Tonight at a lavish black-tie state dinner Presidents George Bush and Vincente Fox will, it can safely be assumed, go out of their way to emphasize the deep "personal friendship" which they will say underpins the warmth of the new relationship between the US and Mexico.
There is no doubt that this fifth meeting between the two men in the first year of their respective presidencies marks a decided turn to Mexico by the Bush Administration.
But as they wipe the dust of the desert off their cowboy boots, sceptics might well ask whether the two amigos' friendship of convenience is any deeper than the commitment of Hollywood's Three Amigos to the lifestyle of the range. Yihaaa.
After all, this "friendship" is very much a post-election phenomenon - Mr Bush had not endeared himself to Mexico's now hugely popular president by appearing to publicly back his favoured opponent, Mr Francisco Labastida, leader of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), during the campaign last year.
But that's history and Mr Bush went out of his way to make amends by visiting Mexico in his first trip abroad as president.
Today both men badly need to be seen by their respective electorates as major influences on the other as Bush woos the crucial Latino vote ahead of 2004, while Mr Fox hopes to consolidate his position with a major deal with the US on Mexican illegals. Both are also strong advocates of greater trade and economic exchanges and Mr Fox must justify his dangerously pro-US stance domestically with evidence that it pays, most particularly in the form of investment.
That's the idea anyway, and the Fox state visit will be dominated by discussions of the immigration package that the latter hopes will legalise some three million Mexicans already working in the US. Some progress has been made but the administration faces severe hurdles in Congress where many on the right argue that such a massive amnesty will reward lawbreaking and merely encourage further waves of illegal migration.
The Mexicans hope they can get a comprehensive package by early next year - an optimistic scenario - and will have to be satisfied on this visit with a far more limited agreement that extends a temporary guest worker programme, largely geared to supply agricultural labourers. It would allow some of them to establish permanent residence.
"These are people who are already in this country, contributing to the American economy, even though they may not be legal, and they are paying taxes," Mr Bush's spokesman, Mr Ari Fleischer, said recently. He added that the president was determined not to favour illegals over those patiently and legally waiting their turn.
But even such a scheme, falling well short of Mexican ambitions, is facing hostility from other Latin American countries who ask why their migrants are being discriminated against.
Mr Bush has a difficult balancing act to perform and a lot to play for.
Last year he got only 35 per cent of the Latino vote - were he to increase it by only 3 to 5 per cent it could guarantee his re-election. Association with Mr Fox, whose programme of anti-PRI reform appeals precisely to those middle class Mexican-Americans most susceptible to Republican wooing, is being complemented by a systematic attempt to court Catholic voters.
The relationship between the two countries has undoubtedly benefited from the Bush determination to refocus US foreign policy on the hemisphere and Mr Fox will hope he can persuade his friend to see him as a bridge to, or mediator in, relations with Latin America. But while Washington may rejoice in the latter's enthusiasm for all things north of the Rio Grande, there is still some caution. A slump in Mexico could force the populist Fox to do what his countrymen expect - blame his new amigo.
A joint US-Mexico think tank recommended yesterday that the US should treat Mexico as a special case on immigration, and suspend the construction of barriers along the US-Mexican border.