRESPONDENTS
12
11
(8.3)
0
2
34,705
30,988
POLITICAL ASILEES
PERMANENT RESIDETS (INMIGRADO)
IMMIGRANT RESIDENT
29,407
(10.7)
6.2
31,217
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
15,973,844
17,533,719
9.8
2,341,047
2,363,086
0.9
786,821
3,149,907
(35.9)
TOTAL NATIONALS
1,228,432
3,569,479
TOTAL FLOW
19,543,323
20,683,626
5.8
-11.8
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
INM's CATEGORY
JAN-JUL
2002
PERCENTAGE
JAN-JUL
2,341,047
65.6
2,363,086
2003
1/
PERCENTAGE
75.0
2,363,086
2,341,047
1,228,432
1,228,432
34.4
786,821
25.0
786,821
JAN-JUL 2002
TOTAL NATIONALS
3,569,479
100.0
3,149,907
100.0
JAN-JUL
2002
PERCENTAGE
JAN-JUL
2003 1/
PERCENTAGE
3,569,479
18.3
3,149,907
15.2
FOREIGNERS
15,973,844
81.7
17,533,719
84.8
TOTAL FLOW
19,543,323
100.0
20,683,626
100.0
INM's CATEGORY
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
17,533,719
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
NATIONALS
3,149,907
15,973,844
JAN-JUL 2002
3,569,479
NATIONALS
FOREIGNERS
SOURCE: INM
58
MIGRATORY CONTROL
(ENTRIES)
INM's CATEGORY
JANUARY-JULY
JANUARY-JULY
2002
2003 1/
JAN-JUL 2003/2002
5.1
FOREIGN TOURIST
4,506,930
4,738,278
2,888,572
3,480,858
FMVL (LOCAL BORDER VISITORS)
978,292
776,648
174,906
181,470
3.8
VISITORS
103,595
120,119
16.0
TRANSMIGRANTES
51,931
48,905
(5.8)
FMVA
24,181
27,380
55,527
52,063
FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
3,166
2,265
STUDENTS
4,174
4,029
(3.5)
PROVISIONAL AUTHORIZATION
1,677
1,323
(21.1)
CHURCH OFFICIALS
351
384
9.4
539
60
MEDIA CORRESPONDENTS
7
9
20.5
(20.6)
13.2
(6.2)
(28.5)
-
0
2
-
18,466
16,693
(9.6)
13,948
8,826,262
16,040
15.0
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
9,466,526
7.3
1,227,500
1,257,030
2.4
676,290
1,903,790
463,073
(31.5)
1,720,103
(9.6)
10,730,052
11,186,629
4.3
POLITICAL ASILEES
PERMANENT RESIDETS (INMIGRADO)
IMMIGRANT RESIDENT
TOTAL NATIONALS
TOTAL FLOW
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL
(ENTRIES)
INM's CATEGORY
JAN-JUL
2002
PERCENTAGE
JAN-JUL
2003 1/
PERCENTAGE
1,227,500
64.5
1,257,030
73.1
1,257,030
1,227,500
676,290
676,290
35.5
463,073
26.9
1,903,790
100.0
1,720,103
100.0
JAN-JUL
2002
PERCENTAGE
JAN-JUL
2003 1/
PERCENTAGE
NATIONALS
1,903,790
17.7
1,720,103
15.4
FOREIGNERS
8,826,262
82.3
9,466,526
84.6
10,730,052
100.0
11,186,629
100.0
TOTAL NATIONALS
INM's CATEGORY
463,073
JAN-JUL 2002
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
9,466,526
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
1,720,103
8,826,262
TOTAL FLOW
JAN-JUL 2002
1,903,790
NATIONALS
FOREIGNERS
SOURCE: INM
59
MIGRATORY CONTROL. THE SUM OF NON IMMIGRANTS, IMMIGRANTS, “INMIGRADOS” AND NATIONALS,
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
JAN-JUL DE 2003 1/
JAN-JUL DE 2002
REGIONAL DELEGATIONS
ENTRIES
ENTRIES
EXITS
AGUASCALIENTES
17,689
17,367
18,618
16,762
5.3
(3.5)
BAJA CALIFORNIA
320,005
255,342
389,122
314,070
21.6
23.0
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
516,967
484,847
596,444
564,739
15.4
16.5
8,404
9,669
8,841
8,209
5.2
(15.1)
CHIAPAS
723,339
37,247
622,749
49,012
(13.9)
31.6
CHIHUAHUA
100,990
46,278
99,851
49,371
(1.1)
6.7
COAHUILA
42,381
28,273
41,816
26,213
(1.3)
(7.3)
CAMPECHE
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
EXITS
ENTRIES
EXITS
JAN-JUL 2003/2002
55,519
58,877
65,050
67,116
17.2
14.0
1,697,813
1,558,763
1,732,051
1,545,582
2.0
(0.8)
DURANGO
10,161
7,750
9,633
7,130
(5.2)
(8.0)
STATE OF MEXICO
10,697
10,280
12,003
12,166
12.2
18.3
GUANAJUATO
68,073
62,137
79,986
74,410
17.5
19.8
GUERRERO
303,071
307,754
273,626
280,857
(9.7)
(8.7)
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
-
-
JALISCO
929,442
884,604
952,781
923,197
2.5
4.4
MICHOACÁN
44,701
45,951
44,047
53,584
(1.5)
16.6
MORELOS
93
90
0
0
-
-
NAYARIT
0
0
0
0
-
-
NUEVO LEÓN
132,384
22,182
147,222
21,760
11.2
(1.9)
OAXACA
51,906
53,134
60,415
56,778
16.4
6.9
PUEBLA
730
752
533
487
(27.0)
(35.2)
(8.4)
1,307
1,148
1,164
1,052
(10.9)
4,215,048
3,811,685
4,740,066
4,506,266
12.5
18.2
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
10,600
10,646
9,378
9,467
(11.5)
(11.1)
SINALOA
357,567
367,360
391,619
394,518
9.5
7.4
SONORA
461,998
384,223
217,595
114,895
(52.9)
(70.1)
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
5,921
6,196
10,874
11,127
83.7
79.6
420,260
128,095
393,710
144,038
(6.3)
12.4
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
-
-
VERACRUZ
50,052
48,742
65,965
63,916
31.8
31.1
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
143,157
136,261
160,745
153,975
12.3
13.0
29,777
27,618
40,725
26,300
36.8
(4.8)
9,496,997
4.3
7.8
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TOTAL
10,730,052
8,813,271
11,186,629
SOURCE: INM
JAN-JUL 2002 JAN-JUL 2003 1/
INM's CATEGORY
ENTRIES
10,730,052
11,186,629
EXITS
8,813,271
9,496,997
9,496,997
EXITS
8,813,271
11,186,629
ENTRIES
10,730,052
JAN-JUL 2002
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
SOURCE: INM
60
MIGRATORY CONTROL. THE SUM OF NONE IMMIGRANTS, IMMIGRANTS, “INMIGRADOS” AND NATIONALS,
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION, JANUARY-JULY OF 2002-2003
(ENTRIES)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
AGUASCALIENTES
2,554
1,759
1,880
2,649
2,647
2,968
4,161
18,618
BAJA CALIFORNIA
52,863
41,114
42,760
65,349
44,997
64,277
77,762
389,122
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
90,682
82,236
121,332
88,753
79,178
66,926
67,337
596,444
CAMPECHE
1,255
1,003
1,367
1,350
1,011
1,393
1,462
8,841
CHIAPAS
85,368
74,632
104,162
90,583
90,596
92,426
84,982
622,749
CHIHUAHUA
10,456
10,047
14,245
12,480
12,379
17,698
22,546
99,851
COAHUILA
4,343
4,270
6,068
5,033
5,493
7,395
9,214
41,816
COLIMA
10,490
13,821
12,630
13,792
4,988
4,591
4,738
65,050
FEDERAL DISTRICT
268,335
211,015
234,626
228,037
232,523
254,023
303,492
1,732,051
DURANGO
1,352
965
1,173
1,084
1,031
1,363
2,665
9,633
STATE OF MEXICO
1,846
1,712
1,773
1,613
1,904
1,745
1,410
12,003
GUANAJUATO
12,633
9,522
9,895
9,966
10,374
13,244
14,352
79,986
GUERRERO
67,045
51,722
67,456
46,796
24,799
8,050
7,758
273,626
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JALISCO
162,286
142,716
154,089
120,919
111,064
127,612
134,095
952,781
6,410
4,955
5,762
5,200
5,541
7,424
8,755
44,047
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAYARIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NUEVO LEÓN
16,356
15,641
20,028
20,245
20,145
26,646
28,161
147,222
OAXACA
4,763
9,994
19,142
8,122
17,127
762
505
60,415
PUEBLA
78
59
92
81
80
59
84
533
QUERÉTARO
190
166
156
165
174
157
156
1,164
4,740,066
MICHOACÁN
676,348
647,060
791,442
771,424
607,316
633,744
612,732
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
1,302
1,086
1,093
1,246
1,209
1,528
1,914
9,378
SINALOA
84,372
69,109
66,759
70,256
48,563
25,164
27,396
391,619
SONORA
30,930
27,459
31,207
32,930
31,029
30,303
33,737
217,595
TABASCO
1,657
1,412
1,400
1,398
1,510
1,659
1,838
10,874
TAMAULIPAS
41,997
40,984
55,590
46,322
50,395
73,558
84,864
393,710
QUINTANA ROO
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VERACRUZ
9,878
8,087
8,279
9,081
9,882
9,146
11,612
65,965
YUCATÁN
39,244
26,158
31,552
27,220
13,473
12,148
10,950
160,745
ZACATECAS
5,638
4,128
4,151
6,091
5,918
6,819
7,980
40,725
1,690,671
1,502,832
1,810,109
1,688,185
1,435,346
1,492,828
1,566,658
11,186,629
TOTAL
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL. BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
TOTAL
QUINTANA ROO
4,740,066
42.4
FEDERAL DISTRICT
1,732,051
15.5
JALISCO
952,781
8.5
CHIAPAS
622,749
5.6
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
596,444
5.3
2,542,538
22.7
11,186,629
100.0
OTHERS
TOTAL
OTHERS
22.7%
PERCENTAGE
QUINTANA ROO
42.4%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
SUR
5.3%
CHIAPAS
5.6%
JALISCO
8.5%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
15.5%
SOURCE: INM
61
MIGRATORY CONTROL, BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
(ENTRIES)
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
AGUASCALIENTES, AGS. (AIRPORT)
2,554
1,759
1,880
2,649
2,647
2,968
4,161
18,618
TOTAL AGUASCALIENTES
2,554
1,759
1,880
2,649
2,647
2,968
4,161
18,618
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
330
252
81
51
25
28
62
829
41,297
29,926
31,188
52,885
34,229
50,987
64,192
304,704
1,584
1,549
1,691
1,237
1,484
1,730
1,624
10,899
277
242
297
556
507
707
440
3,026
MEXICALI, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
1,403
1,254
1,506
1,891
1,152
1,511
2,003
10,720
PUERTA MÉX. TIJ., B.C. (BORDER GATE)
ALGODONES, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
ENSENADA, B.C. (SEAPORT)
MESA DE OTAY, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
MEXICALI, B.C. (AIRPORT)
3,641
3,148
3,622
4,219
3,227
4,894
4,654
27,405
ROSARITO, B.C. (SEAPORT)
186
267
182
198
401
191
225
1,650
SAN FELIPE, B.C. (PTO. FRONTERIZO)
608
674
468
474
485
328
270
3,307
TECÁTE, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
1,197
1,053
1,132
966
949
741
971
7,009
TIJUANA, B.C. (AIRPORT)
2,340
2,749
2,593
2,872
2,538
3,160
3,321
19,573
52,863
41,114
42,760
65,349
44,997
64,277
77,762
389,122
1,035
1,087
1,425
1,371
881
1,517
1,962
9,278
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LA PAZ, B.C.S. (AIRPORT)
887
1,021
1,351
1,414
1,471
1,368
1,182
8,694
LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
1,255
1,141
2,177
1,848
2,803
1,586
1,702
12,512
LORETO, B.C.S. (AIRPORT)
1,149
1,762
2,299
2,501
2,130
2,703
2,670
15,214
LORETO, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
2,485
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,485
MARINA ABAROA, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MARINA PALMIRA, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,961
15,957
41,010
20,395
16,666
4,092
3,515
123,596
MUELLE FISCAL, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PICHILINGUE, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
8
0
0
3
11
TOTAL BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
ISLA DE CEDROS GUERRERO NEGRO, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
ISLA SAN MARCOS, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
MUELLE CABO SAN LUCAS, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
SAN CARLOS, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (AIRPORT)
SAN JUAN DE LA COSTA, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
131
150
106
30
41
25
21
504
61,469
60,307
72,577
60,932
54,892
55,360
55,952
421,489
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
310
811
387
254
294
275
330
2,661
90,682
82,236
121,332
88,753
79,178
66,926
67,337
596,444
CAMPECHE, CAMP. (AIRPORT)
16
8
23
15
27
22
14
125
CAMPECHE, CAMP. (AIRPORT)
7
0
7
17
8
0
0
39
CD. DEL CARMEN, CAMP. (AIRPORT)
0
7
9
8
13
1
46
84
ISLA DE CD. DEL CARMEN, CAMP. (SEAPORT)
1,232
988
1,328
1,310
963
1,370
1,402
8,593
TOTAL CAMPECHE
1,255
1,003
1,367
1,350
1,011
1,393
1,462
8,841
SANTA ROSALÍA, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
TOTAL BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
COAHUILA
CD. ACUÑA, COAH. (AIRPORT)
LA PUERTA DE MÉXICO, CD. ACUÑA, COAH. (BORDER GATE)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
666
678
1,099
708
761
1,400
1,464
6,776
26
55
79
38
53
51
71
373
485
441
591
386
623
736
888
4,150
TORREÓN, COAH. (AIRPORT)
1,373
1,123
825
1,412
1,329
1,440
1,977
9,479
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAH. (BORDER GATE)
1,793
1,973
3,474
2,489
2,727
3,768
4,814
21,038
TOTAL COAHUILA
4,343
4,270
6,068
5,033
5,493
7,395
9,214
41,816
MANZANILLO, COL. (AIRPORT)
7,697
8,750
6,918
5,370
1,884
2,009
2,322
34,950
MANZANILLO, COL. (SEAPORT)
2,793
5,071
5,712
8,422
3,104
2,582
2,416
30,100
TOTAL COLIMA
10,490
13,821
12,630
13,792
4,988
4,591
4,738
65,050
SUBTOTAL
162,187
144,203
186,037
176,926
138,314
147,550
164,674
1,119,891
MONCLOVA, COAH. (AIRPORT)
RAMOS ARIZPE, COAH. (AIRPORT)
COLIMA
SOURCE: INM
62
(ENTRIES)
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
CHIAPAS
9,701
5,110
8,139
8,768
7,839
7,661
6,428
53,646
37,858
26,131
42,087
32,142
35,592
38,817
29,970
242,597
3,594
4,104
4,902
5,604
4,584
5,291
3,762
31,841
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAZAPA DE MADERO, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
962
619
702
668
743
997
1,114
5,805
PALENQUE, CHIS. (AIRPORT)
289
498
815
454
324
0
415
2,795
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,908
37,044
46,714
42,088
40,220
39,607
42,064
278,645
TAPACHULA, CHIS. (AIRPORT)
192
106
64
63
58
53
18
554
TUXTLA GTZ., CHIS. (AIRPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,864
1,020
739
796
1,236
0
1,211
6,866
85,368
74,632
104,162
90,583
90,596
92,426
84,982
622,749
CD. CUAUHTÉMOC, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
CD. HIDALGO, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
COMITÁN, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
ECHEGARAY, CHIS. (SEAPORT)
SAN CRISTÓBAL L.C., CHIS. (AIRPORT)
TALISMÁN, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
UNIÓN JUÁREZ, CHIS, (BORDER GATE)
TOTAL CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
176
251
499
290
543
742
923
3,424
CD. JUÁREZ, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
6,420
6,236
8,698
8,035
7,603
11,493
15,335
63,820
CHIHUAHUA, CHIH. (AIRPORT)
1,637
1,654
1,715
1,791
1,456
1,570
1,670
11,493
8
9
9
7
6
11
14
64
916
374
1,453
935
1,161
1,828
2,319
8,986
CD. JUÁREZ, CHIH. (AIRPORT)
EL BERRENDO, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
OJINAGA, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
PORFIRIO PARRA, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
PUERTO PALOMAS, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
0
3
6
3
6
12
34
64
518
586
818
594
802
960
1,126
5,404
781
934
1,047
825
802
1,082
1,125
6,596
10,456
10,047
14,245
12,480
12,379
17,698
22,546
99,851
MEXICO CITY (AIRPORT)
268,335
211,015
234,626
228,037
232,523
254,023
303,492
1,732,051
TOTAL FEDERAL DISTRICT
268,335
211,015
234,626
228,037
232,523
254,023
303,492
1,732,051
DURANGO, DGO. (AIRPORT)
1,352
965
1,173
1,084
1,031
1,363
2,665
9,633
TOTAL DURANGO
1,352
965
1,173
1,084
1,031
1,363
2,665
9,633
TOLUCA, MÉXICO (AIPORT)
1,846
1,712
1,773
1,613
1,904
1,745
1,410
12,003
TOTAL ESTADO DE MÉXICO
1,846
1,712
1,773
1,613
1,904
1,745
1,410
12,003
ZARAGOZA, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
TOTAL CHIHUAHUA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
SAN MIGUEL DE ALLENDE, GTO. (AIRPORT)
SILAO, GTO. (AIRPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,633
9,522
9,895
9,966
10,374
13,244
14,352
79,986
LEÓN, GTO. (AIRPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL GUANAJUATO
12,633
9,522
9,895
9,966
10,374
13,244
14,352
79,986
ACAPULCO, GRO. (AIRPORT)
16,525
20,351
21,962
4,473
3,362
2,610
3,022
72,305
ACAPULCO, GRO. (SEAPORT)
26,241
12,982
22,377
24,692
15,848
1,722
916
104,778
ZIHUATANEJO, GRO. (AIRPORT)
16,684
16,343
16,741
6,955
3,520
3,718
3,820
67,781
ZIHUATANEJO, GRO. (SEAPORT)
7,595
2,046
6,376
10,676
2,069
0
0
28,762
67,045
51,722
67,456
46,796
24,799
8,050
7,758
273,626
PACHUCA, HGO.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GUADALAJARA, JAL. (AIRPORT)
74,813
53,246
54,757
61,907
61,226
75,484
86,087
467,520
PUERTO VALLARTA, JAL. (AIRPORT)
87,109
89,241
99,230
58,729
49,620
52,086
47,952
483,967
PUERTO VALLARTA, JAL. (SEAPORT)
364
229
102
283
218
42
56
1,294
TOTAL JALISCO
162,286
142,716
154,089
120,919
111,064
127,612
134,095
952,781
SUBTOTAL
609,321
502,331
587,419
511,478
484,670
516,161
571,300
3,782,680
GUERRERO
TOTAL GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
SOURCE: INM
63
(ENTRIES)
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
MICHOACÁN
357
541
333
450
537
466
478
3,162
6,053
4,414
5,429
4,750
5,004
6,958
8,277
40,885
6,410
4,955
5,762
5,200
5,541
7,424
8,755
44,047
CUERNAVACA, MOR. (AIRPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TEPIC, NAY. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL NAYARIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,233
15,473
19,915
20,153
20,034
26,581
28,049
146,438
123
168
113
92
111
65
112
784
16,356
15,641
20,028
20,245
20,145
26,646
28,161
147,222
HUATULCO, OAX. (AIRPORT)
4,145
3,405
2,186
188
5
10
12
9,951
HUATULCO, OAX. (SEAPORT)
12
5,786
16,195
7,388
16,088
0
0
45,469
LÁZARO CÁRDENAS, MICH. (SEAPORT)
MORELIA, MICH. (AIRPORT)
TOTAL MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
MONTERREY, N.L. "MARIANO ESCOBEDO" (AIRPORT)
MONTERREY, N.L. DEL NORTE (AIRPORT)
TOTAL NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
IXTEPEC, OAX. (AIRPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OAXACA, OAX. (AIRPORT)
36
42
37
29
325
17
16
502
SALINA CRUZ, OAX. (SEAPORT)
570
755
709
517
700
735
477
4,463
TAPANATEPEC, OAX. (AIRPORT)
0
6
15
0
9
0
0
30
4,763
9,994
19,142
8,122
17,127
762
505
60,415
PUEBLA, PUE. (AIRPORT)
78
59
92
81
80
59
84
533
TOTAL PUEBLA
78
59
92
81
80
59
84
533
QUERÉTARO , QRO. (AIRPORT)
190
166
156
165
174
157
156
1,164
TOTAL QUERÉTARO
190
166
156
165
174
157
156
1,164
CANCÚN, Q. ROO (AIRPORT)
271,118
291,191
345,461
272,681
246,546
285,909
292,758
2,005,664
CANCÚN, Q. ROO (SEAPORT)
264
94
4
858
357
141
90
1,808
21
7
9
22
34
15
10
118
34,167
33,422
38,048
42,017
41,331
40,133
40,313
269,431
TOTAL OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
CHETUMAL, Q. ROO (AIRPORT)
CHETUMAL, Q. ROO (BORDER GATE)
COZUMEL, Q. ROO (AIRPORT)
13,825
19,316
22,893
12,802
12,338
20,209
22,863
124,246
COZUMEL, Q. ROO (SEAPORT)
356,748
302,761
384,764
344,851
235,726
221,795
223,060
2,069,705
205
269
263
412
292
148
42
1,631
0
0
0
97,781
70,692
65,394
33,596
267,463
676,348
647,060
791,442
771,424
607,316
633,744
612,732
4,740,066
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ, S.L.P. (AIRPORT)
1,302
1,086
1,093
1,246
1,209
1,528
1,914
9,378
TOTAL SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
1,302
1,086
1,093
1,246
1,209
1,528
1,914
9,378
ISLA MUJERES, Q. ROO (SEAPORT)
MAJAHUAL, Q. ROO (SEAPORT)
TOTAL QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
CULIACAN, SIN. (AIRPORT)
1,198
927
1,046
1,117
881
841
1,017
7,027
MAZATLÁN, SIN. (AIRPORT)
18,844
22,047
24,895
12,419
10,339
9,694
8,259
106,497
MAZATLÁN, SIN. (SEAPORT)
64,166
45,932
40,432
56,450
36,890
14,296
17,849
276,015
38
103
24
29
16
65
27
302
126
100
362
241
437
268
244
1,778
MOCHIS, SIN. (AIRPORT)
TOPOLOBAMPO, SIN. (SEAPORT)
TOTAL SINALOA
SUBTOTAL
84,372
69,109
66,759
70,256
48,563
25,164
27,396
391,619
789,819
748,070
904,474
876,739
700,155
695,484
