Friday, February 8, 2019

Up Against a Wall


Lately, discussions surrounding the proposed border wall seem to be a “lose-lose” scenario for all sides involved.  I suppose this really does not come as a surprise in today’s partisan, polarized world.  We become so entrenched in the political talking points that we find ourselves “up against a wall”, in a government shutdown, with no side achieving anything.  I do not write these posts to pick fights with either side, but rather to illuminate some areas of the discussion that might not be prominent in the media or in popular in political rhetoric. 

Let’s start by pointing out that “pro-wall” is not equivalent to “anti-immigrant”.  In fact, this fixation on “the wall” itself has proven to be a huge distraction from allowing people from thinking comprehensively about border security and immigration reform as a whole.  The wall is not the end-all answer to border security.  It is simply one facet – albeit an important one – of a much larger discussion.  While we can and should debate about the pros and cons of building a wall, my concern is that we not become so narrow-mindedly focused on the wall itself that we lose sight of the larger picture.  I would suggest that a more comprehensive and accurate term than “pro-wall” might be “pro-border security”. 
 
The desire for better border security, and thus, a border wall, does not equate to a desire to keep all immigrants out.  At least not in my case and in the case of many others.  It continues to sadden me when people draw their own lines in the sand, and then mentally force others back and forth across those subjective lines based on preconceived notions and personal assumptions, rather than based on civil discourse, honest questioning, and active listening to each other.  But I digress.  Personally, I desire to welcome others to this country.  Especially the downtrodden, the vulnerable, the “least of these”.  I believe that this desire goes hand in hand with an expectation that this nation will not only protect its own citizens, but also those very people who are permitted to find refuge within our borders.  To protect, we must also value a reasonable level of security that seeks to eliminate dangerous elements from entering our country and deliberately trying to harm those who reside here – whether they are from families who have been here for generations or families that arrived yesterday.


The Need for Better Border Security

The first and most important objective of this post is to dismantle the lie that there is no major threat and no serious criminal activity occuring at our southern border.  Unfortunately, the mainstream media paints a picture of “border security” as being an effort to keep out victimized immigrants who are coming across the border simply in search of a better life for their families.  If only it were that simple.  While there is certainly some truth to this narrative of families in search of a better life, it grossly omits the part that reveals a much darker reality behind illegal immigration, or – the term I prefer – human smuggling.  Many of the immigrants coming across the border ARE victims of persecution or violence.  Many immigrants ARE simply seeking a better life for themselves or their families.  And we should not turn a blind eye to the suffering of those who are in legitimate need of asylum and protection.

HOWEVER, the reality is that the majority of immigrants who cross the border illegally are simply pawns in a much larger and dangerous game controlled by a very powerful and dark criminal network.  The cartels are ruthless, tactical, exacting, and deeply sinister.  Everything that happens at the border – including the crossing of every migrant group – is part of a larger objective that focuses on profits and power.  The cartels do not value human life.  They will do whatever it takes to reach their objectives, including the abuse, torture, or murder of anyone who becomes an inconvenience. even U.S. citizens.  Those violent crimes at the hands of the cartel and their affiliates do not just happen in Mexico, they happen on the American side of the border as well (though, thankfully, on a much smaller scale). To view American border security efforts as only a partisan issue meant to stop victimized, undocumented immigrants from entering the country is both dangerous and incredibly naïve.

Border security should rather be seen as an attempt to halt the criminal activity from Mexico that plagues not only our border regions, but the U.S. as a whole.  Not to mention to deter the humanitarian crimes committed along the way by what I would categorize as profiteering terrorists.  The cartels have deep, established networks in the U.S. for their smuggling businesses and other illicit activities.  The border is obviously the entry point for most, if not all, of their “work” inside the U.S.  Human smuggling is one of their most lucrative and successful businesses operations, and is what continues to feed their machinery of oppression and violence.  Thus, while we can clearly say that many of the immigrants themselves are not a threat, the perpetrators of the human smuggling business most definitely are.  The more individuals they smuggle, the greater their profit and the stronger their organizations become.  So when we talk of border security, we must first view it as an attempt to shut down the cartels’ business operations on the American side, rather than merely an attempt to shut out immigrants.  And we must simultaneously include in the conversations ways to reform the immigration system so that we can continue to show compassion to those who need protection.


