Tag Archives: borders

Border Patrol Violence at “No Borders Camp” Part of Routine Violence on Border

photo of border patrol attack

This weekend no less than 100 Border Patrol agents attacked a group of about 40 peaceful demonstrators at the No Borders camp in Calexico/Mexicali (near San Diego/Tijuana). After giving no orders to disperse, the agents fired pepper ball guns into the crowd at close range and beat fleeing demonstrators with batons. All the demonstrators were detained and three were eventually arrested. Videos of the incident can be found on the No Borders Camp website at www.noborderscamp.org.

The Border Patrol sector chief called the detainees’ legal support team to set up a meeting, presumably to negotiate some kind of deal. This invitation was refused by the demonstrators who claim that they violated no laws and will continue to fight for the release of the three detainees.

It is important to understand that violence committed by the Border Patrol is routine. What makes this case unusual is the fact that the violence was perpetrated against U.S. citizens and was captured on camera. Instead of being viewed as an isolated incident, this event should serve as a reminder of the hostile conditions faced by hundreds of thousands of migrants attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation each year. Abuse is widespread, and when would be border-crossers are deported to sites just across the U.S.-Mexico border they are often in very poor health and have been mistreated.

The Border Patrol’s response to the No Borders camp was inappropriate and extreme; however, it is not an anomaly. Aggressive behavior on the border is the norm. In order to address this issue, the United States needs to rethink its positions on trade and immigration. Immigration does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it is the result of diverse social and economic factors. Current immigration trends will likely persist until the United States institutes realistic and comprehensive immigration reform.

New Government Report Finds Deaths have Doubled along the United States-Mexico Border

A new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the deaths of undocumented immigrants along the United States-Mexico border have doubled since 1995. The data, compiled in a report titled Illegal Immigration: Border-Crossing Deaths Have Doubled Since 1995, aggregated data from the Border Patrol’s Border Safety Initiative (BSI) adopted in 1995, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and state registries in order to show that the number of deaths along the border have increased despite the fact that there was not a corresponding increase in the number undocumented immigrants entering the United States. More than three quarters of the increase is attributable to deaths by exposure (frost bite or dehydration) occurring in the Arizona desert where many immigrants have started to cross due to the ongoing militarization of the United States border that has made crossing in other areas close to impossible. According to the report, deaths have increased from 241 in 1999 to 472 in 2005.

Ehlers, Hoekstra Vote in Favor of Bill to Increase the Militarization of the US-Mexico Border

Grand Rapids area representative Vern Ehlers and Holland area representative Peter Hoekstra voted last week in the House of Representatives to increase the militarization of the United States-Mexico border. The two representatives voted in support of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006” (HR 6061), marking the second time the two representatives voted in support of further militarization of the border in the past year, with the two voting in favor of HR 4437 in December of 2005. The West Michigan representatives were two of the 283 representatives voting in favor of the bill, which passed by a margin of 283 to 138. The Republican Party was nearly unanimous in their support of the bill with only six representatives voting in against it, while 64 Democrats voted with Republicans in support of the bill. Two Republican Michigan representatives, Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan’s 8th Congressional District and Republican Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan’s 11th Congressional District co-sponsored the bill. Both Rogers and McCotter also supported HR 4437 last fall.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandates the construction of 700-miles of double-layered fencing along the US-Mexico border near Tecate and Calexico, California, along most the Arizona-Mexico border, and in heavily populated areas of Texas and New Mexico. In addition to the physical fence, the bill calls for the “systematic surveillance” of the United States’ borders through a system of “unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras.” The physical and virtual walls that are to be constructed are a means of fulfilling the mandate outlined in the bill for the Department of Homeland Security to “achieve and maintain operational control” over all of the United States’ borders, with “operational control” being defined as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States.” The Act also requires the Department of Security to submit an annual report on efforts and progress made toward achieving and maintaining control of the United States’ borders. Despite mandating the construction of the border fence, there is no funding provided in the bill. Republicans say that the $2 billion they estimate is needed for the fence (Democrats estimate the cost at $7 billion) will be provided in future spending bills.