679,703
5,394,444
SOURCE: INM
64
(ENTRIES)
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
AGUA PRIETA, SON. (BORDER GATE)
865
962
1,317
1,591
1,320
1,485
1,857
9,397
GUAYMAS, SON. (AIRPORT)
559
781
842
705
606
707
579
4,779
GUAYMAS, SON. (SEAPORT)
107
41
124
986
601
432
818
3,109
9,269
8,771
9,306
9,502
8,588
8,537
10,644
64,617
272
196
267
275
327
264
262
1,863
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,532
10,965
12,607
13,107
13,049
12,128
12,620
87,008
717
SONORA
HERMOSILLO, SON. (AIRPORT)
NACO, SON. (BORDER GATE)
NOGALES, SON. (AIRPORT)
NOGALES, SON. (BORDER GATE)
OBREGÓN, SON. (AIRPORT)
163
192
79
74
68
72
69
PUERTO PEÑASCO, SON. (AIRPORT)
68
47
58
36
58
60
42
369
SAN LUIS RÍO COLORADO, SON. (BORDER GATE)
277
198
179
230
117
214
234
1,449
SASABE, SON. (BORDER GATE)
5,749
4,694
5,689
5,463
5,777
5,546
5,762
38,680
SONOYTA, SON. (BORDER GATE)
1,069
612
739
961
518
858
850
5,607
TOTAL SONORA
30,930
31,207
32,930
31,029
30,303
33,737
217,595
27,459
TABASCO
DOS BOCAS PARAÍSO, TAB. (SEAPORT)
1,022
854
693
834
739
882
1,022
6,046
FRONTERA CENTLA, TAB. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LA VENTA HUIMANGUILLO, TAB. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENOSIQUE, TAB. (BORDER GATE)
44
91
68
23
14
44
35
319
VILLAHERMOSA, TAB. (AIRPORT)
TOTAL TABASCO
591
467
639
541
757
733
781
4,509
1,657
1,412
1,400
1,398
1,510
1,659
1,838
10,874
TAMAULIPAS
ALTAMIRA, TAMPS. (SEAPORT)
2,398
2,169
2,579
2,588
2,617
4,219
2,284
18,854
CD. CAMARGO, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
349
452
653
623
698
868
1,065
4,708
CD. REYNOSA, TAMPS. (AIRPORT)
191
148
231
121
161
206
146
1,204
14,641
11,688
12,157
15,430
19,122
94,668
CD. REYNOSA, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
9,959
11,671
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
83
162
82
111
153
158
887
MATAMOROS, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
6,772
6,754
8,960
8,067
8,276
11,745
14,424
64,998
MIGUEL ALEMÁN TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
1,706
2,067
2,960
2,162
2,101
2,842
3,858
17,696
NVA. CD. GUERRERO, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
188
166
297
301
295
298
547
2,092
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS. (AIRPORT)
34
101
57
25
24
23
40
304
GUSTAVO DÍAZ ORDAZ, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
MATAMOROS, TAMPS. (AIRPORT)
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
15,621
14,007
20,952
16,708
19,798
32,544
37,673
157,303
10,274
983
1,018
1,496
1,253
1,306
2,052
2,166
TAMPICO, TAMPS. (AIRPORT)
1,286
951
1,084
1,079
1,363
1,098
1,594
8,455
TAMPICO, TAMPS. (SEAPORT)
2,372
1,397
1,518
1,625
1,488
2,080
1,787
12,267
TOTAL TAMAULIPAS
41,997
40,984
55,590
46,322
50,395
73,558
84,864
393,710
TLAXCALA, TLAX.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ACAYUCAN, VER. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COATZACOALCOS, VER. (AIRPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COATZACOALCOS, VER. (SEAPORT)
2,401
1,911
2,072
2,196
2,077
1,968
3,615
16,240
NVO. PROGRESO, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
JALAPA, VER. (SEAPORT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TUXPAN, VER. (SEAPORT)
904
589
570
729
692
672
885
5,041
VERACRUZ, VER. (AIRPORT)
1,561
1,212
1,638
1,597
1,430
1,309
1,507
10,254
VERACRUZ, VER. (SEAPORT)
5,012
4,375
3,999
4,559
5,683
5,197
5,605
34,430
TOTAL VERACRUZ
9,878
8,087
8,279
9,081
9,882
9,146
11,612
65,965
YUCATÁN
MÉRIDA, YUC. (AIRPORT)
3,390
3,096
3,130
3,035
3,083
4,179
5,457
25,370
PROGRESO, YUC. (SEAPORT)
35,854
23,062
28,422
24,185
10,390
7,969
5,493
135,375
TOTAL YUCATÁN
39,244
26,158
31,552
27,220
13,473
12,148
10,950
160,745
ZACATECAS, ZAC. (AIRPORT)
5,638
4,128
4,151
6,091
5,918
6,819
7,980
40,725
TOTAL ZACATECAS
5,638
4,128
4,151
6,091
5,918
6,819
7,980
40,725
129,344
108,228
132,179
123,042
112,207
133,633
150,981
889,614
1,690,671
1,502,832
1,810,109
1,688,185
1,435,346
1,492,828
1,566,658
11,186,629
ZACATECAS
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL GENERAL
SOURCE: INM
65
MIGRATORY CONTROL. BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
(ENTRIES)
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
AGUASCALIENTES
18,618
0.2
BAJA CALIFORNIA
389,122
3.5
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
596,444
5.3
8,841
0.1
622,749
5.6
CHIHUAHUA
99,851
0.9
COAHUILA
41,816
0.4
COLIMA
65,050
0.6
1,732,051
15.5
DURANGO
9,633
0.1
STATE OF MEXICO
12,003
0.1
GUANAJUATO
79,986
0.7
273,626
2.4
HIDALGO
0
0.0
JALISCO
952,781
8.5
44,047
0.4
MORELOS
0
0.0
NAYARIT
0
0.0
147,222
1.3
OAXACA
60,415
0.5
PUEBLA
533
0.0
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
FEDERAL DISTRICT
GUERRERO
MICHOACÁN
NUEVO LEÓN
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
1,164
0.0
4,740,066
42.4
9,378
0.1
SINALOA
391,619
3.5
SONORA
217,595
1.9
TABASCO
10,874
0.1
393,710
3.5
TLAXCALA
0
0.0
VERACRUZ
65,965
0.6
160,745
1.4
TAMAULIPAS
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL
40,725
0.4
11,186,629
100.0
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL. BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
ENTRIES
REGIONAL DELEGATION
QUINTANA ROO
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
4,740,066
42.4
1,732,051
15.5
JALISCO
952,781
8.5
CHIAPAS
622,749
5.6
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
596,444
5.3
FEDERAL DISTRICT
393,710
3.5
OTHERS
2,148,828
19.2
TOTAL
11,186,629
100.0
TAMAULIPAS
OTRAS
19.2%
QUINTANA ROO
42.4%
TAMAULIPAS
3.5%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
SUR
5.3%
CHIAPAS
5.6%
JALISCO
8.5%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
15.5%
SOURCE: INM
66
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT AIRPORTS
LOCALIZATION OF AIRPORTS
FOREIGNERS
TUR/NAC/
RAD/PAÍS
TUR/NAC/
RAD/EXTR.
TOTAL
1,965,824
33,059
6,781
2,005,664
CITI OF MÉXICO (AIRPORT)
823,920
863,858
44,273
1,732,051
PUERTO VALLARTA, JAL.(AIRPORT)
470,573
6,740
6,654
483,967
210,570
133,950
123,000
467,520
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (AIRPORT)
407,466
8,907
5,116
421,489
89,767
45,599
11,072
146,438
123,315
678
253
124,246
96,460
7,591
2,446
106,497
42,927
15,456
21,603
79,986
69,966
1,412
927
72,305
66,284
541
956
67,781
30,632
29,125
4,860
64,617
16,743
12,094
12,048
40,885
16,483
11,212
13,030
40,725
MANZANILLO, COL.(AIRPORT)
29,964
2,821
2,165
34,950
16,545
8,361
464
25,370
15,685
3,351
537
19,573
8,549
7,095
2,974
18,618
12,292
1,308
1,614
15,214
TOLUCA, MÉX. (AIRPORT)
OTHERS
1/
TOTAL
4,759
7,244
0
12,003
73,977
28,363
12,359
114,699
4,592,701
1,228,765
273,132
6,094,598
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT AIRPORT
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
CANCÚN, Q. ROO
2,005,664
32.9
AIRPORT OF MEXICO CITY
1,732,051
28.4
PUERTO VALLARTA, JAL.
483,967
7.9
GUADALAJARA, JAL.
467,520
7.7
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, LA PAZ, B.C.S.
421,489
6.9
OTHERS
983,907
16.2
TOTAL
6,094,598
100.0
OTHERS
16.2%
SAN JOSÉ DEL
CABO, LA PAZ, B.C.S.
6.9%
CANCÚN, Q. ROO
32.9%
GUADALAJARA, JAL.
7.7%
PUERTO VALLARTA,
JAL.
7.9%
AIRPORT OF MEXICO
CITY
28.4%
SOURCE: INM
67
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT SEAPORTS
LOCALIZATION OF SEAPORTS
COZUMEL, Q. ROO (SEAPORT)
FOREIGNERS
TUR/NAC/
RAD/PAÍS
TUR/NAC/
RAD/EXTR.
2,069,705
0
0
2,069,705
TOTAL
ENSENADA, B.C. (SEAPORT)
304,704
0
0
304,704
MAZATLÁN, SIN. (SEAPORT)
275,371
644
0
276,015
MAJAHUAL,Q.ROO (SEAPORT)
267,463
0
0
267,463
PROGRESO, YUC. (SEAPORT)
134,779
563
33
135,375
MUELLE CABO SAN LUCAS, LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
123,596
0
0
123,596
ACAPULCO, GRO. (SEAPORT)
104,778
0
0
104,778
45,469
0
0
45,469
VERACRUZ, VER. (SEAPORT)
34,430
0
0
34,430
MANZANILLO, COL. (SEAPORT)
30,100
0
0
30,100
ZIHUATANEJO, GRO. (SEAPORT)
28,762
0
0
28,762
ALTAMIRA, TAMPS. (SEAPORT)
18,810
0
44
18,854
COATZACOALCOS, VER. (SEAPORT)
16,240
0
0
16,240
LA PAZ, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
12,459
22
31
12,512
TAMPICO, TAMPS. (SEAPORT)
12,267
0
0
12,267
ISLA DE CEDROS GUERRERO NEGRO, B.C.S. (SEAPORT)
9,278
0
0
9,278
ISLA DE CD. DEL CARMEN, CAMP. (SEAPORT)
8,593
0
0
8,593
DOS BOCAS PARAISO, TAB. (SEAPORT)
6,046
0
0
6,046
TUXPAN, VER. (SEAPORT)
5,041
0
0
5,041
SALINA CRUZ, OAX. (SEAPORT)
OTHERS
1/
TOTAL
4,463
0
0
19,898
215
19
3,532,252
1,444
4,463
20,132
127
3,533,823
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT SEAPORTS
LOCALIZATION OF SEAPORTS
COZUMEL, Q. ROO
TOTAL
2,069,705
PERCENTAGE
COZUMEL, Q. ROO
58.6%
58.6
ENSENADA, B.C.
304,704
8.6
MAZATLÁN, SIN.
276,015
7.8
MAJAHUAL, Q.ROO
267,463
7.6
OTHERS
13.6%
ENSENADA, B.C.
8.6%
PROGRESO, YUC.
PROGRESO, YUC.
135,375
3.8
OTHERS
480,561
13.6
3,533,823
100.0
3.8%
MAJAHUAL, Q.ROO
MAZATLÁN, SIN.
7.8%
7.6%
TOTAL
SOURCE: INM
68
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT BORDER GATES
LOCALIZATION OF BORDER GATES
FOREIGNERS
TUR/NAC/
RAD/PAÍS
TUR/NAC/
RAD/EXTR.
TOTAL
TALISMAN, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
276,938
708
999
278,645
266,539
2,464
428
269,431
CD. HIDALGO, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
241,921
645
31
242,597
96,351
0
60,952
157,303
73,676
0
20,992
94,668
51,064
0
35,944
87,008
51,711
0
13,287
64,998
51,957
41
11,822
63,820
CD. CUAUHTÉMOC, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
52,649
968
29
53,646
928
21,792
15,960
38,680
COMITÁN, CHIS. (BORDER GATE)
31,841
0
0
31,841
25,854
0
1,551
27,405
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAH. (BORDER GATE)
14,913
0
6,125
21,038
15,158
0
2,538
17,696
MESA DE OTAY, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
10,877
0
22
10,899
MEXICALI, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
7,413
0
3,307
10,720
NVO. PROGRESO, TAMPS. (BORDER GATE)
7,311
0
2,963
10,274
AGUA PRIETA, SON. (BORDER GATE)
5,289
0
4,108
9,397
OJINAGA, CHIH. (BORDER GATE)
7,076
0
1,910
8,986
TECATE, B.C. (BORDER GATE)
6,957
0
52
7,009
45,150
203
6,794
52,147
26,821
189,814
1,558,208
OTHERS
1/
TOTAL
1,341,573
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL AT BORDER GATES
LOCALIZATION OF BORDER GATES
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
TALISMAN, CHIS.
278,645
17.9
CHETUMAL, Q. ROO
269,431
17.3
CD. HIDALGO, CHIS.
242,597
15.6
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS.
157,303
10.1
CD. REYNOSA, TAMPS.
94,668
6.1
OTHERS
33.0%
TALISMAN, CHIS.
17.9%
CD. REYNOSA,
CHETUMAL, Q. ROO
17.3%
TAMPS.
6.1%
CD. HIDALGO, CHIS.
NVO. LAREDO,
OTHERS
TOTAL
515,564
1,558,208
33.0
15.6%
TAMPS.
10.1%
100.0
SOURCE: INM
69
MIGRATORY CONTROLS. SOME OF INM CATEGORIES (FOREIGN TOURIST-FMT, BUSINESS PERSONS-FMN;
(ENTRIES)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUL
JUN
TOTAL
AGUASCALIENTES
779
760
852
1,211
1,008
1,431
1,996
8,037
BAJA CALIFORNIA
10,009
10,520
10,921
10,871
9,502
11,610
11,204
74,637
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
60,889
61,679
74,572
62,764
55,824
57,777
57,721
431,226
8
9
21
21
39
11
54
163
CHIAPAS
6,220
4,647
4,879
5,196
4,147
4,322
4,115
33,526
CHIHUAHUA
8,391
7,784
11,412
9,606
9,894
13,433
17,200
77,720
COAHUILA
2,555
2,765
4,444
3,122
3,402
5,157
6,177
27,622
COLIMA
6,625
8,405
6,280
4,470
1,256
1,442
1,494
29,972
FEDERAL DISTRICT
94,101
108,291
117,990
95,072
94,191
111,017
121,922
742,584
DURANGO
371
371
434
417
392
726
1,461
4,172
STATE OF MEXICO
389
525
551
318
743
699
407
3,632
GUANAJUATO
5,331
5,238
5,459
4,645
4,542
7,185
7,751
40,151
GUERRERO
141,856
CAMPECHE
35,037
38,987
38,322
10,961
6,493
6,030
6,026
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JALISCO
112,774
110,898
119,646
80,847
72,607
87,816
86,938
671,526
2,053
1,570
1,873
1,840
1,816
3,677
3,981
16,810
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAYARIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NUEVO LEÓN
9,755
10,718
12,912
11,000
10,899
15,200
16,546
87,030
OAXACA
4,164
5,458
9,114
3,296
5,382
67
18
27,499
PUEBLA
29
40
45
41
31
29
56
271
QUERÉTARO
93
91
111
86
123
109
73
686
281,082
309,365
366,945
283,716
254,697
302,312
310,879
2,108,996
MICHOACÁN
QUINTANA ROO
547
587
606
568
581
863
976
4,728
SINALOA
17,955
21,358
24,163
11,050
9,169
8,743
6,394
98,832
SONORA
13,935
13,798
15,560
13,479
13,581
13,687
12,796
96,836
TABASCO
363
364
464
299
414
444
431
2,779
26,576
26,918
37,464
28,181
30,972
44,479
56,519
251,109
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VERACRUZ
666
535
684
611
559
673
757
4,485
YUCATÁN
2,519
2,690
2,490
2,247
1,600
2,668
3,250
17,464
ZACATECAS
1,834
1,494
1,479
2,420
2,005
3,319
3,816
16,367
705,050
755,865
869,693
648,355
595,869
704,926
740,958
5,020,716
TOTAL
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROLS. SOME OF INM CATEGORIES (FOREIGN TOURIST-FMT, BUSINESS PERSONS-FMN;
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
2,108,996
42.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
742,584
14.8
JALISCO
671,526
13.4
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
431,226
8.6
TAMAULIPAS
251,109
5.0
OTHERS
815,275
16.2
5,020,716
100.0
QUINTANA ROO
TOTAL
TAMAULIPAS
5.0%
OTHERS
16.2%
QUINTANA ROO
42.0%
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
8.6%
JALISCO
13.4%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
14.8%
SOURCE: INM
70
MIGRATORY CONTROLS. SOME OF INM CATEGORIES (FOREIGN TOURIST-FMT,
BUSINESS PERSONS-FMN; BUSINESS EXECUTIVES-FMVC; TRANSMIGRANTS-FM6)
(ENTRIES)
REGIONAL
JANUARY-JULY 2002
JANUARY-JULY 2003
1/
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE JANJUL 2003/2002
AGUASCALIENTES
6,945
8,037
15.7
BAJA CALIFORNIA
76,609
74,637
(2.6)
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
397,644
431,226
8.4
76
163
-
CHIAPAS
35,277
33,526
(5.0)
CHIHUAHUA
84,567
77,720
(8.1)
COAHUILA
25,383
27,622
8.8
COLIMA
28,288
29,972
6.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
718,218
742,584
3.4
DURANGO
4,392
4,172
(5.0)
STATE OF MEXICO
3,484
3,632
4.2
GUANAJUATO
34,776
40,151
15.5
GUERRERO
152,092
141,856
(6.7)
CAMPECHE
0
HIDALGO
0
-
JALISCO
668,690
671,526
0.4
MICHOACÁN
16,328
16,810
3.0
MORELOS
80
0
-
NAYARIT
0
0
-
NUEVO LEÓN
82,632
87,030
5.3
OAXACA
16,393
27,499
67.7
PUEBLA
311
271
(12.9)
QUERÉTARO
659
686
4.1
1,924,847
2,108,996
9.6
4,928
4,728
(4.1)
SINALOA
96,276
98,832
2.7
SONORA
105,267
96,836
(8.0)
TABASCO
308
2,779
-
273,456
251,109
(8.2)
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
0
0
-
VERACRUZ
4,639
4,485
(3.3)
YUCATÁN
15,612
17,464
11.9
ZACATECAS
11,117
16,367
47.2
TOTAL
4,789,294
5,020,716
4.8
SOURCE: INM
71
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
(ENTRIES AND EXITS)
TURIST FOREIGNERS
MEXICAN NATIONAL
RESIDENTS OF
MEXICO
MEXICAN NATIONAL
RESIDING ABROAD
ENTRIES
EXITS
ENTRIES
EXITS
ENTRIES
EXITS
ENTRIES
EXITS
AGUASCALIENTES
6,203
5,429
7,095
7,376
2,974
1,840
16,272
14,645
BAJA CALIFORNIA
54,629
7,401
3,351
2,962
7,740
742
65,720
11,105
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
429,830
400,088
11,055
10,903
7,574
6,929
448,459
417,920
163
145
36
29
0
0
199
174
16,472
CAMPECHE
TOTAL
CHIAPAS
21,218
12,006
2,768
3,620
1,059
846
25,045
CHIHUAHUA
57,855
25,290
3,746
3,897
16,322
3,186
77,923
32,373
COAHUILA
22,376
11,290
4,444
6,261
8,342
2,782
35,162
20,333
COLIMA
29,727
31,064
2,821
2,784
2,165
2,523
34,713
36,371
FEDERAL DISTRICT
631,109
552,229
863,858
770,655
44,273
64,362
1,539,240
1,387,246
DURANGO
4,172
3,176
3,100
2,189
2,226
1,688
9,498
7,053
STATE OF MEXICO
2,605
2,350
7,244
7,780
0
0
9,849
10,130
GUANAJUATO
33,726
33,069
15,456
16,478
21,603
17,196
70,785
66,743
GUERRERO
134,415
141,547
1,953
1,818
1,883
1,869
138,251
145,234
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JALISCO
659,615
642,322
140,698
141,062
129,670
123,297
929,983
906,681
MICHOACÁN
16,676
17,785
12,299
16,231
12,048
16,669
41,023
50,685
0
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAYARIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NUEVO LEÓN
50,549
10,228
45,654
560
11,081
1,122
107,284
11,910
OAXACA
27,494
23,738
17
58
40
32
27,551
23,828
PUEBLA
44
48
197
189
0
0
241
237
QUERÉTARO
649
563
474
467
0
0
1,123
1,030
2,107,293
2,046,354
36,260
37,670
7,464
5,506
2,151,017
2,089,530
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
2,241
2,436
3,426
3,720
740
631
6,407
6,787
SINALOA
98,819
103,549
11,541
12,401
3,644
3,777
114,004
119,727
SONORA
91,273
35,038
51,421
34,175
62,981
37,959
205,675
107,172
TABASCO
2,751
2,608
1,000
1,461
173
115
3,924
4,184
216,379
70,672
3,939
3,997
102,847
19,238
323,165
93,907
0
QUINTANA ROO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VERACRUZ
3,121
3,076
3,041
2,871
2,697
817
8,859
6,764
YUCATÁN
17,017
8,629
8,924
9,029
497
567
26,438
18,225
ZACATECAS
16,329
10,752
11,212
5,413
13,030
10,055
40,571
26,220
4,738,278
4,202,882
1,257,030
1,106,056
463,073
323,748
6,458,381
5,632,686
TOTAL
SOURCE: INM
72
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST ENTRIES
TURIST
FOREIGNERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
AEROPUERTO DE LA CD. DE MÉXICO. (AIRPORT)
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, B.C.S. (AIRPORT)
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAH. (BORDER GATE)2
OTHERS
TOTAL GENERAL
MEXICAN
NATIONAL
RESIDENTS OF
MEXICO
MEXICAN
NATIONAL
RESIDING
ABROAD
TOTAL ENTRIES
PERCENTAGE
1,955,760
631,109
466,724
192,512
33,059
863,858
6,740
133,950
6,781
44,273
6,654
123,000
1,995,600
30.9
1,539,240
23.8
480,118
7.4
449,462
7.0
401,873
92,647
8,907
0
5,116
60,952
415,896
6.4
153,599
2.4
122,729
50,038
95,835
48,457
60,874
678
45,599
7,591
0
0
253
11,072
2,446
35,944
20,992
123,660
1.9
106,709
1.7
105,872
1.6
84,401
1.3
81,866
1.3
33,726
68,284
66,039
15,456
1,412
541
21,603
927
956
70,785
1.1
70,623
1.1
67,536
1.0
25,052
40,389
31,521
16,675
16,329
29,125
41
0
12,094
11,212
4,860
11,822
13,287
12,048
13,030
59,037
0.9
52,252
0.8
44,808
0.7
40,817
0.6
40,571
0.6
928
29,685
22,369
15,086
22,252
14,492
14,962
15,093
21,792
2,821
2,523
8,361
0
0
3,351
0
15,960
2,165
430
464
1,551
6,125
537
2,538
38,680
0.6
34,671
0.5
25,322
0.4
23,911
0.4
23,803
0.4
20,617
0.3
18,850
0.3
17,631
0.3
17,017
6,203
11,742
151,876
0
7,095
1,308
39,516
0
2,974
1,614
32,699
17,017
0.3
16,272
0.3
14,664
0.2
4,738,278
1,257,030
463,073
224,091
6,458,381
3.5
100.0
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST ENTRIES
TOTAL
ENTRIES
PERCENTAGE
1,995,600
30.9
1,539,240
23.8
480,118
7.4
449,462
7.0
415,896
6.4
153,599
2.4
1,424,466
22.1
6,458,381
100.0
OTHERS
TOTAL
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS.