https://www.businessinsider.com/where-do-mexican-drug-cartels-operate-in-the-us-2017-10
View larger map here.   (TCO = Transnational Criminal Organization)

The lack of mainstream media coverage regarding everyday border crossings, apprehensions, and cartel-related crime does make it difficult for the general public to get a clear picture of what is occurring on a regular basis.  Couple that with the fact that border-related issues do not directly disrupt the lives of most people in the U.S., and we find ourselves with a recipe for ignorance and indifference toward the reality of our southern border situation.  Consequently, what I am describing here may seem overly dramatic to some.  I will say that, obviously, cartel-related crime is not rampant in the U.S. in the way that it is in Mexico.  Additionally, it is typically limited to individuals who are directly involved in smuggling operations on behalf of the cartels.  Cartels have an interest in keeping a low profile in the U.S.  Too much negative attention might bring about a stronger response from the government, which would further hinder their business operations or lead to increased conflict with U.S. authorities.  But it is important to understand that they have a well-established, very well-funded presence along the border and in many major U.S. cities (see map above).  While infighting often keeps the cartels from reaching their "full potential", the networks they have established to bring drugs and people into this country, coupled with their desire for power and money, nonetheless make them a considerable threat to our country.  They will not easily withdraw or give up their gains.  They will not hesitate to use violent tactics when necessary.  Additionally, they recruit U.S. citizens - often young people, drug addicts, low-income individuals, and those with ties to Mexico - to carry out their operations on the U.S. side of the border.  Many of these "recruits" do not understand what they are getting themselves into, and find themselves indebted to these criminal organizations - even threatened with assassination - when they do not come through on shipments.  This leads to a cycle of violent crime that winds its way into both large cities and rural communities.  It is a cancer that we should seek to uproot rather than viewing it with complacency while it quietly grows in our own backyard.



Politics vs. Reality

It is time to strip away the political rhetoric/media spin and look at the reality of the border situation.  Here are some things to consider as you think about border security.
    Cartel Control Over Southwest Border Crossings:
    I’ve mentioned this in previous posts, but the cartels control nearly all border crossings.  This means that immigrants must pay a handsome fee to the cartel in order to cross the border, with a cartel guide or handler.  The guides/handlers have complete control over their group and view them primarily as commodities to be delivered for the benefit of the criminal organization.  Rape, extortion, violent threats, desertion, and the eventual forced servitude of immigrants in the group are not uncommon.  Here is a recent story about a young migrant woman who was raped at a cartel-affiliated “stash house” in Southern Arizona.  Cartel-related crimes happen on the American side of the border more often than most people probably realize.

    Immigrant Groups Surrendering at the Border:
    You may have heard reports in the media of large groups of immigrants “turning themselves in” at the border.  In these cases, migrant groups or individuals simply walk across the border and sit down to wait for Border Patrol to pick them up. This has happened primarily with family units and unaccompanied minors over the past few years.  It has happened very recently in Southern Arizona with large groups (100-300 individuals) turning themselves in to Border Patrol immediately after crossing the border.  (Here are links to a few articles from AZ Central, KVOA, and NBC.)  As I mentioned above, all crossings are controlled by the cartels.  Why would they direct several hundred people to cross at once?  The answer: as a distraction.  The cartel makes its money smuggling two main commodities: human bodies and drugs.  While they “stage” a large group to cross at a certain time and in a specific location, they are often simultaneously smuggling large drug shipments across the border in another area.  Border Patrol is limited by two things in these situations: policy and manpower.  Even IF they know that a migrant group is serving as a decoy, they must first send available manpower to secure and process each individual in the group as a matter of policy.  Processing, transporting, and coordinating accommodations for such large groups takes time.  With groups numbering over one hundred individuals, there is often not enough manpower to actually cover the rest of the area, meaning that smugglers get a “free pass” to send through drugs, money, or other high stakes targets.  Smugglers know this and plan these large group crossings accordingly.  (The day after writing this paragraph, Customs and Border Protections issued a release with supporting data that publicly confirms this trend.)