The bill essentially offers nothing new—the fence provisions were included in last year’s HR 4437—but House Republicans are attempting to pass small immigration “reform” bills such as this one in light of their failure to secure the passage of their version of immigration “reform” in the Senate. Despite a summer of organizing, Republicans were unable to make progress on changing elements of the immigration bill passed in May by the Senate. While that bill was somewhat less draconian than the House’s HR 4437 in that there were no provisions that sparked widespread public outcry such as the criminalization of those aiding undocumented immigrants, House Republicans were unsatisfied with the bill and major immigration legislation will not be passed before the November elections.

Bush Immigration Plan Further Militarizes the Border

On Monday, President George W. Bush delivered a televised address in which he discussed immigration and responded to the organized movement in support of immigrant rights. During his speech, Bush outlined what he hopes to accomplish with his “comprehensive immigration reform” that he called a “middle ground” between those wishing to “round up” undocumented immigrants and those that support full amnesty for all undocumented immigrants in the country.

The first goal of the plan is to “secure” the United States borders by increasing the number of Border Patrol officers by 6,000 by the end of 2008, deploying 6,000 National Guard troops, expediting deportations, and increasing space in detention facilities. Bush also advocated the creation of a “temporary worker program” that would allow foreign workers a “legal path” to enter the country for “a limited period of time” in order to “meet the needs of our [the United States’] economy.” The President pledged to “hold employers accountable for the workers that they hire,” a process that would be facilitated by the creation of “tamper-proof” identification cards for immigrants. Bush proposed a new opportunity for immigrants already in the country to gain citizenship, outlining a scenario in which immigrants can pay a penalty, pay taxes, learn English, and work for a number of years at which point they can apply for citizenship although “approval would not be automatic.” As his last goal, Bush emphasized that immigrants must learn English. Not surprisingly, Bush completely ignored the situation in Mexico and the realities of Mexican immigration to the United States where poverty and the decimation of traditional economies brought on by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have forced many Mexican citizens to migrate to the United States.

During his speech, Bush declared that “the United States is not going to militarize the border,” yet the deployment of National Guard soldiers—even in a supporting capacity—is another step in a process that has been militarizing the border since the mid-1990s. Indeed, in Bush’s speech he touted the fact that since he has been President he has increased funding for border security by 66% and expanded the Border Patrol to its current total of 12,000 agents. Since the 1994 implementation of the Border Patrol’s Southwest Border Strategy, the United States-Mexico border has been a low-intensity conflict zone. The military has been involved in varying capacities for the past 16 years and the Border Patrol has received military training in the past, although it has never approached the level of military involvement being proposed. The plan also will require new detention centers, with private corporations such as Halliburton being contracted to run the detention centers at a cost of more than $200 million per year. Additionally, there is ongoing pressure to build a wall along the United States-Mexico border with estimates ranging from $851 million to more than $2 billion for its construction. Studies of the efficacy of militarizing the border via technology—cameras, vehicle barriers, and unmanned aerial vehicles—have proven to be incredibly costly and have had little success in preventing undocumented immigrants from entering the country. Moreover, militarization has not just meant the use of military force along the border, it has also meant the disruption of lives through massive deportations, the division of communities and families, and an overall “climate of fear” in immigrant communities—all of which are by-products of an immigration policy based on enforcement. Already, Mexico and El Salvador have voiced concerns about the proposal and its potential militarization of the border.