(BORDER GATE)
2.4%
OTHERS
22.1%
30.9%
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, B.C.S.
(AIRPORT)
6.4%
GUADALAJARA, JAL.
(AIRPORT)
7.0%
AEROPUERTO DE LA CD. DE
MÉXICO. (AIRPORT)
23.8%
(AIRPORT)
7.4%
SOURCE: INM
73
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST EXITS
TURIST
FOREIGNERS
MEXICAN
NATIONAL
RESIDENTS OF
MEXICO
MEXICAN
NATIONAL
RESIDING
ABROAD
TOTAL ENTRIES
PERCENTAGE
1
1,900,181
33,375
4,953
1,938,509
34.4
2
552,229
770,655
64,362
1,387,246
24.6
3
492,948
8,183
6,336
507,467
9.0
4
149,171
132,876
116,959
399,006
7.1
5
380,318
9,190
4,704
394,212
7.0
6
126,709
534
229
127,472
2.3
7
100,630
8,684
2,331
111,645
2.0
8
72,168
508
920
73,596
1.3
9
69,278
1,310
949
71,537
1.3
10
33,069
16,478
17,196
66,743
1.2
11
24,259
11,651
20,698
56,608
1.0
12
17,785
16,038
16,669
50,492
0.9
13
1,063
22,036
15,960
39,059
0.7
14
31,018
2,784
2,523
36,325
0.6
15
27,357
0
8,130
35,487
0.6
16
10,752
5,413
10,055
26,220
0.5
17
17,152
0
4,796
21,948
0.4
18
15,203
3,761
324
19,288
0.3
19
17,075
0
0
17,075
0.3
20
14,459
6
1,861
16,326
0.3
21
6,519
8,674
508
15,701
0.3
22
13,178
868
1,410
15,456
0.3
23
5,429
7,376
1,840
14,645
0.3
24
11,274
0
3,001
14,275
0.3
25
9,697
510
1,112
11,319
0.2
26
AEROPUERTO DE TOLUCA, MÉX. (AIRPORT)
2,350
7,780
0
10,130
0.2
27
TORREÓN, COAH. (AIRPORT)
2,942
4,634
1,334
8,910
0.2
28
5,169
2,960
401
8,530
0.2
29
LA PAZ, B.C.S. (AIRPORT)
6,411
844
815
8,070
0.1
30
OTHERS
6,663
80,426
0
28,928
761
12,611
7,424
0.1
4,202,882
1,106,056
31
TOTAL GENERAL
323,748
121,965
2.2
5,632,686
100.0
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TOURIST EXITS
TOTAL
EXITS
PERCENTAGE
1,938,509
34.4
CITY OF MÉXICO. (AIRPORT)
1,387,246
24.6
507,467
9.0
399,006
7.1
394,212
7.0
127,472
2.3
OTHERS
878,774
15.6
TOTAL
2.3%
5,632,686
100.0
OTHERS
15.6%
34.4%
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, B.C.S.
(AIRPORT)
7.0%
GUADALAJARA, JAL.
(AIRPORT)
7.1%
(AIRPORT)
9.0%
CITY OF MÉXICO. (AIRPORT)
24.6%
SOURCE: INM
74
(ENTRIES-EXITS)
DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY 2002
1/
JANUARY-JULY 2003
ENTRIES
EXITS
ENTRIES
EXITS
ENTRIES
2,229
1,869
2,291
2,050
2.8
9.7
255,481
243,846
323,177
302,947
26.5
24.2
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
101,978
101,223
147,140
145,818
44.3
44.1
8,300
9,556
8,642
8,035
4.1
(15.9)
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
698,610
17,535
597,238
32,155
(14.5)
83.4
21,975
17,561
21,837
16,897
(0.6)
(3.8)
7,365
6,609
6,592
5,814
(10.5)
(12.0)
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
EXITS
23,970
23,263
30,335
30,745
26.6
32.2
164,030
140,190
170,569
138,729
4.0
(1.0)
106
68
135
77
27.4
13.2
528
509
2,064
1,937
-
-
6,027
4,772
6,431
5,210
6.7
9.2
150,020
148,471
135,308
135,543
(9.8)
(8.7)
0
0
0
0
-
24,257
20,862
21,229
15,024
(12.5)
(28.0)
2,481
2,413
2,966
2,849
19.5
18.1
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
39,736
7,840
38,968
8,967
(1.9)
14.4
35,519
35,451
32,857
32,943
(7.5)
(7.1)
157
118
286
244
82.2
96
102
37
21
(61.5)
(79.4)
2,245,344
1,918,566
2,587,323
2,415,168
15.2
25.9
2,686
2,372
2,944
2,660
9.6
12.1
9.0
-
-
250,435
251,980
277,607
274,771
10.8
SONORA
TABASCO
9,477
6,951
11,553
7,276
21.9
4.7
5,478
5,478
6,950
6,943
26.9
26.7
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
75,683
50,015
69,670
49,208
(7.9)
(1.6)
0
0
0
0
-
-
40,823
41,081
57,050
57,102
39.7
39.0
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
113,968
113,857
134,176
135,635
17.7
19.1
159
125
140
71
(11.9)
(43.2)
4,286,918
3,172,683
4,695,515
9.5
20.9
TOTAL GENERAL
3,834,839
SOURCE: INM
2002
2003
1/
PERCENTAGE OF
CHANGE JAN-JUL OF
2003/2002
ENTRIES
4,286,918
4,695,515
9.5
EXITS
3,172,683
3,834,839
20.9
3,834,839
JAN-JUL
JAN-JUL
INM's CATEGORY
2003 1/
4,695,515
3,172,683
2002
4,286,918
ENTRIES
EXITS
INM's CATEGORY
QUINTANA ROO
JAN-JUL
2003
1/
PERCEN-TAGE
QUINTANA ROO
2,587,323
55.1
CHIAPAS
597,238
12.7
BAJA CALIFORNIA
323,177
6.9
SINALOA
277,607
5.9
FEDERAL DISTRICT
170,569
3.6
55.1%
OTROS
12.7%
CHIAPAS
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
147,140
3.1
OTHERS
592,461
12.7
TOTAL
4,695,515
100.0
12.7%
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
3.1%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
3.6%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
SINALOA
6.9%
5.9%
SOURCE: INM Regional Delegations
75
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TEMPORARY OF BUSINESS PERSONS FROM U.S. AND CANADA-INM FROM FMN
BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION AND BY NATIONALITY OF ORIGIN
2002
ENTRIES
UNITED STATES
REGIONAL DELEGATION
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL ENTRADAS
CANADA
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
BUSINESS VISITORS
0
0
100
0
0
16
241
0
1,964
0
0
2,370
0
0
1,037
0
0
0
601
0
0
0
0
2
5
128
0
309
0
11
46
11
23
94
716
0
0
902
1,078
0
24,452
0
0
1,164
0
0
5,540
0
0
0
14,930
0
11
0
0
241
0
1,369
0
2,659
0
250
355
2
0
0
125
0
0
206
14
0
143
0
0
1,190
0
0
79
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
113
0
1
0
0
2,056
25,909
1,064
0
0
25,838
5,505
8
82,866
0
0
1,559
0
0
11,355
0
0
0
31,209
0
169
0
0
3,078
51
6,496
0
21,573
0
604
408
11
2,079
26,003
2,005
0
0
26,962
6,838
8
109,425
0
0
6,283
0
0
18,011
0
0
0
46,812
0
180
0
0
3,321
56
8,009
0
24,654
0
866
809
24
219,759
282,345
6,841
53,786
1,959
TOTAL
TOTAL
GENERAL
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
BUSINESS
VISITORS
0
0
0
0
0
8
46
0
430
0
0
1,179
0
0
208
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
15
0
1
0
2
1
2
10
0
0
29
101
0
1,330
0
0
574
0
0
661
0
0
0
765
0
0
0
0
13
1
79
0
178
0
18
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
50
0
0
621
0
0
5
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
0
0
1
80
446
8
0
0
790
482
0
6,220
0
0
1,028
0
0
1,597
0
0
0
2,306
0
23
0
0
108
9
300
0
1,253
0
62
15
0
81
448
18
0
0
842
629
0
8,030
0
0
3,402
0
0
2,471
0
0
0
3,127
0
23
0
0
121
11
384
0
1,454
0
81
26
3
2,160
26,451
2,023
0
0
27,804
7,467
8
117,455
0
0
9,685
0
0
20,482
0
0
0
49,939
0
203
0
0
3,442
67
8,393
0
26,108
0
947
835
27
14,727
21,151
303,496
1,938
3,773
713
TOTAL
ENTRIES
INM's CATEGORY
Business visitors
EUA
Professional
19.0%
PERCENTAGE
14,727
234,486
77.3
6,841
1,938
8,779
2.9
53,786
3,773
57,559
19.0
1,959
713
2,672
0.9
282,345
21,151
303,496
Business executive transferred
TOTAL
TOTAL
219,759
Merchants investors
Professional
CANADÁ
Business executive
transferred
0.9%
Merchants investors
2.9%
Business visitors
77.3%
100.0
713
3,773
CANADÁ
1,938
14,727
1,959
EUA
53,786
6,841
219,759
SOURCE: INM
Business visitors
Merchants investors
Professional
76
2002
EXITS
UNITED STATES
REGIONAL DELEGATION
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL ENTRADAS
CANADA
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
BUSINESS VISITORS
0
0
1
0
0
0
203
0
1,781
0
0
645
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
242
0
8
39
10
2
22
7
0
0
161
681
0
5,559
0
0
377
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
10
0
0
189
1
52
0
1,952
0
78
328
0
0
0
9
0
0
210
14
0
177
0
0
1,083
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
80
0
0
0
0
1,762
12,875
558
0
0
20,117
4,901
0
88,539
0
0
1,901
0
0
12,458
0
0
0
8,004
0
136
0
0
2,707
35
4,733
0
17,061
0
870
358
2
2,939
9,422
1,579
177,017
TOTAL
1,764
12,897
575
0
0
20,488
5,799
0
96,056
0
0
4,006
0
0
12,458
0
0
0
8,011
0
146
0
0
2,899
39
4,791
0
19,335
0
956
725
12
190,957
TOTAL
GENERAL
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
BUSINESS
VISITORS
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
180
0
0
1,020
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
80
0
174
0
0
1,578
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
3
0
157
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
0
0
1,189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
326
0
0
0
0
60
221
1
0
0
633
516
0
5,403
0
0
560
0
0
1,660
0
0
0
554
0
10
0
0
103
3
182
0
850
0
69
6
0
60
221
1
0
0
642
636
0
5,824
0
0
4,347
0
0
1,669
0
0
0
555
0
10
0
0
111
3
185
0
1,345
0
72
10
0
1,824
13,118
576
0
0
21,130
6,435
0
101,880
0
0
8,353
0
0
14,127
0
0
0
8,566
0
156
0
0
3,010
42
4,976
0
20,680
0
1,028
735
12
10,831
15,691
206,648
1,252
2,026
1,582
TOTAL
JANUARY - DECEMBER 2002
EXITS
INM's CATEGORY
Business visitors
EUA
CANADÁ
TOTAL
177,017
10,831
187,848
90.9
Merchants investors
2,939
1,252
4,191
2.0
Professional
9,422
2,026
11,448
5.5
1,579
1,582
3,161
1.5
190,957
15,691
206,648
TOTAL
Professional
5.5%
PERCENTAGE
Merchants investors
2.0%
Business executive
transferred
1.5%
Business visitors
90.9%
100.0
1,582
2,026
CANADÁ
1,252
10,831
1,579
9,422
EUA
2,939
177,017
SOURCE: INM
Business visitors
Merchants investors
Professional
77
TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF BUSINESS PERSONS INM FORM FMN
BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY 2002
JANUARY-JULY 2003 1/
AGUASCALIENTES
1,325
1,349
1.8
BAJA CALIFORNIA
15,853
15,843
(0.1)
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
1,320
1,376
4.2
0
0
-
DELEGATION
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
0
0
-
CHIHUAHUA
16,801
17,255
2.7
COAHUILA
4,572
4,840
5.9
8
17
-
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
65,099
69,458
6.7
DURANGO
0
0
-
STATE OF MEXICO
0
0
-
6,016
6,425
6.8
0
30
-
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
0
0
-
JALISCO
11,741
9,032
(23.1)
MICHOACÁN
0
0
-
MORELOS
0
0
-
NAYARIT
0
0
-
NUEVO LEÓN
27,776
32,013
15.3
OAXACA
0
0
-
PUEBLA
83
193
-
QUERÉTARO
0
0
-
QUINTANA ROO
0
0
-
2,106
2,315
9.9
SINALOA
56
13
(76.8)
SONORA
4,913
4,967
1.1
TABASCO
0
0
-
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
TAMAULIPAS
16,044
15,170
(5.4)
TLAXCALA
0
0
-
VERACRUZ
602
758
25.9
YUCATÁN
591
386
(34.7)
ZACATECAS
TOTAL
0
30
-
174,906
181,470
3.8
SOURCE: INM
78
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF BUSINESS PERSONS FROM U.S.A. AND CANADA. INM FORM FMN
JANUARY-JULY 2003
UNITED STATES
REGIONAL DELEGATION
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL ENTRIES
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
CANADA
BUSINESS
VISITORS
0
0
0
0
0
1,221
1,307
13,450
57
0
0
602
0
0
10
0
0
706
0
0
1,286
210
747
1,168
3
3
14,458
3,089
0
1,626
4
16,451
0
106
13
47,644
0
0
1,635
0
0
780
0
0
854
0
0
886
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
560
0
2,037
0
16
0
4,465
0
0
0
324
0
0
9,590
0
0
29
0
0
20,263
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
134
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
717
0
0
17
2,253
12
3,954
0
671
0
3,270
0
169
0
10,246
0
40
0
178
0
1
0
489
13
4
110
9
0
0
256
16
6,448
35,713
2,429
123,671
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
TOTAL
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRE
BUSINESS
VISITORS
D
1,307
0
0
0
0
0
18
42
1,154
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
58
19
124
92
0
0
579
259
0
224
0
633
0
55
0
2,719
0
0
825
0
0
334
0
0
424
0
0
687
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
0
484
0
0
0
1,372
0
0
0
31
0
0
445
0
0
19
0
0
1,312
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
33
0
0
13
62
1
197
0
45
0
196
0
8
0
565
0
17
0
7
0
1
0
25
0
0
2
1
0
0
5
0
14,671
1,375
0
0
16,494
4,470
17
65,827
0
0
4,155
30
0
7,078
0
0
0
30,206
0
184
0
0
2,253
12
4,710
0
14,356
0
708
379
29
168,261
1,331
2,356
539
8,983
TOTAL
TOTAL
GENERAL
42
1,349
1,172
1
15,843
1,376
0
0
0
0
761
370
0
17,255
4,840
17
3,631
0
69,458
0
0
2,270
0
6,425
0
0
1,954
30
0
9,032
0
0
0
0
0
1,807
0
32,013
0
9
0
0
193
0
0
62
0
2,315
1
257
13
4,967
0
814
0
0
15,170
0
50
7
758
386
1
30
13,209
181,470
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF BUSINESS PERSONS FROM U.S.A. AND CANADA. INM FORM FMN
JANUARY-JULY 2003
REGIONAL DELEGATION
EUA
CANADÁ
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
FEDERAL DISTRICT
65,827
3,631
69,458
38.3
NUEVO LEÓN
30,206
1,807
32,013
17.6
CHIHUAHUA
16,494
761
17,255
9.5
BAJA CALIFORNIA
14,671
1,172
15,843
8.7
TAMAULIPAS
14,356
814
15,170
8.4
OTHERS
26,707
5,024
31,731
17.5
168,261
13,209
181,470
100.0
OTHERS
17.5%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
38.3%
TAMAULIPAS
8.4%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
TOTAL
INM's CATEGORY
Business visitors
Merchants investors
Professional
TOTAL
EUA
CANADÁ
TOTAL
123,671
8,983
132,654
6,448
1,331
7,779
35,713
2,356
38,069
2,429
539
2,968
168,261
13,209
181,470
8.7%
NUEVO LEÓN
9.5%
PERCENTAGE
73.1
539
2,356
CANADÁ
1,331
8,983
4.3
21.0
17.6%
CHIHUAHUA
2,429
EUA
35,713
6,448
123,671
1.6
100.0
Business visitors
Merchants investors
Professional
SOURCE: INM
79
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF EXITS OF BUSINESS PERSONS FROM U.S.A. AND CANADA. INM FORM FMN
JANUARY-JULY 2003
UNITED STATES
REGIONAL DELEGATION
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL ENTRADAS
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
CANADA
BUSINESS
VISITORS
0
0
1
0
0
812
1,160
6,027
8
0
103
0
0
0
78
0
0
992
189
0
0
1,006
0
0
3
0
11,867
2,597
0
1,841
0
3,452
0
128
0
45,938
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
405
0
0
227
0
0
663
0
0
1,228
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,788
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
39
947
0
0
4,995
1
131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1,994
12
0
0
458
60
0
2,469
0
0
133
2,517
0
8,007
0
10
0
40
0
0
0
468
0
0
13
0
0
0
301
3
3,906
7,465
2,686
91,112
MERCHANTS
INVESTORS
TOTAL
1,161
6,839
189
0
0
12,859
3,795
0
51,359
0
0
2,523
0
0
0
23
45
112
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
23
0
0
103
0
0
0
0
477
235
0
101
0
62
0
45
0
2,335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
634
0
0
953
0
0
759
0
0
337
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
197
0
0
449
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
30
2
0
211
12
0
5
130
0
412
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
170
0
0
1,996
0
518
314
3
105,169
BUSINESS
VISITORS
0
0
0
5,997
0
11,067
BUSINESS
EJECUTIVE
TRANSFERRED
3
0
3,788
0
0
13
2,577
PROFESSIONAL
811
1,339
1,042
5,158
TOTAL
TOTAL
GENERAL
48
135
0
1,209
6,974
189
0
0
0
0
497
361
13,356
4,156
0
2,543
0
0
53,902
0
0
2,683
0
5,206
0
0
0
0
530
0
0
4,318
0
0
0
648
0
6,645
0
6
1
176
0
0
54
0
0
2,050
0
144
13
2,721
0
658
0
11,725
0
38
5
0
556
319
0
3
8,350
113,519
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF EXITS OF BUSINESS PERSONS FROM U.S.A. AND CANADA. INM FORM FMN
JANUARY-JULY 2003
REGIONAL DELEGATION
FEDERAL DISTRICT
EUA
51,359
CANADÁ
2,543
TOTAL
53,902
PERCEN-
47.5
CHIHUAHUA
12,859
497
13,356
11.8
TAMAULIPAS
11,067
658
11,725
10.3
6,839
135
6,974
6.1
BAJA CALIFORNIA
NUEVO LEÓN
OTHERS
TOTAL
INM's CATEGORY
5,997
648
6,645
5.9
17,048
3,869
20,917
18.4
105,169
8,350
113,519
100.0
EUA
CANADÁ
TOTAL
OTHERS
TAGE
18.4%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
6.1%
TAMAULIPAS
10.3%
PERCENTAGE
91,112
5,158
96,270
84.8
Merchants investors
3,906
811
4,717
4.2
Professional
7,465
1,339
8,804
7.8
2,686
1,042
3,728
3.3
47.5%
5.9%
CHIHUAHUA
11.8%
1,042
1,339
CANADÁ
Business visitors
FEDERAL DISTRICT
NUEVO LEÓN
811
5,158
2,686
7,465
TOTAL
105,169
8,350
113,519
100.0
EUA
3,906
91,112
Business visitors
Merchants investors
Professional
SOURCE: INM
80
SOUTH KOREA
NETHERLANDS
5
4
20
0
6
1
2
8
45
497
13
146
34
26
63
1,436
16
21
15
305
7,102
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
CAMPECHE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHIAPAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
321
662
450
1,138
354
88
113
27
50
160
232
22
111
50
419
4,197
COAHUILA
2
184
52
85
92
49
16
4
24
44
153
2
6
3
147
863
COLIMA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4,391
9,009
8,065
520
5,271
5,830
4,722
4,408
3,526
2,576
322
1,485
1,041
1,012
8,891
61,069
CHIHUAHUA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
CHILE
FRANCE
TOTAL
4
392
OTHERS
36
3,642
SUIZA
338
183
SUECIA
SPAIN
15
191
ITALY
13
619
BRAZIL
0
BAJA CALIFORNIA
JAPAN
AGUASCALIENTES
NATIONALITY
GERMANY
ARGENTINA
GREAT BRITAIN
R.L.D. IN USA. CAN.
