Abstract The present study analyzes the limits of regionalism in achieving SDG 8, with a focus on the Mexican reality. It is based on the hypothesis that the role of the national government is decisive for incorporation of the Agenda 2030 in cases of regionalism based on an intergovernmental dynamic. We argue that NAFTA had a limited impact on improving working conditions in Mexico, as it only affected export-oriented regions and sectors. Since 2019 there has been an increase in the minimum wage, which can be explained not only by enforcing the USMCA, but also by a compatibility between internal and external agendas. Therefore, the case of Mexico allows us to affirm that the national government was decisive for the incorporation of the Agenda 2030 in the context of intergovernmental agreements.

RÉSUMÉ : Le début de la deuxième décennie du XXIe siècle a représenté des reculs dans les élans régionalistes latino-américains et a été marqué par le démantèlement de l’Unasur, la paralysie de l’ALBA et des problèmes à Celac et Mercosur. Une grande partie des études sur le sujet soulignent les tensions dans ces mécanismes régionaux en raison de multiples facteurs conjoncturels, tels que la mort du président vénézuélien Hugo Chávez, l’augmentation progressive du clivage politique au Brésil et en Argentine, notamment à partir de l’impeachment brésilien et du « virage à droite » dans la région, ainsi que de l’expansion de la présence d’acteurs extra-régionaux comme la Chine et les États-Unis. À partir d’une analyse procédurale et institutionnelle, cet article discute de la manière dont les institutions régionales sud-américaines ont réagi aux périodes de crise actuelles. Il est avancé que le démantèlement de l’Unasur n’est pas simplement le résultat des changements systémiques de la période, mais est le reflet de la trajectoire institutionnelle latino-américaine et de ses antécédents critiques. Aussi, il est conclu que le contexte historique peut être l’opportunité qui stimule la désintégration latino-américaine, mais pas sa cause.

ABSTRACT: The beginning of the second decade of the 21st century brought with it setbacks to the drive for Latin American regional unity, marked by the dismantling of Unasur, the paralysis of ALBA and problems with Celac and Mercosur. Many studies on the topic point to greater tensions in these regional mechanisms as a result of various circumstantial factors such as the death of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the increasing polarization of politics in Brazil and Argentina (especially since the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff), the “Right Turn” taken by the region, and the expanding presence of extra-regional actors such as China and the United States. With a process-based and institutional analysis, this article discusses how South American regional institutions reacted to the current periods of crisis. It argues that the dismantling of Unasur is not simply a result of the systemic changes undergone in this period, but a reflection of the Latin American institutional direction of travel and its critical antecedents. It concludes that the historical context might be the opportunity that gave rise to this process of disintegration, but not its cause.

RESUMEN: El inicio de la segunda década del siglo XXI representó retrocesos en los impulsos regionalistas latinoamericanos y estuvo marcado por el desmantelamiento de Unasur, la parálisis de ALBA y problemas en la Celac y en el Mercosur. Gran parte de los estudios sobre el tema apuntan las tensiones en estos mecanismos regionales como resultado de múltiples factores coyunturales, como la muerte del presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez, el aumento gradual de la grieta política en Brasil y Argentina, especialmente a partir del impeachment brasileño y el “giro a la derecha” en la región, así como la ampliación de la presencia de actores extrarregionales como China y Estados Unidos. A partir de un análisis procesual e institucional, este artículo discute cómo las instituciones regionales sudamericanas reaccionaron a los periodos de crisis actuales. Se argumenta que el desmantelamiento de Unasur no es simplemente resultado de los cambios sistémicos del periodo, sino que es un reflejo de la trayectoria institucional latinoamericana y de sus antecedentes críticos. A su vez, se concluye que el contexto histórico puede ser la oportunidad que estimula la desintegración latinoamericana, pero no su causa.

Resumo: Este artigo tem como objetivo demonstrar que as mudanças realizadas por Donald Trump na política migratória dos Estados Unidos foram conduzidas a partir da retórica da ameaça, com o propósito de securitizar a imigração. Partindo do binômio “eu-outro” para analisar discursos e ações unilaterais do Executivo, empregamos o método da Análise Crítica do Discurso (ACD) para identificar as estratégias discursivas que mobilizaram o debate “nós contra eles”. Em consonância com os pressupostos teóricos da Escola de Copenhague, argumentamos que Trump construiu um movimento de securitização da política migratória ao empregar uma narrativa em que latino-americanos e muçulmanos representam uma ameaça aos norte-americanos e aos Estados Unidos. Entretanto, concluímos que esse movimento foi incompleto, na medida em que não engendrou legitimação perante a maior parte da opinião pública, encontrou resistências à sua implementação no Judiciário e em governos estaduais, e não fomentou a construção de um consenso no Legislativo que resultasse em uma reforma coerente e ampla da imigração.

Abstract: This article aims to show that Donald Trump's changes in US migration policy were driven by threat rhetoric with the purpose of securitizing immigration. Starting from the binomial “I-other” to analyze the Executive's discourses and unilateral actions, we used the method of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to identify the discursive strategies that mobilized the “us against them” debate. In line with the theoretical assumptions of the Copenhagen School, we argue that Trump built a movement to securitize migration policy by employing a narrative in which Latin Americans and Muslims represent a threat to Americans and the United States. However, we conclude that this movement was incomplete, as it did not engender legitimacy before most of public opinion, encountered resistance to its implementation in the Judiciary and in state governments and did not foster the forging of a consensus in the Legislative that would result in a coherent and comprehensive reform of the migration policy.

Resumo Após um tenso processo de renegociação dos termos do NAFTA (Acordo de Livre Comércio Norte-Americano), os governos dos Estados Unidos, México e Canadá estabeleceram um novo acordo regional: o USMCA (Acordo Estados Unidos, México e Canadá), cujo objetivo é superar problemas criados desde a entrada em vigor do NAFTA em 1994. A ratificação deste documento pelos respectivos congressos nacionais gerou novas tensões e instabilidades no cenário político destes países, especialmente devido às assimetrias que existem entre eles. Este trabalho visa analisar o impacto deste desequilíbrio no processo de renegociação do NAFTA, considerando o comportamento dos Estados Unidos em relação a seus parceiros, especialmente o México.

Abstract After a tense process of renegotiating the terms of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada established a new regional agreement, the USMCA (United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement), whose purpose is to overcome problems that emerged since the NAFTA came into force in 1994. The ratification of this document by the national congresses of the referred countries has generated new tensions and instabilities in their political scenario, especially due to the existing structural asymmetries between them. This work aims to analyse the impact of that imbalance in the NAFTA renegotiation process, considering the behaviour of the United States in relation to its partners, especially Mexico.