Mexico’s migration system is undergoing a pivotal moment as President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration prepares to propose legal reforms to Congress that aim to address longstanding challenges and enhance protections for migrants. The plan includes modifying and renaming the National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración, INM) as the Institute of Human Mobility (Instituto de Movilidad Humana, IMH). But as with all government attempts to create change, the opposition cherry-picked on the lesser of the many changes in the proposal to point out the new name.
Sheinbaum characterized the new terminology as a first step in better reflecting cross-border movement, and described the initiative as a means to enhance protections for migrants. While full details of the legislative proposal have not yet been released to the public, early statements suggest reforms could redefine the agency’s mandate, update procedures for entry and detention, and introduce clearer guidelines for staff conduct, potentially addressing oversight mechanisms and establishing new safeguards for due process and migrant protection.
International Human Rights Treaties
Mexico is a signatory to various international human rights treaties, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as the American Convention on Human Rights. These treaties require the country to uphold standards for the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly regarding non-refoulement and access to due process. These legal obligations are central to the stakes and urgency of substantive reform.
The INM functions beyond enforcement; it manages border entries and exits, operates detention facilities, and issues various migration documents. These procedures are relevant not only to asylum seekers and individuals in transit but also to foreign residents renewing their status at INM offices.
Recent migration flows illustrate the scale of the challenge. In 2023, Mexico recorded over 780,000 encounters with irregular migrants, with significant increases from countries such as Venezuela, Haiti, and Central America. This context underscores the pressure on Mexico’s migration system and the urgency of effective reform.
Research attributes this shift to policy decisions implemented in 2019, when Mexico increased security deployments to contain irregular migration flows. Specialists recommend professionalizing staffing and leadership by prioritizing migration expertise over military or policing backgrounds for senior positions. Some highlight that state-level appointments of individuals with uniformed service backgrounds have influenced agency priorities.
ccording to this perspective, adopting ‘mobility’ language risks becoming a euphemism if detention practices and insufficient accountability persist. Similar debates have emerged in other countries within the region. For example, Costa Rica and Colombia have both implemented migration reforms to emphasize humanitarian approaches and reduce reliance on security-led enforcement, but have faced complex challenges in balancing border management, protection standards, and organizational transparency.
Analysts point to these cases to illustrate that changing terminology alone does not guarantee substantive shifts in practice; rather, success tends to depend on accompanying measures to transform agency culture, oversight, and resources.
Experts caution that renaming organizational units may increase opacity if mandates are not clearly defined. They call for explicit training requirements for staff, transparent criteria for discretionary decisions, and the establishment of measurable standards, regular audits, and public reporting of outcomes.
Decreasing Reliance on Detention and Reinforcing Due Process
A primary recommendation is to decrease reliance on detention and to reinforce due process protections prior to returns or deportations. Specialists describe ‘estancias migratorias’ as functioning similarly to custodial facilities, where individuals may lack access to legal counsel and clear information regarding timelines. They argue that procedures should be thoroughly documented, subject to review, and applied consistently nationwide.
Oversight remains a central issue in this debate. Reviews indicate that approximately 5,600 complaints were filed with Mexico’s national human rights commission against the INM between 2019 and 2024, suggesting systemic rather than isolated problems. The Ciudad Juárez incident continues to serve as a key example, highlighting safety failures and the consequences of confinement.
Key Considerations For The Proposal
Civil society organizations and international bodies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, have advocated for Mexico to reduce reliance on detention and improve protection standards. They have called for independent monitoring mechanisms for detention centers and migration procedures, as well as transparent reporting.
The announced change remains a concept until draft legislation is published and debated. Sheinbaum has said the initiative will be submitted soon. Legislative experts anticipate that the draft may be introduced to Congress by mid-summer, with committee discussions and initial hearings taking place within the following months. Depending on the legislative calendar, a final vote could potentially occur before the end of the current session, though timelines may shift if further consultation or amendments are required. Congress may revise the plan through hearings and amendments.
Previous reform efforts, such as the 2011 Migration Law, offer lessons. While the law was hailed as progressive, implementation gaps persisted in practice. These experiences highlight the importance of aligning legal frameworks with operational realities.
The most substantive questions concern the scope of authority and limitations. Key issues include whether the law will restrict who is authorized to stop, detain, and transport non-citizens, and whether it will establish time limits, guarantee access to legal counsel, and set minimum standards for conditions in custody.
Specialists have raised concerns about the treatment of unaccompanied minors, families, and other vulnerable migrants. Addressing these needs is critical for substantive improvements.
Accountability is another critical consideration. Reforms could mandate public reporting on detentions and returns, and establish independent channels for receiving complaints. To effectively monitor progress, policy analysts suggest adopting clear evaluation metrics such as the annual reduction in substantiated complaints, average processing times for migration procedures, the percentage of cases with guaranteed access to legal counsel, and regular audit scores of detention facilities. Other possible indicators include the rate of implementation of alternatives to detention, the number of staff completing human rights training, and published statistics on asylum application outcomes. Setting baseline measurements in these areas and tracking changes over time will help determine whether the reforms deliver substantive improvements. Budgetary decisions will be significant, particularly regarding asylum processing capacity and staff training. Ultimately, implementation will determine the experiences of residents and travelers.
Mexico’s migration enforcement policies are often shaped by agreements and pressure from the United States, particularly regarding containment and return of migrants. Bilateral cooperation on border management, funding, and humanitarian assistance will likely influence the scope and effectiveness of any reform.
For expatriates interacting with immigration offices, reforms may improve transparency of processes, reduce wait times, and promote greater consistency in decision-making across locations.