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF FOREIGNERS: NON IMMIGRANT,
VISITORS, BUSINESS ADVISORS, BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION AND NATIONALITY OR ORIGIN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
2
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
161
GUANAJUATO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GUERRERO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JALISCO
9
486
144
358
546
182
149
87
76
98
132
35
30
43
877
3,252
MICHOACÁN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAYARÍT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,422
702
233
838
473
336
379
158
180
68
218
81
58
57
942
12,145
STATE OF MEXICO
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PUEBLA
0
23
5
0
13
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
49
QUERÉTARO
62
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
77
QUINTANA ROO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
0
64
58
22
55
26
20
0
4
8
1
0
0
3
63
324
SINALOA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SONORA
50
81
29
150
90
21
14
6
60
0
56
23
0
16
217
813
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
295
453
176
1,639
378
75
114
25
42
60
177
9
50
24
477
3,994
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VERACRUZ
20
18
15
2
73
1
11
37
1
8
0
0
1
5
38
230
YUCATÁN
0
5
11
0
24
6
10
3
7
8
1
0
1
0
38
114
ZACATECAS
26
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
13,349
11,894
9,436
8,733
7,797
6,636
5,705
4,796
4,020
3,093
2,734
1,674
1,321
1,237
12,495
94,920
TOTAL ENTRIES
SOURCE: INM
NON IMMIGRANT, VISITORS, BUSINESS ADVISORS
COUNTRY
R.L.D. IN USA CAN. 1/
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
13,349
14.1
11,894
12.5
FRANCE
9,436
9.9
JAPAN
8,733
9.2
GREAT BRITAIN
7,797
8.2
BRAZIL
6,636
7.0
OTHERS
37,075
39.1
TOTAL
94,920
100.0
GERMANY
R.L.D. IN USA CAN. 1/
14.1%
OTHERS
39.1%
GERMANY
12.5%
FRANCE
9.9%
BRAZIL
7.0%
JAPAN
9.2%
GREAT BRITAIN
8.2%
SOURCE: INM
81
SUIZA
SUECIA
9
2
0
4
6
0
1
3
26
353
26
74
6
14
495
15
9
16
9
169
3,398
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
17
CAMPECHE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COAHUILA
67
0
23
51
86
10
15
2
24
31
9
1
3
3
69
394
COLIMA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHIAPAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
370
167
233
196
642
47
67
20
106
124
33
24
19
41
234
2,323
35,715
CHIHUAHUA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
TOTAL
CHILE
7
1,730
OTHERS
SPAIN
245
245
SOUTH KOREA
ARGENTINA
27
82
NETHERLANDS
ITALY
14
380
BRAZIL
0
128
JAPAN
9
BAJA CALIFORNIA
GREAT BRITAIN
FRANCE
AGUASCALIENTES
NATIONALITY
GERMANY
R.L.D. IN USA. CAN.
MIGRATORY CONTROLS OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF FOREIGNERS: NON IMMIGRANT,
VISITORS, BUSINESS ADVISORS, BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION AND NATIONALITY OR ORIGIN
5,370
2,235
4,818
3,489
96
3,346
2,781
2,684
1,112
123
937
996
861
608
6,259
DURANGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
STATE OF MEXICO
11
864
2
11
6
9
3
6
0
15
20
0
0
2
75
1,024
GUANAJUATO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GUERRERO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JALISCO
212
8
61
177
226
64
43
45
21
113
55
11
14
19
303
1,372
MICHOACÁN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NAYARÍT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
306
2,006
114
251
500
149
169
61
35
249
99
20
26
25
409
4,419
OAXACA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PUEBLA
18
2
6
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
34
QUERÉTARO
0
29
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
37
QUINTANA ROO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
34
0
29
29
12
9
6
2
8
9
2
0
3
2
27
172
NUEVO LEÓN
SINALOA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SONORA
66
11
22
51
102
5
10
5
0
52
29
10
9
4
113
489
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
266
198
106
285
692
31
83
14
26
101
13
3
13
45
239
2,115
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VERACRUZ
11
10
21
23
1
0
2
37
1
0
3
0
4
0
36
149
YUCATÁN
4
0
1
5
2
1
5
1
3
0
6
0
0
0
17
45
ZACATECAS
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
7
6,873
5,910
5,532
4,844
4,345
3,704
3,268
2,886
1,350
1,335
1,228
1,074
969
761
7,984
52,063
TOTAL ENTRIES
SOURCE: INM
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GERMANY
6,873
13.2
R.L.D. IN USA. CAN.
5,910
11.4
FRANCE
5,532
10.6
GRATE BRITAIN
4,844
9.3
JAPAN
4,345
8.3
COUNTRY
3,704
7.1
OTHERS
20,855
40.1
TOTAL
52,063
100.0
BRAZIL
GERMANY
13.2%
OTHERS
40.1%
R.L.D. IN USA. CAN.
11.4%
FRANCE
10.6%
BRAZIL
7.1%
JAPAN
8.3%
GRATE BRITAIN
9.3%
82
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF FOREIGNERS, NON-IMMIGRANTS,
VISITORS AND BUSINESS ADVISORS BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
REGIONAL DELEGATION
JANUARY-JULY 2002
AGUASCALIENTES
278
353
27.0
BAJA CALIFORNIA
4,231
3,398
(19.7)
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
1
17
-
CAMPECHE
0
0
-
COAHUILA
521
394
(24.4)
COLIMA
0
0
-
CHIAPAS
0
0
-
CHIHUAHUA
2,475
2,323
(6.1)
FEDERAL DISTRICT
33,926
35,715
5.3
0
0
-
154
1024
-
GUANAJUATO
0
0
-
GUERRERO
0
0
-
HIDALGO
0
0
-
JALISCO
1,783
1,372
(23.1)
MICHOACÁN
0
0
-
MORELOS
0
0
-
NAYARÍT
0
0
-
8,609
4,419
(48.7)
-
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
0
0
PUEBLA
16
34
-
QUERÉTARO
48
37
(22.9)
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
0
0
-
208
172
(17.3)
SINALOA
0
0
-
SONORA
503
489
(2.8)
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
0
0
-
2,514
2,115
(15.9)
TLAXCALA
0
0
-
VERACRUZ
159
149
(6.3)
YUCATÁN
75
26
45
7
(40.0)
(73.1)
55,527
52,063
(6.2)
ZACATECAS
TOTAL
SOURCE: INM
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF TEMPORARY ENTRIES OF FOREIGNERS, NON-IMMIGRANTS,
VISITORS AND BUSINESS ADVISORS BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
DELEGATION
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
PERCENTAGE
FEDERAL DISTRICT
35,715
68.6
NUEVO LEÓN
4,419
8.5
BAJA CALIFORNIA
3,398
6.5
CHIHUAHUA
2,323
4.5
TAMAULIPAS
2,115
4.1
OTHERS
4,093
7.8
TOTAL
52,063
100.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
68.6%
OTRAS
7.8%
TAMAULIPAS
4.1%
NUEVO LEÓN
8.5%
CHIHUAHUA
4.5%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
6.5%
SOURCE: INM
83
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES OF BORDER VISITORS FROM
BELIZE THROUGH QUINTANA ROO
2002 AND JANUARY-JULY 2003
MONTH
2002
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
JANUARY-JULY 2003
66,175
30,278
47,101
30,099
81,156
34,588
38,969
35,623
30,558
37,963
27,541
36,882
30,599
34,834
1/
33,196
SEPTEMBER
30,674
OCTOBER
32,720
NOVEMBER
37,118
DECEMBER
36,221
TOTAL
492,028
240,267
SOURCE: Puente Subteniente López en Quintana Roo.
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES OF BORDER VISITORS FROM
BELIZE THROUGH QUINTANA ROO
2002 AND JANUARY-JULY 2003
36,221
37,118
32,720
30,674
33,196
34,834
30,599
36,882
27,541
37,963
30,558
35,623
38,969
34,588
81,156
30,099
47,101
30,278
66,175
2002
SOURCE: INM
84
V
Migratory Control II
DOCUMENTS OF ENTRY USED BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS
JAN-JUL
2002
DOCUMENTS USED
JAN-JUL
1/
2003
2002/2003
Foreigners
7,715,899
8,545,576
10.8
Documents issued at points of entry
7,677,866
8,501,574
10.7
Foreign Tourist (FMT)
4,506,930
4,738,278
5.1
Seaport Visitors (FMVLM)
2,888,572
3,480,858
20.5
Business Visitors (FMN)
174,906
181,470
3.8
Transmigrants (FM6)
51,931
48,905
(5.8)
Business Executives (FMVC)
55,527
52,063
(6.2)
11,258
13,562
20.5
9,870
9,531
(3.4)
Documents issued in migratory offices and Mexican consulates
Documents Issued (FM3/FM2)
1,388
4,031
190.4
Documents issued at border gates
Entries (FM3)
26,775
30,440
13.7
Farm workers Visitors (FMVA)
23,772
28,423
19.6
1,677
1,323
(21.1)
694
(47.7)
Provisional Visitors
Local Border Visitor (FMVLF)
1,326
Nationals
Nationals residing in Mexico (FME)
Nationals residing abroad (FME)
Total
1,903,790
1,720,103
1,227,500
1,257,030
(9.6)
2.4
676,290
463,073
(31.5)
9,619,689
10,265,679
6.7
DOCUMENTS USED AT ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS
MIGRATORY
FORMS
JAN-JUL
2002
JAN-JUL
2003 1/
2001/2002
FMT
4,506,930
4,738,278
5.1
FMVLM
2,888,572
3,480,858
20.5
FME
1,903,790
1,720,103
(9.6)
FMN
174,906
181,470
3.8
FME
FM6
51,931
48,905
(5.8)
FMVLM
2.7
FMT
JAN- JUL 2002 / 2003
2.7
Others Forms
Others Forms
Total
93,560
96,065
9,619,689
10,265,679
4,506,930
(5.8)
FM6
3.8
FMN
(20.0)
6.7
(9.6)
20.5
5.1
(15.0)
(10.0)
(5.0)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
4,738,278
2,888,572
3,480,858
1,903,790
1,720,103
174,906
FMT
FMVLM
FME
2002
181,470
FMN
51,931
FM6
48,905
93,560
96,065
Others Forms
2003 1/
85
DOCUMENTS USED BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS AT POINTS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
INM DELEGATION
JAN-JUL
JAN-JUL
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE, JAN-JUL
2002
2003 1/
2002/2003
AGUASCALIENTES
16,987
18,106
6.6
BAJA CALIFORNIA
316,454
385,958
22.0
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
512,680
591,553
15.4
CAMPECHE
8,388
8,831
5.3
CHIAPAS
62,388
65,809
5.5
CHIHUAHUA
98,619
97,788
(0.8)
COAHUILA
40,161
40,412
0.6
COLIMA
55,554
64,788
16.6
FEDERAL DISTRICT
1,626,845
1,663,799
2.3
DURANGO
10,055
9,498
(5.5)
STATE OF MEXICO
10,300
10,899
5.8
GUANAJUATO
65,645
77,400
17.9
GUERRERO
(9.7)
302,446
273,126
HIDALGO
13
0
-
JALISCO
917,387
942,457
2.7
MICHOACÁN
44,622
43,976
(1.4)
MORELOS
93
0
-
NAYARIT
0
0
-
NUEVO LEÓN
128,267
143,765
12.1
OAXACA
52,112
60,458
16.0
PUEBLA
663
564
(14.9)
(7.9)
QUERÉTARO
1,259
1,160
3,879,910
4,487,179
15.7
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
10,209
8,945
(12.4)
SINALOA
356,887
390,806
9.5
SONORA
459,509
213,862
(53.5)
QUINTANA ROO
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
5,852
9,985
70.6
415,382
388,930
(6.4)
TLAXCALA
0
0
-
VERACRUZ
49,696
65,456
31.7
YUCATÁN
141,672
159,560
12.6
ZACATECAS
29,634
40,609
37.0
9,619,689
10,265,679
6.7
TOTAL
DOCUMENTS USED BY NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS AT POINTS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
JAN-JUL
INM DELEGATION
2003 1/
PERCENTAGE
QUINTANA ROO
4,487,179
43.7
FEDERAL DISTRICT
1,663,799
16.2
JALISCO
942,457
9.2
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
591,553
5.8
SINALOA
390,806
3.8
OTHERS
TOTAL
2,189,885
21.3
10,265,679
100.0
OTHERS
21.3%
QUINTANA ROO
43.7%
SINALOA
3.8%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
16.2%
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
5.8%
JALISCO
9.2%
86
APPLICATIONS BY MIGRATORY REGULARIZATION BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
MARCH-OCTOBER 2001
REGIONAL DELEGATION
APPLICATIONS
SUBMITTED
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED
APPLICATIONS
DENIED
APPLICATIONS
PENDING
16
461
55
122
1,971
157
55
31
758
20
40
51
59
58
483
15
391
43
102
1,730
88
30
22
555
16
39
36
49
58
404
1
0
10
0
2
0
4
0
19
0
1
0
1
0
18
\
70
2
20
239
69
21
9
184
4
0
15
9
0
61
38
69
28
135
42
94
25
519
60
63
89
43
685
27
141
91
12
29
42
18
55
22
9
20
496
25
51
63
19
252
25
43
40
11
1
5
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
108
1
0
40
0
8
22
9
79
19
85
4
20
35
12
26
23
325
1
98
11
1
6,498
4,798
219
1,481
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL
SOURCE: INM Regional Delegation
APPLICATIONS BY MIGRATORY REGULARIZATION BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
MARCH-OCTOBER 2001
APPLICATIONS
APPLICATIONS
APPLICATIONS
REGIONAL DELEGATION
SUBMITED
APPROVED
DENIED
CHIAPAS
APPLICATIONS
PENDING
1,971
1,730
2
239
FEDERAL DISTRICT
758
555
19
184
TAMAULIPAS
685
252
108
325
QUINTANA ROO
519
496
3
20
JALISCO
483
404
18
61
OTHERS
2,082
1,361
69
652
TOTAL
6,498
4,798
219
1,481
1,730
1,361
555
2
108
19
239
184
CHIAPAS
FEDERAL DISTRICT
TAMAULIPAS
APPLICATIONS APPROVED
Applications
Approved
Denied
Pending
Total
Cantidad
4,798
325
252
496
QUINTANA ROO
APPLICATIONS DENIED
Percentage
73.8
219
3.4
1,481
22.8
6,498
100.0
3
20
18
404
61
JALISCO
69
652
OTHERS
APPLICATIONS PENDING
Pending
22.8%
Denied
3.4%
Approved
73.8%
87
ENTRY APPLICATIONS AUTHORIZED
PERIOD
APPLICATIONS AUTHORIZED
1998
4,476
1999
4,341
2000
3,866
2001
3,993
4,928
2002
JAN-JULIO DE 2003
1_/
4,031
25,635
ACUMULADO 1998 - JAN - JUL OF 2003
STATUS OF “INMIGRADO” GRANTED BY INM
1989 - 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
JAN-JUN
2002
JAN-JUN
2003 1_/
8,280
1,048
2,101
2,944
1,172
1,665
1,035
1,315
1,854
1,011
919
United States
n.d.
176
311
472
205
316
153
169
299
140
174
Spain
n.d.
159
249
353
145
223
155
123
151
71
88
Germany
n.d.
82
87
174
67
108
83
61
100
54
59
Colombia
n.d.
37
78
119
47
55
28
42
92
52
48
Chile
n.d.
16
63
93
34
47
28
47
89
75
18
Cuba
n.d.
6
12
30
11
16
14
25
86
34
49
Argentina
n.d.
52
128
235
47
93
71
84
84
54
35
Others
n.d.
520
1,173
1,468
616
807
503
764
953
531
448
NATIONALITY
Status of "inmigrado" issued
S0URCE: INM Regional Delegations
STATUS OF “INMIGRADO” GRANTED BY INM BY NATIONALITY
JANUARY-JUNE OF 2003
NATIONALITY
TOTAL
1995-2003
PERCENTAGE
United States
2,275
16.2
Spain
1,646
11.7
Germany
821
5.8
Colombia
546
3.9
Chile
435
3.1
Cuba
249
1.8
Argentina
829
5.9
Others
7,252
51.6
Total
14,053
100.0
Others
51.6%
Argentina
5.9%
Cuba
1.8%
United States
16.2%
Chile
3.1%
Spain
11.7%
Colombia
3.9%
Germany
5.8%
S0URCE: INM Regional Delegations
88
PERMITS TO LOCAL VISITORS
JANUARY-JULY 2003
BORDER GATE
QUINTANA ROO
CHIAPAS
1_/
2_/
TOTAL
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
105
77
139
142
19
0
179
661
0
6
7
2
10
8
0
33
105
83
146
144
29
8
179
694
FOREIGNERS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER MEXICO AS REFUGEES
2002
NATIONALITY
JAN-MAR
APR-JUN
JUL-SEP
OCT-DEC
TOTAL
2002
2003
ACUMULADO
JAN-JUL
JAN-JUL
2002 - 2003
CONGOLESE
COLUMBIAN
HUNDURIAN
IRAQI
NIGERIAN
BENGALI
GHANES
GUATEMALAN
YUGOSLAVIAN
ETHIOPIAN
ALBANES
ECUATORIAN
0
1
0
2
3
1
2
5
0
8
0
5
13
8
4
17
0
1
0
0
1
1
7
8
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
TOTAL
0
16
0
10
26
16
19
45
SOURCE: INM
NATURALIZATION SUGGESTIONS (SUBMITTED BY INM TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
JANUARY-JULY 2003
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
NAT. SUGGESTIONS
425
392
157
513
317
129
399
2,332
Total
425
392
157
513
317
129
399
2,332
2000
2001
2002
2003 1_/
ENE-JUN
NATURALIZED GUATEMALANS
2,520
490
23
68
MENS
1,214
208
9
30
WOMENS
1,306
282
14
38
DESCRIPTION
SOURCE: INM’s Legal Office
NATURALIZED GUATEMALANS
DESCRIPTION
SOURCE: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
89
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALITY
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
BRASIL
222
269
ECUADOR
42
94
140
97
225
356
170
243
197
101
106
123
161
130
171
120
227
9
37
2,192
32.1
141
139
99
1,427
GUATEMALA
28
29
30
25
36
40
29
48
20.9
31
16
77
107
496
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
19
35
24
34
30
23
46
7.3
39
20
20
22
38
350
HONDURAS
6
13
11
10
8
11
5.1
0
28
12
6
103
93
301
PERÚ
3
20
16
14
37
4.4
19
31
24
12
41
9
39
265
CHINA
22
5
20
17
3.9
12
10
18
48
29
17
9
38
245
EL SALVADOR
4
6
14
3.6
19
14
13
4
6
6
5
50
65
206
COSTA RICA
9
9
3.0
27
9
8
1
23
38
32
31
2
3
192
COLOMBIA
3
2.8
12
22
6
23
9
9
7
22
15
10
14
152
VENEZUELA
2.2
16
5
8
8
9
7
7
9
14
21
4
6
114
1.7
ARGENTINA
2
3
5
3
11
3
14
14
10
22
8
5
100
1.5
UNITED STATES
2
4
1
9
15
4
12
8
11
9
10
10
95
1.4
CUBA
9
9
1
11
2
2
11
12
7
14
2
4
84
1.2
POLONIA
1
1
0
6
14
4
13
11
11
6
1
1
69
1.0
BOLIVIA
3
8
2
11
2
3
10
6
2
12
2
3
64
0.9
CHILE
5
2
6
2
2
7
1
5
10
3
0
0
43
0.6
HUNGRIA
0
1
7
5
3
4
0
0
2
0
3
0
25
0.4
INDIA
13
0
6
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
24
0.4
OTHERS
46
36
19
24
27
27
40
28
32
47
18
34
378
5.5
TOTAL
455
561
460
416
603
704
568
745
583
653
478
596
6,822
100.0
(PERCENTAGES)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
BRASIL
2,192
32.1
ECUADOR
1,427
20.9
GUATEMALA
496
7.3
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
350
5.1
HONDURAS
301
4.4
265
3.9
OTHERS
1,791
26.3
TOTAL
6,822
100.0
PERÚ
OTHERS
26.3%
BRASIL
32.1%
PERÚ
3.9%
HONDURAS
4.4%
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
5.1%
GUATEMALA
7.3%
ECUADOR
20.9%
90
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
AGUASCALIENTES
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.0
BAJA CALIFORNIA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
CAMPECHE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
CHIAPAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
CHIHUAHUA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
COAHUILA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
COLIMA
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
2
16
0.2
347
480
382
323
526
631
497
675
518
552
425
515
5,871
86.1
DURANGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
STATE OF MEXICO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
GUANAJUATO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
GUERRERO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
HIDALGO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
JALISCO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
MICHOACÁN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
NAYARIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
NUEVO LEÓN
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
OAXACA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
PUEBLA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
QUERÉTARO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
87
59
57
78
52
38
71
64
58
92
53
79
788
11.6
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
SINALOA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
SONORA
10
7
18
5
19
29
0
2
5
2
0
0
97
1.4
TABASCO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
11
9
3
8
6
1
0
3
2
1
0
0
44
0.6
TLAXCALA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
VERACRUZ
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.0
YUCATÁN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
ZACATECAS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
455
561
460
416
603
704
568
745
583
653
478
596
6,822
100.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
QUINTANA ROO
TAMAULIPAS
TOTAL
DENIALS OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY REGIONAL DELEGATION\
(PERCENTAGES)
REGIONAL DISTRICT
FEDERAL DISTRICT
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
FEDERAL DISTRICT
86.1%
5,871
86.1
788
11.6
SONORA
97
1.4
TAMAULIPAS
44
0.6
OTHERS
22
0.3
QUINTANA ROO
OTHERS
0.3%
QUINTANA ROO
TAMAULIPAS
TOTAL
6,822
100.0
0.6%
SONORA
11.6%
1.4%
91
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
BRASIL
ECUADOR
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
64
158
160
73
213
682
366
1,716
39.3
497
11.4
313
7.2
256
5.9
248
5.7
234
5.4
154
3.5
138
3.2
102
2.3
88
2.0
76
1.7
71
1.6
67
1.5
52
1.2
47
1.1
24
0.6
22
0.5
16
0.4
92
COSTA RICA
87
20
47
12
42
34
65
19
102
77
89
70
54
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
39
16
48
32
40
41
40
GUATEMALA
26
45
34
14
21
55
53
CHINA
36
VENEZUELA
26
15
33
36
16
38
16
5
48
28
11
37
43
HONDURAS
4
18
4
13
10
29
60
PERÚ
6
15
18
11
16
24
12
COLOMBIA
18
ARGENTINA
16
7
CUBA
5
8
EL SALVADOR
CHILE
POLONIA
OTHERS
TOTAL
17
5
15
11
8
17
9
6
21
19
2
7
12
17
22
1
10
10
5
7
12
11
2
8
1
6
6
13
0
2
1
1
GREEK
12
10
7
0
BOLIVIA
4
5
0
BELICE
19
4
1
UNITED STATES
5
11
1
3
3
0
9
9
0
1
1
0
3
10
0
7
0
2
4
0
7
1
1
15
0.3
37
19
29
30
24
43
43
225
5.2
392
469
509
322
584
1,206
879
4,361
100.0
(PERCENTAGES)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
BRASIL
ECUADOR
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
1,716
39.3
497
11.4
COSTA RICA
313
7.2
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
256
5.9
GUATEMALA
248
5.7
CHINA
OTHERS
TOTAL
234
5.4
1,097
25.1
4,361
100.0
