Women rule the border. Parity, technology, and power in the new migration policy

Migration policy between Mexico and the United States entered 2025 with a paradox: while Mexico consolidated an unprecedented female leadership—Claudia Sheinbaum became the country’s first female president—on the other side of the Rio Grande, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is steering the most restrictive shift in decades. This tension opens both an opportunity and a risk: either the border becomes a laboratory for equality and inclusion, or it remains a political fault line.

The starting point in 2024 was historic. Mexico closed the year with a truly gender-balanced Congress: 50.2% of deputies and 50% of senators, the result of a constitutional quota system that matured over the last decade. In contrast, the 119th U.S. Congress began in 2025 with 28% women; a record high, but still far from parity, with consequences in key committees shaping budgets, security, and immigration. Who legislates directly affects what is legislated, and this representation gap is evident in binational negotiations.

There was also “operational innovation.” In 2024, the CBP One app became the primary channel to request asylum at ports of entry; from January 2023 to December 2024, more than 936,500 appointments were scheduled, with about 44,000 people processed in a typical month. In parallel, the humanitarian parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV) allowed more than 531,000 people to fly legally and be admitted with parole authorization through October 2024. Supported by universities and multilateral agencies, the Safe Mobility Offices began channeling refugee claims and legal alternatives away from the border itself. It was an experiment in “digital humanitarianism” with mixed but measurable results.

The policy shift of 2025 has reconfigured the board. The Trump administration cancelled CBP One asylum access and announced the end of the CHNV parole, leaving hundreds of thousands in limbo and shifting management pressure onto Mexican cities and U.S. courts. Shutting down digital pathways did not erase humanitarian needs; it merely displaced them into irregular flows or litigation. In Tucson, for instance, expedited deportations of unaccompanied minors have already been blocked by federal judges. The border has become judicialized and municipalized at the same time.

Here, women leaders step in with contrasting approaches. In Washington, Kristi Noem—confirmed in January—has centralized a control-and-enforcement agenda, intensifying debates about due process and local-federal cooperation. In Tucson, Mayor Regina Romero has upheld her refusal to turn municipal police into a migration enforcement arm, calling instead for balance between community cohesion and federal decisions. In northern Mexico, Baja California Governor Marina del Pilar set up emergency shelters in Tijuana as part of the federal “México te abraza” program following announcements of mass deportations. The presence—or absence—of coordination among these women marks the line between crisis and effective management.

The economic vector reinforces the argument that inclusion is not charity, but smart governance. Mexico ended 2024 with a record $64.7 billion in remittances, a 2.3% increase over 2023. These flows are not only a social safety net, but also capital for entrepreneurship and a macroeconomic anchor in regions that export labor. Fiscal or administrative measures in the U.S. that raise transfer costs, or enforcement operations that spread fear, already show volatility in 2025. If binational policy ignores the gendered dimension of remittance-receiving households—where female heads of household and caregivers are central—it will undermine both effectiveness and legitimacy.

What did 2024 leave us as a foundation for 2025? First, clear evidence that Mexico’s parity does move the institutional needle: the Intersecretarial Commission for Migration Management adopted the “Mexican Model of Human Mobility,” prioritizing structural causes and territorial coordination. Second, a lesson that technology without safeguards reproduces inequality: digital gaps, extortion, and algorithmic bias can turn apps into bottlenecks. Third, the hard fact that execution matters: USCIS leadership changed in July 2025, reorienting capacities in processing, naturalizations, and asylum. When women leaders drive evidence-based agendas, the numbers improve; when they are subordinated to punitive reflexes, the pressure spills back into shelters, clandestine crossings, and overburdened courts.

The potential of women leaders in binational migration policy will depend on three concrete pacts.

• First, parity “with teeth” throughout the implementation chain—not just in parliaments, but in foreign ministries, migration agencies, prosecutors’ offices, and courts.

• Second, technological interoperability with rights: biometric verification and appointment allocation must come with public audits, open data, and non-discrimination metrics.

• Third, pragmatic cross-border federalism: mayors and governors on both sides coordinating reception, transportation, mental health, and labor integration with the supply chains of the USMCA.

If these pacts hold, 2025 could become the year when the border ceases to be a political pendulum and evolves into an ecosystem of safe, orderly, and inclusive mobility led by women.

Written by: Editorial

#WomenInMigration #Border2025 #BinationalPolicy #DigitalInclusion #interAlcaldes