President Claudia Sheinbaum has said her government will send Congress a legal reform to modify the National Migration Institute (INM). She said it would be renamed “Instituto de Movilidad Humana.” She framed the term as a better fit for cross-border movement. She has described the initiative as a way to preserve the agency’s functions while improving protection for migrants.
The INM is not only an enforcement body. It manages entries and exits, runs detention facilities, and issues many migration documents. That makes its procedures relevant to asylum seekers and people in transit. It also affects foreign residents who renew their status at INM offices.
The announcement comes after years of scrutiny over Mexico’s migration enforcement. It also follows earlier promises of reform after the March 27, 2023, fire in Ciudad Juárez. The fire killed 40 detainees. The immediate question is whether the new initiative changes how the agency works or mainly changes how it is labeled.
Why specialists say a new name is not enough
Migration researchers, legal advocates, and former INM officials argue that branding will not curb abuses if the operating model stays the same. They call for a shift away from a security-first approach that expanded in recent years. They also focus on the National Guard’s role in migration control and detention.
Academic research traces this shift to policy choices made in 2019. Mexico increased security deployments to contain irregular flows. Specialists also call for professional staffing and leadership based on migration expertise. They argue senior posts should not default to military or policing profiles. Some point to state-level appointments with uniformed backgrounds and say that they shaped priorities. In this view, “mobility” language can become a euphemism if detention practices and weak accountability continue.
They also warn that renaming units can add opacity if mandates are vague. They want clearer training requirements for staff. They also want transparent criteria for discretionary decisions. They want measurable standards, audits, and public data on outcomes.
Detention, due process, and accountability pressures
A central demand is to reduce reliance on detention and to strengthen due process before returns or deportations. Specialists describe “estancias migratorias” that operate like custodial facilities. They say people can lack legal advice and clear information about timelines. They argue procedures should be documented, reviewable, and consistent across the country.
Oversight is part of the same debate. Reviews have cited about 5,600 complaints filed with Mexico’s national human rights commission against the INM from 2019 to 2024. The figure points to repeated allegations rather than isolated incidents. The Ciudad Juárez case remains a reference point because it exposed safety failures and the consequences of confinement.
Specialists also call for wider use of alternatives to detention, including community-based placement. They also cite needs for interpreters, medical screening, and basic safety standards in custody. They stress that protection also depends on coordination with Mexico’s refugee agency, COMAR. If enforcement actions move faster than asylum processing, safeguards can fail at first contact.
What to watch as the proposal moves to Congress
The announced change remains a concept until draft legislation is published and debated. Sheinbaum has said the initiative will be submitted soon. The timing will depend on the legislative agenda. Congress may revise the plan through hearings and amendments.
The most material questions are about powers and limits. Will the law narrow who can stop, detain, and transport non-citizens? Will it define time limits, access to counsel, and minimum conditions in custody?
Another question is accountability. A reform could require public reporting on detentions and returns. It could also create separate channels for receiving complaints. Budget choices will matter, especially for asylum processing capacity and training. Implementation will shape what residents and travelers experience.
A renamed agency can still operate similarly if detention remains the default tool. The same applies if security forces keep broad roles. For expats who interact with immigration offices, changes may appear in process clarity and wait times. They may also lead to more consistent decisions across locations.