OTHERS
25.1%
BRASIL
39.3%
CHINA
5.4%
GUATEMALA
5.7%
COSTA RICA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
7.2%
ECUADOR
11.4%
5.9%
92
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
TOTAL
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
297
0
6
387
0
0
394
0
0
213
0
0
506
0
0
1,087
0
0
749
0
9
0.2
3,633
83.3
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
0
0
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88
0
0
42
0
0.0
0
0.0
3
0.1
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
392
469
509
322
584
1,206
0
0.0
552
12.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
162
3.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
879
4,361
100.0
(PERCENTAGES)
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
3,633
83.3
QUINTANA ROO
552
12.7
SONORA
162
3.7
9
0.2
FEDERAL DISTRICT
COLIMA
5
OTHERS
4,361
TOTAL
0.1
100.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
83.3%
QUINTANA ROO
12.7%
OTHERS
0.1%
COLIMA
0.2%
SONORA
3.7%
93
DETENTIONS OF FOREIGNERS BY NATIONALITY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
4,606
5,088
5,593
7,168
7,321
6,558
6,220
5,641
5,646
5,175
4,827
3,493
67,336
48.8
HONDURAS
2,788
3,364
3,716
4,416
4,286
3,835
4,318
3,679
3,667
3,246
2,602
1,884
41,801
30.3
EL SALVADOR
1,193
1,438
1,691
1,867
2,112
1,876
2,306
2,142
1,989
1,754
1,382
1,050
20,800
15.1
ECUADOR
58
503
56
68
595
45
39
42
62
100
346
505
2,419
1.8
NICARAGUA
69
100
106
121
347
143
138
107
177
105
93
103
1,609
1.2
BRASIL
26
44
52
66
130
51
155
119
17
44
61
78
843
0.6
UNITED STATES
62
50
57
57
82
58
61
55
30
38
49
43
642
0.5
CUBA
21
9
12
15
15
30
16
15
22
23
41
35
254
0.2
HOLANDA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
191
231
0.2
PERÚ
6
4
19
22
19
28
7
22
5
13
25
57
227
0.2
COLOMBIA
14
9
12
18
15
11
17
19
27
14
24
21
201
0.1
CHINA
3
3
3
2
2
5
14
16
0
1
58
59
166
0.1
BELICE
14
12
6
13
12
10
31
19
5
13
2
14
151
0.1
COSTA RICA
3
18
10
22
18
15
10
6
3
6
13
5
129
0.1
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
7
9
10
13
3
14
4
9
1
10
23
18
121
0.1
INDIA
15
3
23
4
2
3
3
0
0
0
10
10
73
0.1
ARGENTINA
6
8
2
4
8
3
7
2
4
7
10
7
68
0.0
RUMANIA
2
23
3
4
5
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
45
0.0
VENEZUELA
0
6
3
3
1
1
3
5
7
6
9
1
45
0.0
OTHERS
75
31
69
47
67
98
61
55
119
52
111
115
900
0.7
8,968
10,722
11,443
13,930
15,040
12,784
13,415
11,996
11,781
10,607
9,686
7,689
138,061
100.0
TOTAL
DETENTIONS OF FOREIGNERS BY NATIONALITY
(PERCENTAGES)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
67,336
48.8
HONDURAS
41,801
30.3
EL SALVADOR
20,800
15.1
ECUADOR
2,419
1.8
NICARAGUA
1,609
1.2
BRASIL
OTHERS
TOTAL
843
0.6
3,253
2.4
138,061
100.0
HONDURAS
30.3%
GUATEMALA
48.8%
EL SALVADOR
15.1%
ECUADOR
1.8%
OTHERS
2.4%
BRASIL
0.6%
NICARAGUA
1.2%
94
DETENTIONS OF FOREIGNERS BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
AGUASCALIENTES
2
1
26
2
17
11
2
0
11
3
2
0
77
0.1
BAJA CALIFORNIA
84
83
110
119
167
123
119
109
190
105
105
90
1,404
1.0
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
7
3
0
2
1
4
4
2
3
1
0
1
28
0.0
CAMPECHE
64
165
72
110
72
73
154
104
123
37
77
31
1,082
0.8
4,378
4,799
4,458
6,338
6,836
5,945
6,423
5,013
5,554
4,382
3,611
2,958
60,695
44.0
CHIHUAHUA
87
223
185
223
317
196
360
466
317
362
228
114
3,078
2.2
COAHUILA
66
54
103
113
131
164
88
68
113
139
51
28
1,118
0.8
COLIMA
4
0
4
2
3
0
2
4
2
3
1
4
29
0.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
125
108
174
304
227
159
226
150
133
22
907
875
3,410
2.5
DURANGO
54
36
19
95
107
70
39
38
79
20
36
13
606
0.4
STATE OF MEXICO
25
22
26
17
9
9
45
187
128
138
259
302
1,167
0.8
GUANAJUATO
4
38
20
32
52
78
24
61
15
21
47
21
413
0.3
GUERRERO
1
5
6
8
3
9
2
1
20
22
9
3
89
0.1
HIDALGO
263
341
443
303
116
314
158
77
11
205
75
69
2,375
1.7
JALISCO
15
92
64
37
144
95
81
202
136
130
81
105
1,182
0.9
MICHOACÁN
5
9
1
3
6
1
4
2
3
4
3
0
41
0.0
MORELOS
5
1
2
0
1
2
6
9
0
0
0
1
27
0.0
NAYARIT
5
14
39
19
24
11
17
21
2
0
10
2
164
0.1
NUEVO LEÓN
175
62
68
94
89
199
121
74
56
48
83
42
1,111
0.8
OAXACA
874
985
1,392
1,720
1,736
1,208
1,321
1,161
1,033
1,226
1,035
611
14,302
10.4
CHIAPAS
PUEBLA
24
17
73
67
102
93
96
59
96
60
71
12
770
0.6
QUERÉTARO
208
359
421
396
340
375
342
371
180
215
221
194
3,622
2.6
QUINTANA ROO
112
166
100
101
247
139
171
116
118
95
71
90
1,526
1.1
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
119
112
65
82
79
140
84
136
115
222
140
112
1,406
1.0
SINALOA
148
85
84
115
134
88
111
107
59
174
97
119
1,321
1.0
SONORA
97
146
106
203
233
228
211
287
113
94
163
47
1,928
1.4
TABASCO
742
1,249
1,352
1,511
1,656
1,503
1,515
1,256
1,298
1,282
930
678
14,972
10.8
TAMAULIPAS
159
308
405
566
657
515
490
503
327
315
230
283
4,758
3.4
TLAXCALA
75
176
433
211
39
3
31
1
61
40
44
1
1,115
0.8
VERACRUZ
948
1,019
1,176
1,072
1,459
979
1,139
1,385
1,432
1,156
1,031
832
13,628
9.9
YUCATÁN
14
38
11
20
14
40
16
26
30
24
12
15
260
0.2
ZACATECAS
79
6
5
45
22
10
13
0
23
62
56
36
357
0.3
8,968
10,722
11,443
13,930
15,040
12,784
13,415
11,996
11,781
10,607
9,686
7,689
138,061
100.0
TOTAL
DETENTIONS OF FOREIGNERS BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
(PERCENTAGES)
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
CHIAPAS
60,695
44.0
TABASCO
14,972
10.8
OAXACA
14,302
10.4
VERACRUZ
13,628
9.9
OTHERS
34,464
25.0
138,061
100.0
TOTAL
OTHERS
25.0%
VERACRUZ
9.9%
CHIAPAS
44.0%
OAXACA
10.4%
TABASCO
10.8%
95
DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS BY NATIONALITY
JANAURY - JULY OF 2003
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
5,564
6,942
6,860
5,653
8,685
8,636
7,987
50,327
45.9
HONDURAS
3,134
4,783
5,587
3,586
6,868
6,338
5,807
36,103
33.0
EL SALVADOR
1,783
2,390
2,567
1,824
3,101
2,839
2,644
17,148
15.7
152
137
236
132
211
177
238
1,283
1.2
BRASIL
61
126
188
56
278
127
184
1,020
0.9
ECUADOR
41
99
35
103
167
90
270
805
0.7
UNITED STATES
70
40
62
44
62
55
70
403
0.4
CUBA
26
25
35
59
36
40
55
276
0.3
CHINA
39
36
15
6
56
28
5
185
0.2
PERÚ
24
17
26
15
8
44
33
167
0.2
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
25
21
23
12
25
24
13
143
0.1
COLOMBIA
16
15
27
16
29
12
26
141
0.1
BOLIVIA
0
11
43
7
17
4
54
136
0.1
COSTA RICA
2
3
5
6
37
32
29
114
0.1
ARGENTINA
9
21
16
8
23
10
24
111
0.1
BELICE
17
19
16
6
13
25
15
111
0.1
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
0
4
0
0
11
0
83
98
0.1
VENEZUELA
6
3
10
12
22
12
17
82
0.1
SOUTH KOREA
8
1
7
3
18
31
10
78
0.1
107
184
112
76
111
99
114
803
0.7
11,084
14,877
15,870
11,624
19,778
18,623
17,678
109,534
100.0
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
NICARAGUA
OTHERS
TOTAL
DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS BY NATIONALITY
(PERCENTAGES)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
50,327
45.9
HONDURAS
36,103
33.0
EL SALVADOR
17,148
15.7
NICARAGUA
1,283
1.2
BRASIL
1,020
0.9
805
0.7
2,848
2.6
109,534
100.0
ECUADOR
OTHERS
TOTAL
HONDURAS
33.0%
GUATEMALA
45.9%
EL SALVADOR
15.7%
OTHERS
2.6%
ECUADOR
0.7%
BRASIL
0.9%
NICARAGUA
1.2%
96
DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
JAN
AGUASCALIENTES
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
150
0.1
947
0.9
33
0.0
ZACATECAS
10
76
3
8
4,876
332
92
0
708
64
367
63
29
217
137
0
1
18
47
1,124
15
289
105
128
72
48
674
239
104
1,204
34
0
16
138
2
95
5,415
211
101
0
2,365
145
634
58
13
272
133
9
9
20
81
1,082
175
369
96
195
113
142
1,296
279
274
1,121
13
5
39
171
2
63
5,527
321
210
1
3,264
194
445
69
3
181
157
4
3
83
90
1,244
49
272
124
252
145
271
517
338
116
1,706
5
4
7
85
1
50
4,288
168
128
1
2,368
93
12
30
3
206
48
2
5
8
64
843
53
154
82
270
66
100
1,026
323
124
959
11
46
26
172
2
79
7,368
243
126
1
4,348
158
30
107
16
503
92
11
16
120
67
880
119
325
184
460
166
430
1,894
421
111
1,201
36
66
32
123
2
40
7,454
256
133
1
3,854
193
368
53
28
573
254
0
2
8
162
583
74
111
179
256
98
246
1,715
425
114
1,135
25
126
20
182
21
23
7,626
300
117
0
3,388
84
26
193
10
137
52
7
3
14
113
749
102
194
132
352
141
337
1,639
361
142
1,053
20
140
TOTAL
11,084
14,877
15,870
11,624
19,778
18,623
17,678
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
358
0.3
42,554
38.9
1,831
1.7
907
0.8
4
0.0
20,295
18.5
931
0.8
1,882
1.7
573
0.5
102
0.1
2,089
1.9
873
0.8
33
0.0
39
0.0
271
0.2
624
0.6
6,505
5.9
587
0.5
1,714
1.6
902
0.8
1,913
1.7
801
0.7
1,574
1.4
8,761
8.0
2,386
2.2
985
0.9
8,379
7.6
144
0.1
387
0.4
109,534
100.0
DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
(PERCENTAGES)
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
CHIAPAS
42,554
38.9
FEDERAL DISTRICT
20,295
18.5
TABASCO
8,761
8.0
VERACRUZ
8,379
7.6
29,545
27.0
109,534
100.0
OTHERS
TOTAL
CHIAPAS
38.9%
OTHERS
27.0%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
18.5%
VERACRUZ
7.6%
TABASCO
8.0%
97
FOREIGNER RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY NATIONALITY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
3,883
4,015
4,623
5,783
6,153
5,426
5,058
4,321
4,713
4,086
3,831
2,728
54,620
49.4
HONDURAS
2,261
2,575
2,991
3,471
3,269
3,074
3,592
2,951
3,074
2,729
1,884
1,479
33,350
30.2
EL SALVADOR
1,065
1,233
1,428
1,540
1,693
1,474
1,923
1,602
1,692
1,361
973
818
16,802
15.2
ECUADOR
67
512
64
19
600
78
26
23
65
43
132
426
2,055
1.9
NICARAGUA
54
90
97
113
330
133
125
91
134
93
77
59
1,396
1.3
BRAZIL
20
37
52
97
144
61
113
159
46
11
7
53
800
0.7
UNITED STATES
23
15
39
31
27
32
20
13
19
6
7
12
244
0.2
PERÚ
3
3
10
26
36
37
16
24
26
9
9
39
238
0.2
COLOMBIA
5
11
6
19
27
13
5
6
14
21
10
11
148
0.1
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
6
6
7
17
20
14
3
9
7
6
8
16
119
0.1
COSTA RICA
7
15
5
13
17
28
8
9
4
5
2
3
116
0.1
BELICE
4
4
5
12
2
5
25
7
1
8
1
5
79
0.1
HOLANDA
0
76
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
77
0.1
CHINA
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
9
12
0
10
33
75
0.1
CUBA
4
3
3
12
4
4
10
5
9
3
5
12
74
0.1
ARGENTINA
2
0
0
1
2
2
3
5
2
11
3
0
31
0.0
RUMANIA
1
4
0
14
7
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
31
0.0
MALASIA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
1
22
0.0
POLAND
0
0
0
7
7
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
20
0.0
OTHERS
26
25
24
14
26
16
38
24
24
13
23
23
276
7,431
8,624
9,354
11,189
12,375
10,398
10,969
9,261
9,864
8,405
6,983
5,720
TOTAL
0.2
110,573
100.0
FOREIGNER RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY NATIONALITY
JANUARY - DECEMBER 2002
(PERCENTAGES)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
GUATEMALA
TOTAL
54,620
PERCENTAGE
49.4
HONDURAS
30.2%
GUAT EM AL A
49.4%
HONDURAS
33,350
30.2
EL SALVADOR
16,802
15.2
ECUADOR
2,055
1.9
NICARAGUA
1,396
1.3
EL SAL VADOR
OT HERS
BRAZIL
800
15.2%
1.4%
ECUADOR
1.9%
0.7
BRAZ IL
OTHERS
TOTAL
1,550
1.4
110,573
100.0
0.7%
NICARAGUA
1.3%
98
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
AGUASCALIENTES
2
1
26
2
17
11
2
0
11
3
2
0
77
0.1
BAJA CALIFORNIA
49
54
84
85
101
92
43
70
116
79
31
56
860
0.8
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
7
3
0
1
1
4
4
1
3
1
0
1
26
0.0
CAMPECHE
32
18
35
19
32
12
115
69
102
9
34
0
477
0.4
4,276
4,721
4,478
6,247
6,783
5,994
6,430
5,015
5,584
4,556
3,773
3,078
60,935
55.1
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
COAHUILA
64
54
92
108
119
155
85
1
107
122
46
27
980
0.9
COLIMA
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
104
361
559
584
892
569
531
579
566
184
425
515
5,869
5.3
DURANGO
52
35
18
94
107
70
38
38
79
20
31
13
595
0.5
STATE OF MEXICO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
GUANAJUATO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
GUERRERO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
HIDALGO
222
341
443
303
116
314
158
77
11
203
75
0
2,263
2.0
JALISCO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
MICHOACÁN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
MORELOS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
NAYARIT
5
14
39
19
24
11
17
21
2
0
10
0
162
0.1
NUEVO LEÓN
144
93
49
74
89
204
112
53
53
37
73
24
1,005
0.9
OAXACA
378
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
378
0.3
PUEBLA
0
0
50
41
0
0
51
36
28
17
37
0
260
0.2
QUERÉTARO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
QUINTANA ROO
70
127
60
96
174
86
152
93
81
87
40
58
1,124
1.0
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
57
34
59
16
0
25
48
0
8
204
111
78
640
0.6
SINALOA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
SONORA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
TABASCO
780
1,319
1,390
1,599
1,691
1,340
1,551
1,319
1,329
1,340
982
710
15,350
13.9
TAMAULIPAS
102
249
378
594
661
508
473
504
327
310
244
283
4,633
4.2
TLAXCALA
34
176
433
211
39
2
31
1
61
40
44
1
1,073
1.0
VERACRUZ
968
987
1,154
1,040
1,497
963
1,120
1,361
1,372
1,176
1,012
867
13,517
12.2
YUCATÁN
11
36
7
13
7
30
8
23
24
16
6
9
190
0.2
ZACATECAS
74
1
0
43
22
8
0
0
0
1
7
0
156
0.1
7,431
8,624
9,354
11,189
12,375
10,398
10,969
9,261
9,864
8,405
6,983
5,720
110,573
100.0
TOTAL
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
(PERCENTAGES)
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
CHIAPAS
60,935
55.1
TABASCO
15,350
13.9
VERACRUZ
13,517
12.2
5,869
5.3
14,902
13.5
110,573
100.0
FEDERAL DISTRICT
OTHERS
TOTAL
OTHERS
13.5%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
5.3%
VERACRUZ
12.2%
TABASCO
13.9%
CHIAPAS
55.1%
99
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY NATIONALITY
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
5,187
6,128
6,631
5,179
8,435
8,437
7,626
47,623
46.9
HONDURAS
2,898
3,779
5,491
3,394
6,646
6,209
5,662
34,079
33.6
2,733
16,579
16.3
212
1,190
1.2
0.5
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
EL SALVADOR
1,737
NICARAGUA
138
2,009
2,514
130
225
1,680
120
3,033
204
2,873
161
BRAZIL
27
24
106
42
80
123
118
520
ECUADOR
31
41
29
48
81
52
140
422
0.4
21
119
0.1
32
86
0.1
0.1
UNITED STATES
25
PERÚ
9
5
14
11
7
15
10
19
16
16
5
COLOMBIA
7
5
10
20
12
8
23
85
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
10
11
4
21
12
8
12
78
0.1
20
72
0.1
10
70
0.1
0.1
CHINA
6
BELICE
5
15
4
11
14
14
4
20
3
6
10
BOLIVIA
0
4
15
11
6
5
27
68
COSTA RICA
0
2
3
1
8
25
15
54
0.1
0
47
0.0
10
43
0.0
0.0
HONG KONG
0
ARGENTINA
0
1
47
14
3
0
2
0
0
4
9
VENEZUELA
6
0
1
8
13
7
5
40
HOLANDA
0
1
0
0
0
0
30
31
0.0
4
30
0.0
0.2
100.0
ITALY
0
OTHERS
TOTAL
12
12
1
1
0
29
32
19
29
30
44
39
222
10,122
12,228
15,149
10,599
18,626
17,995
16,739
101,458
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY NATIONALITY
(PERCENTAGES)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
47,623
46.9
HONDURAS
34,079
33.6
EL SALVADOR
16,579
16.3
1,190
1.2
BRAZIL
520
0.5
ECUADOR
422
0.4
1,045
1.0
101,458
100.0
NICARAGUA
OTHERS
TOTAL
GUATEMALA
46.9%
HONDURAS
33.6%
OTHERS
1.0%
EL SALVADOR
16.3%
ECUADOR
0.4%
BRAZIL
0.5%
NICARAGUA
1.2%
100
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY REGIONAL
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
16
42
2
33
5,045
189
91
0
542
145
633
53
0
271
112
9
7
28
69
1,079
0
369
93
124
112
170
1,359
313
273
1,045
3
1
39
34
2
32
5,479
239
190
0
2,877
194
443
66
0
180
148
4
3
83
124
1,234
0
272
83
210
140
268
513
460
113
1,713
3
3
7
37
1
0
4,038
154
116
1
2,063
93
12
29
0
206
42
2
5
8
73
838
0
151
72
213
66
98
829
321
127
938
13
46
26
75
2
32
7,326
200
106
0
3,803
158
5
106
12
498
77
11
13
120
67
878
0
322
123
447
158
346
1,933
422
111
1,160
26
63
32
48
2
0
7,412
224
120
1
3,550
193
364
50
25
571
248
0
2
8
140
582
32
110
136
257
92
205
1,764
431
114
1,144
13
125
20
58
21
0
7,570
247
104
0
3,073
84
25
193
7
137
40
7
2
14
117
662
0
194
123
316
130
276
1,669
345
142
1,011
12
140
150
0.1
334
0.3
31
0.0
ZACATECAS
10
40
1
0
4,520
287
82
0
282
64
366
61
0
216
126
0
0
12
40
1,121
0
289
81
119
72
45
729
238
104
1,188
29
0
TOTAL
10,122
12,228
15,149
10,599
18,626
17,995
16,739
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
CAMPECHE
CHIAPAS
CHIHUAHUA
COAHUILA
COLIMA
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEÓN
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
97
0.1
41,390
40.8
1,540
1.5
809
0.8
2
0.0
16,190
16.0
931
0.9
1,848
1.8
558
0.5
44
0.0
2,079
2.0
793
0.8
33
0.0
32
0.0
273
0.3
630
0.6
6,394
6.3
32
0.0
1,707
1.7
711
0.7
1,686
1.7
770
0.8
1,408
1.4
8,796
8.7
2,530
2.5
984
1.0
8,199
8.1
99
0.1
378
0.4
101,458
100.0
FOREIGNERS RETURNED TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY REGIONAL
(PERCENTAGES)
REGIONAL
DELEGATIONS
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
CHIAPAS
41,390
40.8
FEDERAL DISTRICT
16,190
16.0
TABASCO
8,796
8.7
VERACRUZ
8,199
8.1
26,883
26.5
OTHERS
TOTAL
101,458
100.0
OTHERS
26.5%
VERACRUZ
8.1%
CHIAPAS
40.8%
TABASCO
8.7%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
16.0%
101
MIGRANTS PROTECTION – BETA GROUPS ACTIONS OF PROTECTION
BAJA CALIFORNIA
ACTIONS OF PROTECTION
SONORA
CHIHUAHUA COAHUILA TAMAULIPAS VERACRUZ
CHIAPAS
TABASCO
TOTAL
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
TIJUANA
TECATE
MEXICALI
NOGALES
SASABE
A. PRIETA
CD. JÚAREZ
P. NEGRAS
MATAMOROS
ACAYUCAN
TAPACHULA
COMITÁN
TABASCO
1 TYPE OF ACTION
1.1 Migrants rescued from dangerous
situation
64
304
0
744
534
330
0
55
216
8
1
47
7
2,310
1.2
Attention to migrants found hurt
6
9
0
62
23
5
3
43
29
44
68
48
15
355
1.3
Migrants found while lost
7
2
1
18
12
8
0
41
8
0
1
6
0
104
1.4
Social assistance to migrants
2,324
993
1,834
6,378
9,430
1,439
4,241
2,858
2,191
204
1,065
655
518
34,130
1.5
Legal assistance to migrants
110
1,280
23
2
0
2
0
1
20
20
182
70
32
1,742
1.6
Migrants rescued from criminals
20
107
8
12
140
435
0
3
71
46
105
20
0
967
1.7
Migrants advised
52,579
2,539
2,876
15,582
179,259
13,144
5,530
12,117
10,105
7,715
20,785
11,402
3,642
337,275
11,241
2,093
2,591
4,190
4,835
2,366
3,441
11,569
6,941
1,182
3,107
4,828
1,775
60,159
13,534
1,955
440
0
22,566
3,162
3,441
0
6,941
86
5,586
4,691
1,731
64,133
4
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
4
80
0
6
0
122
17,389
0
0
16,623
0
15
3
7,334
649
0
304
138
105
42,560
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
11
1
2
17
1.8 Migrants rights chartered delivered and
explained
1.9 Printed guide for migrants delivered and
explained
1.10 Warning signs repaired
1.11 Migrants returned by U.S. authorities
1.12 Migrants seriously accidented
2 LEGAL ASSISTANCE
2.1
Complaints Responded
2.2 Legal assistance for filing complaints with
judicial authorities
2.3 Legal Defense of migrants on violations
to the General Law of Population
2.4 Legal Defense of migrants on violations to
other federal laws
2.5 Legal Defense of migrants on violations to
other laws
2.6 Legal Defense of migrants on
administrative cases
2.7 Persons detained and taken to judicial
authorities (federal)
2.8 Persons detained and taken to judicial
authorities (state)
2.9 Persons detained and taken to
administrative authorities
2.10 Minors taken to minor courts (consejo
tutelary de menores)
1
3
4
2
66
2
7
0
2
17
17
52
9
182
21
1
5
8
20
1
0
3
19
7
77
8
4
174
1
24
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
34
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
12
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
91
6
3
108
35
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
40
3
22
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
38
0
68
1
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
9
46
8
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
1,504
521
2,588
3,554
1,244
1,014
389
629
2,136
366
3,620
496
553
18,614
28
0
1
58
0
5
1
0
3
4
0
0
7
107
3 FIELD OPERATIONS
3.1
Patrolling actions
3.2
Support to other institutions
3.3
Joint actions with federal authorities
4
0
2
4
0
12
1
2
9
20
0
133
110
297
3.4
Joint actions with state authorities
3
0
0
1
0
14
0
3
5
71
0
61
45
203
3.5
Joint actions with municipal authorities
26
0
3
2
0
14
1
11
21
12
0
19
142
251
3.6
Joint actions with foreign authorities
13
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
212
0
0
19
22
271
4 MIGRANTS DEATHS
1_/
4.1
Mexican migrants deaths on the U.S.
