What lies at the bottom of this situation is the growing dysfunction of the bilateral relationship. The salinista bet on market integration in North America, endorsed by Zedillo, Fox, and Calderón, is arriving at its end. Those who have backed this integration and have disdained economic integration as a model today have no answer for how to confront this situation. Either there is the complete integration of services, commerce, and people or there won't be beneficial integration and we should search for another path for national development, using diversification as the conceptual trunk to formulate it.I don't buy that, at least not entirely. What's notable about the Arizona dust-up is not how it's sinking the good relations between both nations, but rather how it isn't. At the federal level, everybody on both sides agrees that it's asinine and offensive. Broadly speaking, the Arizona law is not a symptom of an inevitably dysfunctional relationship, but rather an oddity that the closer bilateral relationship is better positioned to deal with than the more distant governments would have been 40 years ago.
I also think treating diversification versus North American integration as a stark either/or proposition is the wrong way to approach the issue, though Pascoe Pierce is far from alone in that tendency. More here on that score.