Despite the fact that the placement of National Guard soldiers on the United States-Mexico border should gain widespread opposition, the Democratic Party offered limited opposition to the plan. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that he thought it was “a good idea” but that the cost must be a “federal responsibility”—only raising the question of who will pay for the troops. In his rebuttal to the President’s speech, Senator Dick Durbin said that the “Democrats are willing to any reasonable plan that will secure our borders, including the deployment of National Guard troops.” Democrats have also supported measures including expedited removal of immigrants caught entering the United States, increasing the number of detention facilities, and tamper-proof identification cards for immigrants. Democrats support the idea of a guest worker program as well and are doing so largely to appease their corporate supporters. Current proposals in the Senate largely incorporate the demands of the Essential Worker Coalition (EWIC), a coalition headed by the United States Chamber of Commerce and including 36 different trade and manufacturing associations that support the use of guest workers in agriculture, construction, meatpacking, hotels, restaurants, manufacturing, transportation, and other sectors of the economy as a means of providing cheap labor to corporations. Despite Democratic support, the proposals have been criticized for creating a “second class” of workers that would only be in the country for a limited period of time and would be limited in terms of being able to organize to improve their conditions as programs would prevent collective bargaining, the joining of unions, and leaving oppressive jobs (they could only leave if they had another job lined up). Many liberal columnists have also agreed with these core aspects of Bush’s plan, with the majority of liberals and Democrats offering an opposition much like what they offered to the Iraq War, suggesting that they can “manage” immigration better than the Republicans, but essentially pledging to do the same thing—just as Senator John Kerry pledged to be “stronger” in his administration of the occupation of Iraq.

Two of the current immigration reform proposals in the Senate, Hagel-Martinez and Kennedy-McCain, despite gaining the support of some immigrant groups and those involved in the struggle for immigrant rights, feature provisions that would incorporate aspects of President Bush’s plan. Under the Hagel-Martinez bill, undocumented immigrants living in the United States for more than five years could apply to be citizens only after six years, paying fines and back taxes, and learning English. Those in the country for more than two years but less than five could apply for guest worker status, but could do so only after exiting and re-entering the United States—with no guarantees that they would be allowed reentry. It also contains provisions that would put immigrants at risk if they used false documentation to obtain a job in the past and would dramatically increase the militarization of the border by adding some 15,000 new Border Patrol agents over the next six years and by giving the Department of Homeland Security the authority to make additional changes to border security as needed.

Similarly, the Kennedy-McCain proposal would offer undocumented immigrants already in the country the opportunity to become legal immigrants with a chance at residency and also institutes a new type of visa. The bill proposes the creation of 400,000 “H5-A” visas for “low-skilled workers,” despite the fact that the number of undocumented immigrants over the past years has averaged 850,000 per year. The bill also ties legal status to employment, requiring immigrants to leave the country if they are unemployed for 45 days with violators being subject to deportation. Immigrants could be given the status of “H5-B non-immigrants” which would allow them to work in the United States for six years as part of a guest worker program. At the end of the six-year period, immigrants would be allowed to petition the government for permanent residency, although during the six-year period immigrants could be deported after breaking the law two times.

The Realities of Mexican Immigration to the United States

photo

The Mexican National Museum of Popular Culture (located in Mexico City) carries various exhibits that detail the history of Mexico and capture themes important in present-day Mexican society. The current exhibit focuses on immigration; it shows the history of migration and immigration in Mexico through numerous murals, writings, videos and other art forms. The exhibit, which is very beautiful and informative, comes at a very appropriate time. Although most Mexicans—especially the politicians—are acutely aware of the immigration issue, most Americans are relatively unaware, or even more commonly, misinformed about it.

Since NAFTA entered into effect in 1994—the anniversary of the Zapatista uprising in southern Mexico (a response to the spread of neoliberalism)—it is estimated that over a million farmers have been displaced. Some have been forced into urban areas, while many others have been forced to immigrate to the United States. The vast majority of Mexicans who immigrate to the United States do so without the proper documents. This has caused a major social and political quandary. The U.S. immigration system—deemed “broken” by many—has been unable to deal with the influx of immigrants from Mexico. Hence, “illegal” immigration continues—a fact that has produced a variety of responses, many of which are very xenophobic. The vigilantes who call themselves the Minutemen have made it their business to harass immigrants in the U.S. and propagate racist political ideas. Police in some areas have recently been given the authority to enforce immigration law—which has led to racial profiling. Conservative politicians have called for harsher legal penalties for undocumented immigrants who are apprehended. The government has fortified the Mexican – U.S. border by adding more border patrol agents, and recently there has been talk of constructing a wall to prevent immigrants from reaching the United States at all. And that is by no means an exhaustive list. Also, since the Homeland Security Act, all immigration issues are defined under the banner of “homeland security,” which erroneously implies that immigrants are dangerous, and therefore a threat to national security. This also allows the government to claim that anti-immigrant legislation is actually designed to protect our national security, an authority that has already been exploited.