0
0
7
0
0
29
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
40
4.2
Mexican migrants deaths on Guatemala
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
4.3
Mexican migrants death on Belize
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
4
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
7
8
14
34
4.4 Migrants death on the Mexican northern
border
4.5 Migrants death on the Mexican southern
border
SOURCE: Grupos Beta de Protección a Migrantes.
102
MIGRANTS PROTECTION – BETA GROUPS ACTIONS OF PROTECTION
ACTIONS OF PROTECTION
JAN - JUL
JAN - JUL
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE JAN - JUL
2002
2003 *
2002/2003 *
1 TYPE OF ACTION
29.1
1.1
Migrants rescued from dangerous situation
1,789
2,310
1.2
Attention to migrants found hurt
312
355
13.8
1.3
Migrants found while lost
207
104
(49.8)
1.4
Social assistance to migrants
20,890
34,130
63.4
1.5
Legal assistance to migrants
2,597
1,742
(32.9)
1.6
Migrants rescued from criminals
(34.0)
1.7
Migrants advised
1.8
1.9
1,466
967
166,997
337,275
-
Migrants rights chartered delivered and explained
75,175
60,159
(20.0)
Printed guide for migrants delivered and explained
39,971
64,133
60.4
85
122
43.5
37,896
N.D.
42,560
12.3
17
-
1.10 Warning signs repaired
1.11 Migrants returned by U.S. authorities
1.12 Migrants seriously accidented
2 LEGAL ASSISTANCE
2.1
Complaints Responded
179
182
1.7
2.2
Legal assistance for filing complaints with judicial authorities
304
174
(42.8)
2.3
Legal Defense of migrants on violations to the General Law of Population
75
34
(54.7)
2.4
Legal Defense of migrants on violations to other federal laws
9
12
33.3
2.5
Legal Defense of migrants on violations to other laws
100
108
8.0
2.6
Legal Defense of migrants on administrative cases
579
40
(93.1)
2.7
Persons detained and taken to judicial authorities (federal)
89
68
(23.6)
2.8
Persons detained and taken to judicial authorities (state)
27
9
(66.7)
2.9
Persons detained and taken to administrative authorities
554
59
(89.4)
9
7
(22.2)
2.10 Minors taken to minor courts (consejo tutelary de menores)
3 FIELD OPERATIONS
3.1
Patrolling actions
35,580
18,614
(47.7)
3.2
Support to other institutions
299
107
(64.2)
3.3
Joint actions with federal authorities
207
297
43.5
3.4
Joint actions with state authorities
160
203
26.9
3.5
Joint actions with municipal authorities
187
251
34.2
3.6
Joint actions with foreign authorities
262
271
3.4
4 MIGRANTS DEATHS
1_/
4.1
Mexican migrants deaths on the U.S.
46
40
(13.0)
4.2
Mexican migrants deaths on Guatemala
3
4
-
4.3
Mexican migrants death on Belize
0
0
-
4.4
Migrants death on the Mexican northern border
12
19
58.3
4.5
Migrants death on the Mexican southern border
46
34
(26.1)
SOURCE: Grupos Beta de Protección a Migrantes.
103
DELIVERED TO INM AT THE BORDER
MONTHLY 2002
DELEGATION
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
%
COAHUILA
2,841
3,460
3,976
4,439
1,855
1,300
995
1,164
1,191
760
294
448
22,723
3.9
CD. ACUÑA, COAH.
689
1,200
459
1,957
543
419
379
529
572
430
118
169
7,464
2,152
2,260
3,517
2,482
1,312
881
616
635
619
330
176
279
15,259
TAMAULIPAS
6,661
7,383
6,088
5,862
5,634
5,979
4,625
5,513
4,425
3,578
2,978
1,754
60,480
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS.
2,761
2,920
2,169
1,226
1,609
3,012
2,082
2,529
2,016
1,649
1,325
829
24,127
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAH.
MIGUEL ALEMÁN, TAMPS.
REYNOSA, TAMPS.
MATAMOROS, TAMPS.
495
832
695
1,055
456
651
378
389
349
180
110
85
5,675
2,810
2,591
2,933
2,846
3,238
1,793
2,096
2,152
1,965
1,223
1,439
542
25,628
595
1,040
291
735
331
523
69
443
95
526
104
298
5,050
14,192
15,889
19,002
22,111
17,162
16,696
15,118
13,618
12,735
14,657
13,259
10,449
184,888
NOGALES (GARITA 1 Y 3), SON.
2,980
4,984
2,623
5,483
2,784
4,962
2,821
2,096
2,433
3,379
2,393
803
37,741
SN. LUIS RÍO COLORADO, SON.
3,464
2,551
4,305
4,638
3,200
2,810
3,337
2,642
1,922
2,768
1,987
1,607
35,231
AGUA PRIETA, SON.
3,087
3,345
4,675
5,274
5,196
4,294
4,200
4,026
3,760
5,282
6,779
6,634
56,552
382
764
1,500
1,094
1,077
561
753
905
615
518
208
113
8,490
4,279
4,212
5,899
5,569
4,848
3,986
3,974
3,863
3,939
2,658
1,801
1,204
46,232
SONORA
SONOYTA, SON.
NACO, SON.
SÁSABE, SON.
0
33
0
53
57
83
33
86
66
52
91
88
642
4,620
8,352
9,593
10,870
9,652
7,976
6,954
9,576
9,410
7,802
6,301
4,621
95,727
3,840
4,710
5,721
7,513
6,383
5,402
4,545
6,663
6,731
5,699
4,595
3,840
65,642
OJINAGA, CHIH.
197
505
456
675
541
341
339
413
371
304
269
197
4,608
PORFIRIO PARRA, CHIH.
25
119
206
135
91
61
96
100
68
78
98
26
1,103
PUERTO PALOMAS, CHIH.
473
2,324
2,359
2,433
2,435
1,989
1,950
2,331
1,824
1,405
1,163
473
21,159
CHIHUAHUA
CD. JUÁREZ, CHIH.
ZARAGOZA, CHIH.
85
694
851
114
202
183
24
69
416
316
176
85
3,215
17,797
18,720
28,024
25,230
22,124
18,648
12,406
19,921
17,360
16,427
12,359
10,574
219,590
PUERTA MÉXICO, B.C.
4,689
4,369
7,382
6,985
6,015
5,805
0
6,058
4,893
5,182
3,574
4,463
59,415
GARITA, DE OTAY, B.C.
4,104
4,857
7,195
5,506
6,198
5,329
5,484
5,459
4,605
4,051
3,130
2,212
58,130
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9,004
9,494
13,445
12,727
9,909
7,514
6,922
8,404
7,862
7,194
5,655
3,899
102,029
BAJA CALIFORNIA
ALGODONES, B.C.
MEXICALI, B.C.
TECATE, B.C.
0
0
2
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
TOTAL
46,111
53,804
66,683
68,512
56,427
50,599
40,098
49,792
45,121
43,224
35,191
27,846
583,408
%
7.9
9.2
11.4
11.7
9.7
8.7
6.9
8.5
7.7
7.4
6.0
4.8
10.4
31.7
16.4
37.6
100.0
EVENTS OF MIGRANTS RETURNED TO MEXICO BY U.S. AUTHORITIES AND DELIVERED TO INM AT THE BORDER, BY INM DELEGATION
JANUARY-DECEMBER, 2002
DELEGATION
BAJA CALIFORNIA
2002
PERCENTAGE
219,590
37.6
COAHUILA
22,723
3.9
CHIHUAHUA
95,727
16.4
CHIHUAHUA
184,888
31.7
COAHUILA
60,480
10.4
583,408
100.0
SONORA
TAMAULIPAS
TOTAL
60,480
TAMAULIPAS
184,888
SONORA
95,727
22,723
219,590
BAJA CALIFORNIA
SONORA
31.7%
CHIHUAHUA
16.4%
COAHUILA
3.9%
TAMAULIPAS
10.4%
BAJA CALIFORNIA
37.6%
104
EVENTS OF MIGRANTS RETURNED TO MEXICO BY U.S. AUTHORITIES AND DELIVERED TO INM AT BORDER GATES
DELEGATION
JAN - JUL DE 2002
JAN - JUL DE 2003 *
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE, JAN - JUL 2003/2002
COAHUILA
18,866
9,803
(48.0)
CD. ACUÑA, COAH.
5,646
4,480
(20.7)
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAH.
13,220
5,323
(59.7)
TAMAULIPAS
42,232
25,104
(40.6)
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS.
15,779
13,771
(12.7)
MIGUEL ALEMÁN, TAMPS.
4,562
1,208
(73.5)
REYNOSA, TAMPS.
8,859
1,266
(51.6)
MATAMOROS, TAMPS.
18,307
3,584
SONORA
120,170
135,919
13.1
NOGALES (GARITA 1 Y 3), SON.
26,637
23,613
(11.4)
SN. LUIS RÍO COLORADO, SON.
24,305
26,439
8.8
AGUA PRIETA, SON.
30,071
32,780
9.0
SONOYTA, SON.
6,131
5,038
(17.8)
NACO, SON.
32,767
47,452
44.8
259
597
-
CHIHUAHUA
58,017
51,711
(10.9)
CD. JUÁREZ, CHIH.
38,114
33,617
(11.8)
OJINAGA, CHIH.
3,054
2,925
(4.2)
733
687
-
13,963
13,330
(4.5)
(46.5)
SÁSABE, SON.
PORFIRIO PARRA, CHIH.
PUERTO PALOMAS, CHIH.
(64.7)
ZARAGOZA, CHIH.
2,153
1,152
BAJA CALIFORNIA
142,949
136,276
(4.7)
PUERTA MÉXICO, B.C.
GARITA, DE OTAY, B.C.
ALGODONES, B.C.
MEXICALI, B.C.
TECATE, B.C.
35,245
38,673
2
69,015
14
46,546
34,020
0
55,703
7
32.1
(12.0)
(19.3)
-
TOTAL
382,234
358,813
(6.1)
SUMMARY OF EVENTS OF MIGRANTS RETURNED TO MEXICO BY U.S. AUTHORITIES
JAN - JUL
2002
DELEGATION
BAJA CALIFORNIA
JAN - JUL
2003 *
PERCENTAGE OF
CHANGE
142,949
136,276
(4.7)
COAHUILA
18,866
9,803
(48.0)
CHIHUAHUA
58,017
51,711
(10.9)
SONORA
120,170
135,919
13.1
42,232
25,104
(40.6)
382,234
358,813
(6.1)
142,949
120,170
58,017
18,866
BAJA CALIFORNIA
TAMAULIPAS
135,919
136,276
42,232
25,104
9,803
COAHUILA
JAN - JUL 2002
TOTAL
51,711
CHIHUAHUA
SONORA
TAMAULIPAS
JAN - JUL 2003 *
105
EVENTS OF MIGRANTS RETURNED TO MEXICO BY U.S. AUTHORITIES AND DELIVERED TO INM AUTHORITIES
JANUARY-JULY 2003
INM DELEGATION
COAHUILA
GENDER AND AGE
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
WOMEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL COAHUILA
TAMAULIPAS
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL TAMAULIPAS
SONORA
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL SONORA
CHIHUAHUA
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL CHIHUAHUA
BAJA CALIFORNIA
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL GENERAL
2003
TOTAL
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
1,372
107
164
32
1,680
101
207
22
1,560
61
189
17
1,020
46
133
10
1,387
104
161
15
574
39
85
13
557
62
65
20
8,150
1,675
2,010
1,827
1,209
1,667
711
704
9,803
3,447
431
70
21
3,054
325
77
12
3,976
353
51
24
3,568
408
86
25
2,748
331
75
19
2,212
210
63
26
3,003
399
63
27
22,008
3,969
3,468
4,404
4,087
3,173
2,511
3,492
25,104
10,551
2,677
2,127
1,039
13,795
2,947
1,923
824
11,546
2,449
1,910
993
14,358
2,672
1,806
919
16,481
3,411
1,786
823
13,896
3,169
1,836
851
13,839
3,666
2,521
1,104
94,466
16,394
19,489
16,898
19,755
22,501
19,752
21,130
135,919
6,147
1,055
514
187
7,013
1,122
508
175
6,231
818
422
2,066
5,542
649
328
165
5,153
684
454
178
4,480
630
326
139
5,092
854
496
283
39,658
7,903
8,818
9,537
6,684
6,469
5,575
6,725
51,711
18,908
3,161
369
227
19,633
2,958
302
142
19,819
2,819
314
131
13,426
1,773
237
117
15,204
2,433
199
121
13,300
1,960
305
146
15,160
2,612
332
168
115,450
22,665
23,035
23,083
15,553
17,957
15,711
18,272
136,276
40,425
7,431
3,244
1,506
45,175
7,453
3,017
1,175
43,132
6,500
2,886
3,231
37,914
5,548
2,590
1,236
40,973
6,963
2,675
1,156
34,462
6,008
2,615
1,175
37,651
7,593
3,477
1,602
279,732
52,606
56,820
55,749
47,288
51,767
44,260
50,323
358,813
520
1,004
129
2,457
485
154
20,991
13,909
6,553
5,812
3,048
3,193
17,716
2,058
1,052
47,496
20,504
11,081
EVENTS OF MIGRANTS RETURNED TO MEXICO BY U.S. AUTHORITIES AND DELIVERED
TO INM AUTHORITIES, BY INM DELEGATION AND AGE AND GENDER
JANUARY-JULY 2003
INM DELEGATION
COAHUILA
GENDER AND AGE
JAN - JUL
2002
JAN - JUL
2003 *
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE,
JAN - JUL, 2002 / 2003 *
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
16,174
904
1,623
165
8,150
520
1,004
129
(49.6)
18,866
9,803
(48.0)
36,850
4,154
886
342
22,008
2,457
485
154
(40.3)
42,232
25,104
(40.6)
83,159
18,558
12,529
5,924
94,466
20,991
13,909
6,553
13.6
120,170
135,919
13.1
48,876
5,347
2,718
1,076
39,658
5,812
3,048
3,193
(18.9)
196.7
TOTAL COAHUILA
TAMAULIPAS
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL TAMAULIPAS
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
SONORA
TOTAL SONORA
CHIHUAHUA
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL CHIHUAHUA
BAJA CALIFORNIA
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL
MEN OLDER THAN 18
WOMEN OLDER THAN 18
MEN YOUNGER THAN 18
TOTAL GENERAL
(42.5)
(38.1)
(21.8)
(40.9)
(45.3)
(55.0)
13.1
11.0
10.6
8.7
12.1
58,017
51,711
(10.9)
123,239
17,675
1,403
632
115,450
17,716
2,058
1,052
(6.3)
0.2
46.7
66.5
142,949
136,276
(4.7)
308,298
46,638
19,159
8,139
279,732
(9.3)
382,234
47,496
1.8
20,504
7.0
11,081
36.1
358,813
(6.1)
106
VII
Mexican Minors Smuggled into the US and then delivered into INM Authorities
Through the US Border City’s Mexican Consulate**
*
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
1
DOUGLAS
dou00060 del
9/01/03
2
DOUGLAS
3
DOUGLAS
4
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
January
1/8/2003
Natalia del Carmen
Gonzalez Mendoza
dou00082 del
13/01/03
January
1/12/2003
dou00082del
13/01/02
January
1/12/2003
DOUGLAS
January
1/14/2003
5
DOUGLAS
January
1/14/2003
6
DOUGLAS
January
1/15/2003
Darene Torres Montañes
7
DOUGLAS
January
1/15/2003
MONTH
DATE
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
INCIDENTS DESCRIPTION
F
4m
Puebla
Two U.S. citizens tried to smuggle into the U.S. a Mexican minor as
a U.S. citizen. In this case, charges were brought against the
smugglers. They were sent to Tucson where they were enditted.
Juan Manuel Sánchez
Valdez
F
14
Michoacán
Mrs. Telma Zermeño, U.S. citizen with residence in the city of
Fresno, Ca. tried to smuggle two brothers, she claimed the boy to
be her nephew and the girl to be her daughter, using forged birth
certificates. She was left detained by U.S. authorities under
charges of smuggling minors.
Ana Delia Sánchez Valdez
F
9
Michoacán
Mrs. Telma Zermeño, U.S. citizen with residence in the city of
Fresno, Ca. tried to smuggle two brothers, she claimed the boy to
be her nephew and the girl to be her daughter, using forged birth
certificates. She was left detained by U.S. authorities under
charges of smuggling minors.
M
7
Jalisco
M
6
Jalisco
F
6
Guerrero
Marco Antonio Torres
Montañes
M
5
Guerrero
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
DOUGLAS
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
Santos Alberto Martínes
Palacios
Juan Adrian Martínez
Placios
Maria Castillo, U.S. legal resident (minors’ mothers cousin) tried to
smuggle the minors.
Maria Castillo, U.S. legal resident (minors’ mothers cousin) tried to
smuggle the minors.
Johnny Marcelino Gonzalez, U.S. citizen tried to smuggle two
brothers. Charges brought by U.S. authorities.
Johnny Marcelino Gonzalez, U.S. citizen tried to smuggle two
brothers. Charges brought by U.S. authorities.
8
DOUGLAS
dou0103 del
20/01/03
January
1/17/2003
Héctor Yahir Rivera Franco
M
4
Karla Alissa Brown, U.S. citizen (with residence in Douglas) tried to
Estado de México smuggle two brothers using false birth certificates of other U.S.
minors.
9
DOUGLAS
dou0103 del
20/01/03
January
1/17/2003
Arelí Jazmín Franco
F
1
Karla Alissa Brown, U.S. citizen (with residence in Douglas) tried to
Estado de México smuggle two brothers using false birth certificates of other U.S.
minors.
10
DOUGLAS
dou0103 del
20/01/03
January
1/18/2003
José Alberto Gonzaléz
Morales
M
6m
Jalisco
Veronica Villa, U.S. citizen (with residence in Douglas) tried to
smuggle two brothers with false birth certificates belonging to other
U.S. minors (she took the fifth).
11
DOUGLAS
dou0103 del
20/01/03
January
1/18/2003
María Fernanda González
Morales
F
6
D.F
Veronica Villa, U.S. citizen (with residence in Douglas) tried to
smuggle two brothers with false birth certificates belonging to other
U.S. minors (she took the fifth).
12
DOUGLAS
January
1/22/2003
Alma Lucia Rivera García
F
12
D.F
Yolanda Azucena Vargas Chacon, Mexican citizen resident in the
city of Auga Prieta, tried to smuggle a minor. Her U.S. laser visa
was cancelled.
13
DOUGLAS
dou00121 del 24
de enero de 2003
January
1/24/2003
Kevin Huerta Prieto
M
6
Andrea Urquidez, U.S. citizen with residence in Phoenix, tried to
smuggle two minors. She was detained in order to be transferred to
Estado de México Tucson to face charges of smuggling minors.
14
DOUGLAS
dou00121 del 24
de enero de 2003
January
1/24/2003
Eric Huerta Prieto
M
4
Andrea Urquidez, U.S. citizen with residence in Phoenix, tried to
smuggle two minors. She was detained in order to be transferred to
Estado de México Tucson to face charges of smuggling minors.
15
DOUGLAS
dou00121 del 24
de enero de 2003
January
1/24/2003
Victoria Reyes Campuzano
F
17
Morelos
Mr. Domingo Arzate, Mexican citizen with residence in the city of
Auga Prieta, tried to smuggle in his car a minor girl with a false U.S.
laser visa. Both were detained and their documents confiscated.
*
Minors nationality was determined after the incident
Mexican consulate in a US border city who was involved in the incidents, since the minors were smuggled into the US
prior to be delivered to INM authorities.
**
107
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
16
DOUGLAS
dou00121 del 24
de enero de 2003
January
1/24/2003
Miriam Montes Pérez
F
10
Peral Lee, U.S. citizen age 16, tried to smuggle a minor as a U.S.
Estado de México citizen. U.S. authorities released her because she was a minor.
17
DOUGLAS
dou00136 del
29/01/03
January
1/27/2003
Jessica Ortiz Flores
F
17
Peral Lee, U.S. citizen age 16, tried to smuggle a minor as a U.S.
Estado de México citizen. U.S. authorities released her because she was a minor.
18
DOUGLAS
dou00136 del
29/01/03
January
1/27/2003
Gerardo Ortiz Flores
M
3
Felipe de Jesus Garcia Esquer and his wife Ester Garcia, both
residence of the city of Auga Prieta, tried to smuggle two minors as
Estado de México U.S. citizen. There U.S. laser visa’s were cancelled.
19
DOUGLAS
February
2/6/2003
Jorge Piza Pano
M
6
Guerrero
20
DOUGLAS
February
2/6/2003
Ana Laura Durán Guzmán
F
3
D.F
February
2/18/2003
María del Carmén Reyes
Romero
F
1 año y
medio
Baja California
dou00268 del
20/02/03
Manuela Alamillo, U.S. citizen with residence in Phoenix, tried to
smuggle two minors (no details available).
Manuela Alamillo, U.S. citizen with residence in Phoenix, tried to
smuggle two minors (no details available).
Chrystal Valencia, U.S. citizen age 13 tried to smuggle a girl with a
false U.S. birth certificate. No charges were brought because the
smuggler was a minor.
21
DOUGLAS
22
DOUGLAS
February
2/22/2003
Juan Valentín Rosales
Alvarado
M
13
Durango
Juana Alvarado Gonzalez, Mexican citizen, resident of the city of
Naco, tried to smuggle three brothers. Her U.S. laser visa was
confiscated.
23
DOUGLAS
February
2/22/2003
Josefina Rosales Alvarado
F
11
Durango
confiscated.
24
DOUGLAS
February
2/22/2003
Barbara Rosales Alvarado
F
9
Durango
confiscated.
25
DOUGLAS
dou00289 del
25/02/03
February
2/24/2003
Jorge Andres Gutiérrez
Villalobos
M
11m
D.F
Yara Rubi Perez, U.S. citizen, with residence in the city of Douglas
tried to smuggle a minor as a U.S. citizen. No charges. No further
details.
26
DOUGLAS
dou00293 del
26/02/03
February
2/25/2003
Martín Villa Holguin
Vasquez
M
3
Chihuahua
Maria Raquel Villa Vazquez, U.S. citizen, tried to smuggle a minor
with a false U.S. birth certificate INM brought charges against the
smuggler.
27
DOUGLAS
dou00360 del
07/03/03
March
01/03/2003 y el
07/03/2003
Elizabeth Olmedo
Hernández
F
9
Guanajuato
Two brothers were attempted to be smuggled for a second time.
First time the smuggler was Fernando Robles, a U.S. citizen with
residence in Tucson. Second the smuggler was Lisbeth Lara, U.S.
citizen. No further details.
28
DOUGLAS
dou00360 del
07/03/03
March
01/03/2003 y el
07/03/2003
Luis Fernando Olmedo
Hernández
M
10
Guanajuato
Two brothers were attempted to be smuggled for a second time.
First time the smuggler was Fernando Robles, a U.S. citizen with
residence in Tucson. Second the smuggler was Lisbeth Lara, U.S.
citizen. No further details.
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2003
30
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2004
31
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2005
32
DOUGLAS
29
33
DOUGLAS
34
DOUGLAS
35
DOUGLAS
36
DOUGLAS
37
DOUGLAS
38
DOUGLAS
39
DOUGLAS
40
DOUGLAS
dou00400
del17/03/03
dou00416del
20/03/03
dou00416del
20/03/03
dou439 del
27/03/2003
dou447 del
31/03/2003
dou447 del
31/03/2004
dou447 del
31/03/2003
dou513 del
09/04/2003
March
Fernando Robles, tried to smuggle three minors. No further details.
3/1/2003
Itzel Domíguez Zertuche
F
12
Edo. Mex
March
3/12/2003
José Alberto Benavides
Murillo
M
5
Nayarit
Christin and Dottie Mendez Leon, U.S. citizens with residence in
Phoenix, tried to smuggle two brothers. No charges.
March
3/12/2003
Fernanda Kareny
Benavides Murillo
M
3
Nayarit
Christin and Dottie Mendez Leon, U.S. citizens with residence in
Phoenix, tried to smuggle two brothers. No charges.
March
3/12/2003
Gloria Hernández de León
F
14
Chiapas
March
15/03/20003
Fernando Estrada Vera
M
7
Se desconoce
March
3/19/2003
Lizbeth Arroyo González
F
10
Morelos
March
3/19/2003
Zuriel Arroyo González
M
8
Morelos
March
3/27/2003
Carlos Alejandro
Villanueva Echeverría
M
7
Colima
March
3/28/2003
Selena Meyo Cielo
F
9
Puebla
March
3/28/2003
Exi Alonso Tecaxco
F
5
Puebla
March
3/28/2003
Aly Alonso Tecaxco
M
7
Puebla
April
4/3/2003
Marisol Jaramillo López
F
10
Edo. Mex
Martina Guadalupe, Mexican citizen, tried to smuggle a minor. Her
U.S. laser visa was cancelled.
Eileen Veronica Bonillas, age 13, resident of Douglas, tried to
smuggle a minor. No charges.
Lorena Sanchez, U.S. citizen, resident of Douglas, tried to smuggle
two brothers. She took the fifth.
Lorena Sanchez, U.S. citizen, resident of Douglas, tried to smuggle
two brothers. She took the fifth.
Ricardo Zuno Estrada, tried to smuggle a minor. He claimed his
mother was in Agua Prieta city. The minor was transferred to DIF
authorities.
Zulma Moreno, U.S. citizen, tried to smuggle three minors. No
charges.
charges.
charges.
Magdalena Olivas and Adirana Montesdioca, U.S. citizens with
residence in Douglas, tried to smuggle a minor. No charges.
108
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
41
DOUGLAS
dou506
08/04/2003
April
4/7/2003
Elizabeth Juárez Gomez
F
9
Michoacán
Jesus Gomez Avila, U.S. citizen with residence in Douglas and
Maria Perez, Mexican citizen, tried to smuggle two minors, her U.S.
laser visa was cancelled. No further details.
42
DOUGLAS
dou506 DEL
08/04/2004
April
07/04!2003
Christían Elias Bendimea
Alvarez
M
11
D.F
Jesus Gomez Avila, U.S. citizen with residence in Douglas and
Maria Perez, Mexican citizen, tried to smuggle two minors, her U.S.
laser visa was cancelled. No further details.
43
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2006
April
4/11/2003
Lucero Maleni Tlaczany
F
12
Morelos
Altagracia Castillo Lopez and her daughter Maria de Jesus Grijalva,
both Mexican citizens and residence of the city of Agua Prieta, tried
to smuggle three brothers. Charges were brought against both and
they were sent to Tucson.
44
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2007
April
4/11/2003
Roberto Carlos Tlaczany
Dominguez
F
8
Morelos
45
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2008
April
4/11/2003
Jacciri Tlacazny
Dominguez
F
6
Morelos
46
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2009
April
4/26/2003
Hugo Enrique Espino
Pinedo
M
12
Guerrero
Marisela Rojas Jimenez, U.S. legal resident and Romelia Rojas
Castro, U.S. citizen, tried to smuggle three minors. Charges were
brought against both women.
47
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2010
April
4/26/2003
Vanessa Espino Pinedo
F
10
Guerrero
48
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2011
April
4/26/2003
Leodan Espino Pineda
M
3
Michoacán
49
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2012
April
4/27/2003
Cinthia Zobeida Villegas
Barreras
F
10
Sinaloa
Marisela Gavina and Leticia Cardenas, both U.S. citizens,
residence of Pheonix, tried to smuggle three brothers. Charges
were brought against both women.
50
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2013
April
4/27/2003
Delia Sujey Villegas
Barreras
F
8
Sonora
51
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2014
abril
4/27/2003
Brenda Villegas Barrera
F
11
Sinaloa
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
Sharon Patridia Louise and Melissa Felix, both U.S. citizens, tried to
smuggle a minor. Charges were brought against both.
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2015
April
4/27/2003
Jair Omar López Ríos
M
11m
Sonora
53
DOUGLAS
dou654 del
12/05/2017
April
4/28/2003
Eunice Teutla Ortiz
F
12
Guerrero
54
DOUGLAS
dou630 del
7/05/2002
May
5/6/2003
Dulce Basurto Arce
F
1
Guerrero
Ester Burgess Leon, U.S. citizen, resident of Tucson, tried to
smuggle a minor. Charges were brought against her.
Dense Cecilia Camacho, U.S. citizen, with residence in Douglas,
tried to smuggle two brothers. Charges were brought against her.
55
DOUGLAS
dou630 del
7/05/2003
May
5/6/2003
Yael Basurto Arce
M
2
Guerrero
Dense Cecilia Camacho, U.S. citizen, with residence in Douglas,
tried to smuggle two brothers. Charges were brought against her.
56
DOUGLAS
DOU668 DEL
16/05/2003
May
5/6/2003
José Roberto Navarrete
Osuna
M
7
Guerrero
Yetta Antone, U.S. citizen, with residence in Phoenix, tried to
smuggle two brothers and another minor. Charges were brought
against her.
57
DOUGLAS
DOU668 DEL
16/05/2004
May
5/6/2003
Ernesto Filadelfo Navarrete
Osuna
M
2
Guerrero
against her.
58
DOUGLAS
May
5/6/2003
Rocío Michelle Godínez
Martínez
F
10
Guerrero
against her.
59
DOUGLAS
dou00643 del
09/05/2003
May
5/9/2003
Lili Denise Martinez
Bañuelos
F
13
Baja California
60
DOUGLAS
dou00643 del
09/05/2003
May
5/9/2003
José Alberto Marínez
Bañuleos
M
5
Baja California
61
DOUGLAS
dou00643 del
09/05/2003
May
5/9/2003
José Alberto Marínez
Bañuleos
M
5
Baja California
52
Noelia Burruel Cariaga, Maria Fernanda Cerrano and Francisco
Mireya Peralta, Mexican citizens, resident of the city of Naco, tried
to smuggle five minors. They were put in jail in the county prison of
Cochis county in Visbee, Arizona.
109
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
62
DOUGLAS
dou00643 del
09/05/2003
May
5/9/2003
Claudio Eduardo Martínez
Bañuelos
M
9
Baja California
63
DOUGLAS
dou00643 del
09/05/2004
May
5/10/2003
Marco Antonio Martínez
Bañuelos
F
5
Baja California
64
DOUGLAS
dou 657 del
13/05/2003
May
5/12/2003
José Manuel Silverio
López
M
4
nd
Dora Irma Salgado, U.S. citizen, was detained by INM authorities
under charges of smuggling a minor. The minor was delivered to
DIF of the city of Agua Prieta.
65
DOUGLAS
dou 657 del
13/05/2004
May
5/12/2003
Raúl Ramírez Ramírez
M
13
Guerrero
Raul Ramirez Ramirez, age 13, was trying to enter U.S. without
documents, with the idea of joining his brother in Los Angeles.
Was caught by INM authorities of Agua Prieta . He was placed
aboard a bus and sent back home.
66
DOUGLAS
dou670 del
20/05/2003
May
5/16/2003
Rey David Cruz Juárez
M
7
Distrito Federal
Cesar Guadalupe Gastelum, was trying to smuggle a minor. Both
were detained. The minor was then delivered to his uncle in the
municipal DIF office.
67
DOUGLAS
dou670 del
20/05/2003
May
5/17/2003
Yamel Itzamara Trejo
García
F
8
Chihuahua
68
DOUGLAS
dou670 del
20/05/2004
May
5/17/2003
Gustavo Rafael Castañeda
Rueda
M
16
Veracruz
The minors who were half brothers and a cousin were smuggled by
two U.S. citizens who were detained with charges. The minors
were sent to their city of origin.
69
DOUGLAS
dou670 del
20/05/2004
May
5/17/2003
Karla Rueda Conde
F
8
Veracruz
70
DOUGLAS
dou670 del
20/05/2004
May
5/17/2003
Damiel Mora Rueda
M
5
Veracruz
DOUGLAS
dou 683 del
21/05/2002
May
5/20/2003
Yuri Sara Gómez Sánchez
F
5
nd
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF.
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
72
DOUGLAS
dou 683 del
21/05/2003
May
5/20/2003
Eileen Montserrat Gómez
Sánchez
´F
2
nd
73
DOUGLAS
dou703 del
26/05/2003
May
5/24/2003
Eduardo Acosta Arana
M
2
Chihuahua
74
DOUGLAS
dou709 del
27/05/2003
May
5/27/2003
Zurysadai Sánchez
Santiago
F
2
Edo. Mex
75
DOUGLAS
dou782 del
11/06/2003
June
6/8/2003
Omar Alvarado Sánchez
M
16
nd
76
DOUGLAS
dou792del
13/06/2003
June
6/12/2003
Juana Gerónimo Cigarroa
F
16
Oaxaca
77
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2003
June
6/12/2003
Jessica Muñoz López
F
10
Michoacán
78
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2003
June
6/12/2003
Juan Carlos Muñoz López
M
8
Michoacán
79
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2004
June
6/12/2003
Daniel Hernández
Hernández
M
4
Oaxaca
Yessenia Franco, U.S. citizen, was trying to smuggle a minor who
was then delivered to DIF of Agua Prieta where the minor was
delivered to his mother.
80
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2005
June
6/15/2003
Héctor Miguel Muñóz
Benítez
M
5
Edo. Mex
Belen Delgado Romero, U.S. citizen, was trying to smuggle four
minors, together with their mother. The smuggler was charged and
delivered to U.S. authorities. The minors and their mother were
sent back to Mexico.
71
Apolonio Marquez Estrada, was trying to smuggle a minor who was
then delivered to her grandmother in the DIF municipal office.
Maria Magdalena Serna, was trying to smuggle two minors
presenting false U.S. birth certificates. The smuggler was detained
and sent to Tucson under charges of smuggling minors. The
minors were delivered to DIF offices of the city of Agua Prieta.
Maria Magdalena Serna, was trying to smuggle two minors
presenting false U.S. birth certificates. The smuggler was detained
and sent to Tucson under charges of smuggling minors. The
minors were delivered to DIF offices of the city of Agua Prieta.
Karla Manuel Arana Karo, was trying to smuggle his son through
the dessert where the two were detained and then delivered to INM
authorities of Agua Prieta.
This is another minor who was attempted to be smuggled by Maria
Magdalena Serna, mentioned above.
This minor tried to jump the border fence, fell down and hurt his
right foot. Was detained by a federal police agent and delivered to
INM who then delivered him to his mother.
Connie Moran and Elsa Moran Lugo, U.S. citizens were detained
smuggling a minor in Douglas. The minor was transported to the
YMCA of the city of Agua Prieta and the smugglers were charged.
Ester Tellez Esparza and Hortencia Angelica Ortiz, were trying to
smuggle two brothers, supposedly on their way to meet their mother
in Utah. Eliazar Lopez, minors uncle was contacted by INM
authorities who then traveled to the border to pick up their nephews.
Ester Tellez Esparza and Hortencia Angelica Ortiz, were trying to
smuggle two brothers, supposedly on their way to meet their mother
in Utah. Eliazar Lopez, minors uncle was contacted by INM
authorities who then traveled to the border to pick up their nephews.
110
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
81
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2005
June
6/15/2003
Efrén David Muñóz
Benítez
M
5
Edo. Mex
82
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2005
June
6/15/2003
Héctor Miguel Muñóz
Benítez
M
2
Edo. Mex
83
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2005
June
6/15/2003
Gabriela Benítez Mendiola
F
4
Distrito Federal
84
DOUGLAS
dou 799 del
17/06/2005
June
6/16/2003
Litzy Janine Leal
Lavandera
F
1
sonora
85
DOUGLAS
dou 847 del
24/06/2003
June
6/23/2003
María Isabel Matlala
Espinoza
F
4
Puebla
86
DOUGLAS
dou 906 del
03/07/2003
July
7/2/2003
Luis Arturo Gallegos
González
m
7
Edo. Mex
DOUGLAS
dou 906 del
03/07/2003
Dora L. Gallego, U.S. citizen was trying to smuggle a minor who
was then delivered to her mother. The smuggler was charged.
Silvia Lerma Valenzuela, was trying to smuggle a minor though
Douglas. She was detained by INM under charges of smuggling a
minor. The minor was transported to DIF of Agua Prieta were she
was delivered to her mother.
Veronica Barundo, U.S. citizen was smuggling a minor that was
detained by U.S. immigration in Douglas. The minors were sent to
INM of Agua Prieta where they were delivered to their mother.
Veronica Barundo, U.S. citizen was smuggling a minor that was
87
July
7/2/2003
Camila Cruz González
F
2
Edo. Mex
detained by U.S. immigration in Douglas. The minors were sent to
INM of Agua Prieta where they were delivered to their mother.
The minor was smuggled by a smuggler (coyote) through the
dessert. When the minor became sick she was abandoned
together with Edgar Solis Ortiz. Both were found by the federal
police and then transported to the city of Naco. The minor was sent
to her city of origin by the Mexican consulate of Douglas.
88
DOUGLAS
dou 925 del
10/07/2003
July
7/9/2003
Adriana de Jesús López
Reynosa
F
16
Chiapas
89
DOUGLAS
dou920 de
8/07/2003
July
7/7/2003
Francisco Javier Ibarra
Sánchez
M
12
Sinaloa
Rosa Maria Leon Lopez, U.S. citizen, was trying to smuggle two
minors. She was charged and the minors delivered to their mother
at Douglas border gate.
90
DOUGLAS
dou920 de
8/07/2004
July
7/7/2003
Jesús Ibarra Sánchez
M
4
Sinaloa
Rosa Maria Leon Lopez, U.S. citizen, was trying to smuggle two
minors. She was charged and the minors delivered to their mother
at Douglas border gate.
91
DOUGLAS
dou947 del
15/07/2003
July
7/12/2003
Victor Domínguez Miranda
M
7
Edo. Mex
Jose Arvisu Romero, U.S. citizen, was trying to smuggle a minor as
his own son. He was suppose to deliver him in a gas station in
Douglas. The smuggler was charged.
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
92
DOUGLAS
dou947 del
15/07/2004
July
7/12/2003
Pedro Daniel Perete
Saturnino
M
5
Edo. Mex
Jennifer Shannon, U.S. citizen, she was caught smuggling two
minors in her car. She was charged and the minors delivered to
INM of Agua Prieta.
93
DOUGLAS
dou947 del
15/07/2006
July
7/12/2003
Yareli Perete Saturnino
F
12
Edo. Mex
Jennifer Shannon, U.S. citizen, she was caught smuggling two
minors in her car. She was charged and the minors delivered to
INM of Agua Prieta.
94
DOUGLAS
dou963 del
18/07/2007
July
7/16/2003
Ana Karen Becerril
Martínez
F
15
hidalgo
95
DOUGLAS
dou963 del
18/07/2008
July
7/16/2003
Jessica Guadalupe
Pachuca Casillas
F
8
Guanajuato
Aracely Barrios, U.S. citizen, was trying to smuggle a minor. The
smuggler was charged and the minor was then delivered to her
sister at the INM offices of Agua Prieta.
Maria Elva Martinez Serrano, was trying to smuggle a minor using
her daughters U.S. visa laser. The minor declared that her parents
were already in the United States and gave a telephone number of
an aunt in the city of Leon. The minor was delivered to DIF officers
of Agua Prieta. The smuggler was charged and her U.S. visa
cancelled.
Veronica Delgado Barriga, was trying to smuggle a minor. She was
accompanied by her children who were then delivered to their
grandmother. The smuggler was charged and the minor smuggled
was delivered to DIF officers of Agua Prieta were he was delivered
to her mother.
96
DOUGLAS
dou 981 del
22/07/2003
July
7/21/2003
Benjamín cisneros Flores
M
8
Puebla
97
DOUGLAS
dou 984 del
22/07/2003
July
7/20/2003
Gloria Alicia Gámez
Aboytia
F
14
Sinaloa
Marcia Andana Quiroz, was trying to smuggle two minors using her
sons U.S. birth certificate. She was charged in Agua Prieta and the
minor was then delivered to his uncle Antelmo Aboita.
98
DOUGLAS
dou 984 del
22/07/2003
July
7/20/2003
Freddy Gámez Aboytia
M
14
Sinaloa
Marcia Andana Quiroz, was trying to smuggle two minors using her
sons U.S. birth certificate. She was charged in Agua Prieta and the
minor was then delivered to his uncle Antelmo Aboita.
99
DOUGLAS
dou1000 del
24/07/2003
July
7/23/2003
Maritza Piloni Ochoa
F
11
Puebla
Araceli La Bandera Lugo, was trying to smuggle a minor who was
delivered to INM officers of Agua Prieta, where the minor was
delivered to her mother. The smuggler was charged and sent to
Tucson and her U.S. visa was cancelled.
111
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
1
NOGALES
nog00209del
10/03/03
March
3/8/2003
Anuar Osiris Diaz Cuevas
2
NOGALES
nog0029 del
10/03/03
March
3/9/2003
3
NOGALES
nog0029 del
10/03/03
March
3/9/2003
NOGALES
nog 598 del
08/07/2003
5
NOGALES
nop 598 del
08/07/2003
July
7/7/2003
Nathali Mejía Barriga
F
6
NOGALES
nog 612 del
11/07/2003
July
7/11/2003
Edgar Ulises fonseca
Paramo
7
NOGALES
nog 612 del
11/07/2003
July
7/11/2003
8
NOGALES
nog 618 del
14/07/2003
July
9
NOGALES
nog 645 del
22/07/2003
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN
U.S.
REF-
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
M
12
Morelos
Jonathan Michel Cruz
Montes
M
8m
Guadalajara
Marlene Jaqueline Cruz
Montes
F
2
Guadalajara
Ms. Deanna Martina, U.S., citizen tried to get an entry for two
brothers saying they were U.S. citizens. No charges were brought
to her.
Michoacan
Ms. Maria Ana Barrete was detained when she was trying to
smuggle into the U.S. two girls of two years and ten months
respectively. The identity of the parents was unknown at the
moment. The girls were left under the custody of the DIF of
Nogales. The girls’ mother showed up afterwards and the girls
were released to her.