photo

The massive displacement of Mexican farmers after NAFTA can be attributed in large part to foreign corporations. After the Mexican ejido system was done away with in the early 1990s, land that was previously protected became available for purchase. The privatization of the land, combined with the passage of NAFTA—which created a “free-trade zone” between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada—allowed foreign corporations to buy up land, mass-produce cheap, less nutritious crops, and undersell local farmers, forcing them to seek other means of employment. Not only did this destroy the lives of many farmers, it disrupted the ecosystem that the indigenous people had carefully protected for centuries. The introduction of genetically modified seeds, the use of chemicals and other ecologically devastating practices irreversibly changed the land.

photo

With their land taken over or destroyed, farmers flocked to cities for more industrial work. If unable to find work in Mexico, many see immigration to the U.S. as the only remaining option. The trip to the U.S., through the desert, is by no means an easy one. Every year there are countless deaths along the Mexican – U.S. border. Mexicans trying to reach the U.S. often employ the services of coyotes—people who specialize in transporting undocumented people into the U.S. The cost of hiring a coyote—as well as the payment of bribes during the trip north—is very expensive; the use of coyotes also results in many deaths. The constant passage of people through border towns makes them notoriously dangerous, especially for women. In Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, hundreds of women have been murdered and no one has been able to fully explain who is to blame.

photo

Overall, women are disproportionately affected by immigration. Sexism makes it more difficult for them to find work; and if they are able to get a job, they are often harassed and paid less than men. In many cases, men immigrate to the U.S. in search of work, leaving women the extremely difficult task of caring for the family.

Even if an immigrant makes it to the U.S., there are no guarantees that s/he will find work or have any better opportunities than in Mexico. Some Mexican immigrants are forced into debt slavery and end up doing agricultural work for virtually no money. (Several slavery rings have been discovered in southern Florida.) Others are caught and deported, in some cases back to dangerous areas only to be killed by gangs. The difficulty of life for a Mexican immigrant in the U.S. is compounded by the language barrier. Although the U.S. has no official language, many materials, signs, etc. are only in English. The majority of U.S. citizens do not speak Spanish (although this may change in the not-so-distant future). Racism is a daily reality for Mexican immigrants working in the U.S. They are routinely ridiculed and cheated because of their ethnic background.

Mexican immigrants work a variety of jobs. They may find work as farmworkers, picking fruits and vegetables, janitors, day laborers doing construction and work in the trades, hotel and restaurant workers, or a number of other jobs. This is not to say all Mexican immigrants work “low level” jobs. Many immigrants are politicians, teachers, and entrepreneurs of various types.

While Mexican immigrants face this dire reality everyday, many conservative pundits and politicians have the gall to claim that they are a detriment to the U.S. and a threat to the American way of life. The claims run the gamut: Mexican immigrants are called lazy, a drain on the economy, dangerous criminals, or illiterate gang-members. These claims are almost wholly false. Many immigrants, although undocumented, still pay taxes. The U.S. refuses to grant them citizenship but gladly accepts a percentage of their wages. Most immigrants work, and much harder than “average” American (or the pundits and politicians who criticize them) for that matter. And, even though they are trampled on, unseen and oppressed in a variety of ways, many immigrants learn English, pursue some type of education and contribute to our society. In fact, a significant percentage of the music we listen to and the art we enjoy is influenced and created by the immigrants in our midst. These contributions to our culture and economy are often overlooked, while the government refuses to create realistic, humane, workable change within the immigration system.

Many Mexican politicians have called for the U.S. government to address immigration in a more substantive, productive way however, they have been largely ignored, especially by the U.S. corporate media. The exhibit at the Mexican National Museum of Popular Culture is precisely the kind of multi-dimensional immigration education we need in the U.S. It should be seen by all the Americans who are unaware of the struggle of immigrants in the U.S. It should be seen by the pundits and politicians who act as if immigrants are destroying our society. And, it should be seen by everyone who wants to understand the long and complex history that has caused this phenomenon.

View more photos from the Museo Nacional de las Culturas Populares