10m
Michoacan
Mrs. Maria Ana Barrete was detained when she was trying to
smuggle into the U.S. two girls of two years and ten months
respectively. The identity of the parents was unknown at the
moment. The girls were left under the custody of the DIF of
Nogales. The girls’ mother showed up afterwards and the girls
were released to her.
M
10
Guanajuato
Cinthia elizabeth Fonseca
Paramo
F
2
Guanajuato
7/12/2003
Jonathan Azael Arias
Zavala
M
4
Hidalgo
The minor was smuggled into the U.S. by Mrs. Leonor Mendoza
Acuna with forged documents. The minor was delivered to his
mother by INM of Nogales.
July
7/18/2003
Roberto Vianey Martínez
Hernández
M
13
Edo. Mex
The minor were smuggled into the U.S. by a U.S. resident (name
unknown). The minor was transported to DIF of Nogales and later
on was picked up by his mother.
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
DESCRIPCION DEL INCIDENTE
NOGALES
4
July
7/7/2003
Estherdina Patricio Chavez
F
2
The minor tried to enter the U.S. smuggled by a U.S. citizen, who
was then released by the INM authorities.
Ms. Deanna Martina, U.S., citizen tried to get an entry for two
brothers saying they were U.S. citizens. No charges were brought
to her.
Two minors were smuggled into the U.S. by Mrs. Francisca
Capetillo who was supposed to deliver them to their older sister in a
gas station in Nogales. The minors were transported to INM offices
in order for the minors to be delivered to their families in Mexico
Two minors were smuggled into the U.S. by Mrs. Francisca
Capetillo who was supposed to deliver them to their older sister in a
gas station in Nogales. The minors were transported to INM offices
in order for the minors to be delivered to their families in Mexico.
10
NOGALES
nog 645 del
22/07/2004
July
7/18/2003
Carlos López Tostado
M
11
sinaloa
Three minors were smuggled into the U.S. by a smuggler (pollero).
The minors did not give any information about him apparently under
threat by the smuggler. The minors were transported to DIF of
Nogales.
11
NOGALES
nog 645 del
22/07/2004
July
7/18/2003
Antonio Jesús López
Tostado
M
10
sinaloa
Nogales.
12
NOGALES
nog 645 del
22/07/2005
July
7/18/2003
Patricia Apango Camacho
F
13
Puebla
Nogales.
13
NOGALES
nog 645 del
22/07/2006
July
7/18/2003
Elvia Vázquez Sälinas
F
12
Puebla
The minor was smuggled into the U.S. by a smuggler. They did not
give any information about him. They were transported to DIF
Nogales.
14
NOGALES
nog 665 del
28/07/2003
July
7/26/2003
Carlos Eduardo Moreno
Gómez
M
17
Guanajuato
The minor was smuggled into the U.S. by smugglers. They were
arrested by PIF. The smugglers were sent as detained to INM of
Nogales.
15
NOGALES
nog 733 de
14/08/2003'
August
8/13/2003
Jeisel Antonio Guzmán
Maricha
M
1
desconocido
The minor was smuggled into Mexico by Alejandra Alvarez Aguilar.
He was transported to DIF of Nogales. Next day he was delivered
to his mother.
112
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
F
8
Veracruz
CALEXICO
The minor was transported by Gabriela Corales
1
CALEXICO
cal1979 del 01/07/2003
June
6/18/2003
Odette Mancillas Jalil
2
CALEXICO
cal 2084 del 10/07/2003
July
7/10/2003
María Alejandra Estrella Graneros
F
8
Colima
3
CALEXICO
cal 2084 del 10/07/2003
July
7/10/2003
Cinthia Estrella Graneros
F
6
Colima
4
CALEXICO
cal 2084 del 10/07/2003
July
7/10/2003
Janeet Guadalupe Estrella Graneros
F
12
Colima
5
CALEXICO
cal 2295 del 01/08/2003
July
7/31/2003
Alma Patricia Román Macías
F
16
Jalisco
Perez, U.S. citizen. She was released. The minor
was left in the custody of INM Mexicali
The minors were smuggled by Virginia Alcala and
Jose Marcos Carrillo, who were suppose to
transport them to Avenal, California, where the
minors mother lives. The minors were left in the
custody of INM Mexicali.
The minors were smuggled in the trunk of Norma
Patricia Martinez de Guarnet’s car. She is a U.S.
citizen. The minors were taken to shelter.
6
CALEXICO
cal 2295 del 01/08/2003
July
7/31/2003
José Eduardo Macías Pacheco
M
16
Zacatecas
7
CALEXICO
cal 2295 del 01/08/2003
July
7/31/2003
Roberto Carlos Macías Pacheco
M
7
Zacatecas
MEXICAN
CONSULATE IN U.S.
REF-
MONTH
DATE
MINORS NAME
SEX
AGE
CITY OF ORIGIN
SAN DIEGO
1
SAN DIEGO
sdi1992 del 27/08/2003
August
8/21/2003
Jovelyne Villanueva Ceja
F
9m
unknown
2
SAN DIEGO
sdi1992 del 27/08/2004
August
8/21/2003
Viridiana villanueva Ceja
F
10
unknown
3
SAN DIEGO
sdi1992 del 27/08/2005
August
8/21/2003
Jesús Armando figueroa Avila
M
3
unknown
4
SAN DIEGO
sdi1979
August
8/26/2003
Two minors were to be smuggled by an
American citizen. The baby was administered
medicine to prevent his waking up. Both
minors were sent to a hospital in Chula Vista.
The smuggler was arrested. The minors were
delivered to their parents at the San Ysidro
gate.
The minors were going to be smuggled by an
American citizen. They were delivered to
their parents at the San Ysidro gate.
The minors were going to be smuggled by an
American citizen. They were delivered to
their parents at the San Ysidro gate.
The Mexican consulate in San Diego reported
that 946 Mexican minors were smuggled to
the Untied States by non-related persons.
113
STATISTICS ON CHILDREN’S RECEIVED AND/OR REGISTERED BY INM AND DIF
INM, DIF, and the Mexican Consulates in the United States have been cooperating
mutually to register and provide assistance to the Mexican children returned to Mexico
and delivered to INM by Mexican or US border authorities. These are children who
entered without proper documentation into the United States or were smuggled into the
United States.
First Table consists of a concentration of data on minors’ migratory flow from January
to July of 2003, by location of the Mexican consulate involved.
CONSULATES
CALIFORNIA
CALEXICO
SAN DIEGO
ARIZONA
DOUGLAS
NOGALES
PRESIDIO
TUCSON
YUMA
TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE
DEL RIO
EAGLE PASS
EL PASO
LAREDO
MC. ALLEN
TOTAL
TOTAL NUMBER OF
CHILDREN SERVED
787
1,789
357
1,251
48
44
1,266
787
50
284
915
173
393
8,275
114
STATISTICAL REPORT OF THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAM (INM, DIF, MEXICAN CONSULATE) ON MINORS WHO ENTERED THE U.S.
IRREGULARLY BY STATE OF ORIGIN, FROM JANUARY TO JULY OF 2004.
STATE OF ORIGIN
AGUASCALIENTES
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA CALIFORNIA
CAMPECHE
COAHUILA
COLIMA
CHIHUAHUA
CHIAPAS
FEDERAL DISTRICT
DURANGO
STATE OF MEXICO
GUANAJUATO
GUERRERO
HIDALGO
JALISCO
MICHOACÁN
MORELOS
NAYARIT
NUEVO LEON
OAXACA
PUEBLA
QUERÉTARO
QUINTANA ROO
SAN LUIS POTOSÍ
SINALOA
SONORA
TABASCO
TAMAULIPAS
TLAXCALA
VERACRUZ
YUCATÁN
ZACATECAS
UNKNOWN
TOTAL
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
7
22
12
14
11
7
8
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOVE
DEC
TOTAL
81
63
3
52
6
54
1
33
2
47
3
55
0
76
2
380
17
11
5
1
5
3
9
5
39
40
55
43
31
37
19
39
264
26
10
7
30
26
27
25
151
10
13
14
11
4
15
13
80
18
58
31
15
18
13
28
181
40
48
24
24
44
32
62
274
29
50
34
24
19
19
29
204
46
36
34
40
35
46
54
291
100
106
90
68
72
69
86
591
64
58
54
65
53
50
103
447
23
25
49
20
24
28
31
200
125
143
52
51
69
72
92
604
173
162
140
79
116
84
120
874
13
16
73
52
18
20
22
214
26
21
13
14
27
12
30
143
9
6
14
8
5
15
15
72
52
72
25
17
50
46
70
332
39
76
77
29
33
25
64
343
26
12
19
7
6
3
5
78
1
4
5
3
4
1
3
21
23
26
30
20
24
45
28
196
84
55
26
31
47
59
74
376
136
98
93
77
104
60
82
650
20
2
32
8
1
2
3
68
93
51
88
108
81
57
96
574
1
3
5
10
5
4
20
48
49
54
36
25
38
41
62
305
1
5
3
7
1
2
0
19
47
44
25
29
31
43
32
251
7
2
4
12
15
7
13
1405
1396
1208
969
1071
987
1392
0
0
0
0
0
60
8275
Children’s numbers appear concentrated in the states known as the states of the highest
out migration to the United States, namely Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato and the
Mexican border states: Sonora, Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Baja California. The
concentration by month seem to follow seasonal changes in the total migratory flow
with the highest numbers at the beginning and at the end of the period covered.
115
VIII
Migratory Control III
MIGRATORY REGULATION
In the period January-July of 2003 total entries to Mexico were 10’265, persons. This number was 6.7% greater than the number reached during the same period of
the previous year.
ENTRIES TO MEXICO OF NATIONALS AND FOREIGNERS BY MIGRATORY FORMS
JANUARY 2002-JULY 2002
(INDIVIDUALS)
MIGRATORY
FORMS
JAN-JUL
2002
JAN-JUL
2003 1/
FMT
4,506,930
4,738,278
5.1
FMVLM
2,888,572
3,480,858
20.5
FM6
FME
1,903,790
1,720,103
(9.6)
FMN
FMN
174,906
181,470
3.8
FME
FM6
51,931
48,905
(5.8)
Others forms
93,560
96,065
2.7
Total
9,619,689
2002/2003
10,265,679
4,506,930
PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE JAN - JUL 2002 / 2003
2.7
Others forms
(5.8)
3.8
(9.6)
20.5
FMVLM
5.1
FMT
(20.0)
6.7
(15.0)
(10.0)
(5.0)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
4,738,278
3,480,858
2,888,572
1,903,790
1,720,103
174,906
FMT
FMVLM
FME
FMN
181,470
51,931
FM6
48,905
93,560
96,065
Others forms
116
MIGRATORY CONTROL
In the period March-October, 2001, 4,798 Applications of INM services were responded in favor of a total of 6,498 applications. 219 applications were
denied corresponding to the program of migratory regularization which started in March 2001.
INM PROGRAM OF MIGRATORY REGULARIZATION BY REGIONAL DELEGATION
MARCH-OCTOBER 2001
APPLICATIONS
FILED
RESPONDED
IN FAVOR
CHIAPAS
DENIED
STILL
PENDING
1,971
1,730
2
239
FEDERAL DISTRICT
758
555
19
184
TAMAULIPAS
685
252
108
325
QUINTANA ROO
519
496
3
20
JALISCO
483
404
18
61
OTHERS
2,082
1,361
69
652
TOTAL
6,498
4,798
219
1,481
1,730
1,361
555
2
108
19
239
184
CHIAPAS
FEDERAL DISTRICT
RESPONDED IN FAVOR
325
252
496
TAMAULIPAS
3
QUINTANA ROO
DENIED
20
404
18
652
69
61
JALISCO
OTHERS
STILL PENDING
In the period January-June, 2003 INM issued 919 forms of “inmigrado”
FORMS OF “INMIGRADO” ISSUED BY INM BY NATIONALITY OF ORIGIN
JANUARY-JUNE, 2003
NATIONALITY
JAN-JUN
2003
PERCENTAGE
United States
174
18.9
Spain
88
9.6
Germany
59
6.4
Cuba
49
5.3
Colombia
48
5.2
Argentina
35
3.8
Chile
18
2.0
OTHERS
448
48.7
919
100.0
Total
United States
18.9%
OTHERS
48.7%
Spain
9.6%
Chile
2.0%
Argentina
3.8%
Colombia
5.2%
Cuba
5.3%
Germany
6.4%
117
MIGRATORY CONTROLS
In the period January-July, 2003 INM registered 358,813 events of reception of Mexican citizens delivered by U.S. immigration authorities after being
caught for irregular entry to the U.S. This number was 6.1% lower than the number registered the previous year within the same category.
TOTAL OF EVENTS OF RECEPTION OF MEXICAN NATIONALS DELIVERED
BY U.S. IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN AN ORDERLY AND SAFE MANNER
JANUARY-JULY, 2002-2003
DELEGATIONS
JAN-JUL
2002
JAN-JUL PERCENTAGE
OF CHANGE
2003 1/
142,949
135,919
136,276
120,170
COAHUILA
18,866
9,803
(48.0)
TAMAULIPAS
42,232
25,104
(40.6)
135,919
13.1
58,017
SONORA
120,170
42,232
25,104
18,866
CHIHUAHUA
58,017
51,711
(10.9)
BAJA CALIFORNIA
142,949
136,276
(4.7)
TOTAL
382,234
358,813
(6.1)
51,711
9,803
COAHUILA
TAMAULIPAS
JAN-JUL 2002
SONORA
CHIHUAHUA
BAJA CALIFORNIA
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
In the regional delegation of Baja California there was a concentration of 38.0% of the total of Mexican nationals received by INM as they were delivered by
U.S. immigration authorities after being caught for irregular entry to the U.S.
TOTAL OF EVENTS OF RECEPTION OF MEXICAN NATIONALS FROM THE U.S. IN A ORDERLY AND SAFE MANNER
JANUARY – JULY, 2002/2003
IN PERCENTAGES
EVENTS OR RECEPTION BY MEXICAN BORDER STATE
EVENTS OF RECEPTION OF MEXICAN NATIONALS THROUGH
BAJA CALIFORNIA, JAN-JUL 2002 AND 2003
BAJA CALIFORNIA
BAJA
CALIFORNIA
38.0%
COAHUILA
2.7%
TAMAULIPAS
7.0%
142,949
SONORA
37.9%
136,276
CHIHUAHUA
14.4%
JAN-JUL 2002
JAN-JUL 2003 1/
SOURCE: INM
118
MIGRATORY CONTROL
At the end of 2002 INM registered 18 million 182 thousand entries. Within the period 1989-1997 entrees grew at an annual rate of growth of 4.2%. This rate of
growth was lower in comparison to the average annual growth of 11.3% registered during the period 1997-2002.
MIGRATORY CONTROL
1989-2002
(INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 1_/
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
TOTAL NATIONALS
2,429,487
2,754,332
2,787,445
2,384,085
2,494,264
2,595,021
2,172,320
2,502,716
2,720,559
2,850,526
2,975,598
3,295,496
3,282,607
3,424,160
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
5,197,710
5,207,974
5,220,006
4,950,547
5,240,070
5,351,820
6,130,882
6,997,308
7,849,930
10,922,965 11,570,767 14,269,092 14,030,628 14,758,399
TOTAL OF ENTRIES
7,627,197
7,962,306
8,007,451
7,334,632
7,734,334
7,946,841
8,303,202
9,500,024
10,570,489 13,773,491 14,546,365 17,564,588 17,313,235 18,182,559
DESCRIPTION
17,564,588
13,773,491
7,962,306
7,627,197
8,007,451
7,334,632
7,734,334
9,500,024
8,303,202
7,946,841
14,269,092
5,197,710
2,429,487
1989
5,207,974
2,754,332
1990
5,220,006
2,787,445
1991
4,950,547
2,384,085
1992
5,240,070
2,494,264
1993
5,351,820
2,595,021
1994 1_/
TOTAL NATIONALS
6,130,882
2,172,320
1995
2,502,716
1996
18,182,559
10,570,489
10,922,965
6,997,308
17,313,235
14,546,365
11,570,767
14,030,628
14,758,399
7,849,930
2,720,559
1997
2,850,526
1998
2,975,598
1999
3,295,496
2000
TOTAL FOREIGNERS
3,282,607
2001
3,424,160
2002
TOTAL OF ENTRIES
SOURCE: INM
In the period January-July 2003 the INM Regional Delegations of Quintana Roo, Federal District, Jalisco, Chiapas and Baja California South, registered 77.4% of the total of individuals that
entered Mexico.
MIGRATORY CONTROL BY INM REGIONAL DELEGATION
(INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES)
TOTAL
PERCENTEG
E
QUINTANA ROO
4,740,066
42.4
FEDERAL DISTRICT
1,732,051
15.5
JALISCO
952,781
8.5
CHIAPAS
622,749
5.6
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
596,444
5.3
OTHERS
2,542,538
22.7
TOTAL
11,186,629
JALISCO
8.5%
CHIAPAS
5.6%
FEDERAL DISTRICT
15.5%
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
5.3%
QUINTANA ROO
42.4%
OTHERS
22.7%
100.0
119
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF MEXICANS AND FOREIGNERS
INM registered in January-July, 2003 a total entry of 11 million 186 thousand individuals: 54.5% entered via airports; 31.6% entered via seaports
and 13.9% entered through border gates.
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES BY AIRPORTS
JANUARY-JULY 2003
IN PERCENTAGES
LOCATION AIRPORT
TOTAL
PERCENTAG
E
CANCUN QUINTANA ROO
2,005,664
32.9
MEXICO CITY AIRPORT
1,732,051
28.4
483,967
7.9
GUADALAJARA, JAL.
467,520
7.7
SAN JOSÉ DEL CABO, LA PAZ, B.C.S.
421,489
6.9
OTHERS
983,907
16.2
6,094,598
100.0
TOTAL
OTHERS
16.2%
SAN JOSÉ DEL
CABO, LA PAZ,
B.C.S.
6.9%
CANCUN QUINTANA
ROO
32.9%
GUADALAJARA,
JAL.
7.7%
PUERTO
VALLARTA, JAL.
7.9%
MEXICO CITY
AIRPORT
28.4%
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES BY SEAPORTS
JANUARY-JULY 2003
IN PERCENTAGES
LOCATION OF SEAPORT
TOTAL
PERCENTAG
E
2,069,705
58.6
ENSENADA, B.C.
304,704
8.6
MAZATLÁN, SIN.
276,015
7.8
MAJAHUAL, Q.ROO
267,463
7.6
COZUMEL, QUINTANA ROO
PROGRESO, YUC.
135,375
3.8
OTHERS
480,561
13.6
3,533,823
100.0
TOTAL
COZUMEL,
QUINTANA ROO
58.6%
OTHERS
13.6%
ENSENADA, B.C.
8.6%
PROGRESO, YUC.
MAJAHUAL, Q.ROO
3.8%
7.6%
MAZATLÁN, SIN.
7.8%
MIGRATORY CONTROL OF ENTRIES BY BORDER GATES
JANUARY-JULY 2003
IN PERCENTAGES
LOCATION OF BORDER GATES
TOTAL
PERCENTAG
E
TALISMAN, CHIS.
278,645
17.9
CHETUMAL, Q. ROO
269,431
17.3
CD. HIDALGO, CHIS.
242,597
15.6
NVO. LAREDO, TAMPS.
157,303
10.1
CD. REYNOSA, TAMPS.
94,668
6.1
515,564
33.0
1,558,208
100.0
OTHERS
TOTAL
OTHERS
33.0%
TALISMAN, CHIS.
17.9%
CD. REYNOSA,
TAMPS.
6.1%
NVO. LAREDO,
TAMPS.
10.1%
CD. HIDALGO, CHIS.
15.6%
CHETUMAL,Q.ROO
17.3%
SOURCE: INM
120
MIGRATORY CONTROL
In the period of January-July, 2003, 4 thousand 361 foreigners were denied entry to Mexico. This was 594 more individuals in comparison to the previous year. A total of 109 thousand 534
foreigners were detained. 23 thousand 232 more than on the same period of 2002. 100,458 foreigners were returned to the place of origin. 31,118 more in comparison to same period of the
previous year.
EVENTS OF DENIAL OF ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALITY
JANUARY-JULY 2003
IN PERCENTAGES
NATIONALITY OF
ORIGIN
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
1,716
39.3
ECUADOR
497
11.4
COSTA RICA
313
7.2
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
256
5.9
GUATEMALA
248
5.7
CHINA
234
5.4
1,097
25.1
4,361
100.0
BRAZIL
OTHERS
TOTAL
OTHERS
25.1%
BRAZIL
39.3%
CHINA
5.4%
GUATEMALA
5.7%
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
5.9%
COSTA RICA
7.2%
ECUADOR
11.4%
EVENTS OF DETENTION OF FOREIGNERS AT THEIR ENTRY TO MEXICO BY NATIONALITY
JANUARY-JULY 2003
IN PERCENTAGES
NATIONALITY OF ORIGIN
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
GUATEMALA
50,327
45.9
HONDURAS
36,103
33.0
EL SALVADOR
17,148
15.7
NICARAGUA
1,283
1.2
BRAZIL
1,020
0.9
805
0.7
ECUADOR
OTHERS
TOTAL
2,848
2.6
109,534
100.0
HONDURAS
33.0%
GUATEMALA
45.9%
EL SALVADOR
15.7%
OTHERS
2.6%
ECUADOR
0.7%
NICARAGUA
1.2%
BRAZIL
0.9%
EVENTS OF RETURN OF FOREIGNERS TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN BY NATIONALITY
JANUARY-JULY 2003
IN PERCENTAGE
NATIONALITY OF ORIGIN
GUATEMALA
HONDURAS
EL SALVADOR
NICARAGUA
BRAZIL
TOTAL
47,623
34,079
16,579
1,190
520
ECUADOR
422
OTHERS
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
46.9
33.6
GUATEMALA
46.9%
HONDURAS
33.6%
16.3
1.2
0.5
0.4
1,045
1.1
101,458
100.0
OTHERS
1.1%
ECUADOR
0.4%
EL SALVADOR
16.3%
NICARAGUA
1.2%
BRAZIL
0.5%
121

SOPEMI Report for MEXICO - Institute for Latino Studies

Transcription

Similar documents

Mexican images

Contemporary featherwork

Josefina Vázquez Mota, President of Juntos Podemos

Ucompass - INM.com website

Mexico Gold 50 Pesos AGW 1.2057 (Random Year)

Mexican Independence Day Colouring Page

Richard Montijo, SWCA Environmental Consultants

New tendencies in Mexican Cinematography

Welcome to Mexico

weekly - Notimex