    Asylum Seekers:
    The ability of so many immigrants in general to quickly and easily enter our country between ports of entry at the Southern border hinders the process for those who are legitimate asylum seekers.  The sheer number of people coming across the border makes it extremely difficult to give each legitimate asylum case the timely attention it deserves.  A few major points to note:
    • News articles and social media sometimes use the term “refugees” to refer to individuals coming across the border, though this is an incorrect legal term.  An individual already present in the U.S., without previous clearance, cannot qualify as a refugee.  (Refugees come here legally through a different process with high standards of vetting.)  If an undocumented migrant enters the U.S. with the intention of seeking protection and claims credible fear, then they are considered “asylum seekers”.
    • Not all undocumented immigrants coming across the southern border are seeking asylum.  The high profile coverage of, for example, unaccompanied minors, migrant caravans, and surrendering family units at the border makes it appear that the majority of undocumented immigrants are asylum seekers. This is not the case.  CBP data for FY2017 shows that 13% of individuals apprehended between ports of entry at the Southwest border (meaning that they entered the U.S. illegally) claimed credible fear. For FY2018, the percentage was slightly higher at 14%.  I imagine it will be higher still for FY2019, though perhaps not as high as the media coverage makes it appear.  While it is common and appropriate for family units, unaccompanied minors, and individuals from the "Northern Triangle" countries to routinely seek asylum, many others do not.  All undocumented immigrants are asked upon apprehension if they have a fear of returning to their home country.  If an individual answers "yes", then he or she goes through a separate credible fear interview with USCIS.  If an individual answers "no", then he or she is typically put into removal proceedings. 
    • There are individuals who claim credible fear – knowing that they lack the proper qualifications – just to temporarily avoid deportation, or, if released, to elude authorities.  As I mentioned above, this complicates and lengthens the process for individuals and families who are in legitimate need of protection. The asylum process is one of the most complex and difficult aspects of the current immigration system since it is both necessary and taken advantage of.  Better border security would not simply decrease illegal crossings, but ideally also streamline the process for those in legitimate need of our protection.  (Side note: While I do not have the time to discuss it in this post, I want to be sure to mention that I do not support President Trump’s attempted and recent changes to the asylum seeking process.  It potentially puts individuals with a legitimate need for protection in further danger.) 

    Less Apprehensions Does Not Necessarily Mean Less People Crossing:
    Those who favor less law enforcement presence at the border like to point out that the statistics show a decrease in apprehensions over the past few years.  While this is true, what these statistics cannot show us is how many individuals and drug shipments are consistently getting through our security measures.  It happens... often.  Again, the immensity of the cartel-run smuggling businesses is like an aggressive, growing cancer.  Identify and cut out one tumor, and five others spring up in a different location.  In rural areas like my county (Cochise County, AZ), Border Patrol agents from three stations - an estimated 1200 agents or so - are covering an area roughly the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, with a population density of about 21 people per square mile.  The terrain is varied and remote, including desert areas, dry river beds, farm land, cattle ranches, canyons, and mountains.  The back-country routes are endless, though mountain regions are probably most favored by drug smugglers carrying bundles of marijuana and by experienced human smuggling guides.  The remote access, innumerable hiding spots, and decreased likelihood of interaction with other people gives them a good chance of eluding pursuing authorities, or avoiding detection completely.  Add to this the fact that authorities must necessarily mandate much of their manpower to the immediate border region and main highways, leaving little coverage in the extensive rural and remote areas.  My point is merely that apprehension statistics do not give a comprehensive picture of exactly how many individuals are coming across the border.


    The Wall

    So… what about the WALL?  As I’ve already said, the wall is simply one part of the larger discussion surrounding border security.  It is not an end-all solution.  It must be utilized in conjunction with other measures, most notably an increase in law enforcement manpower and a streamlining of the legal immigration process.  And a wall in and of itself is not going to end illegal immigration.  But I do support the building of a wall in areas where it is feasible and reasonable to do so.  I believe that a wall upholds our responsibility to protect both citizens and non-citizens residing within our border, and I believe it is imperative to maintaining our national sovereignty.  But most notably, a wall is the primary and foremost part of a deterrence strategy.

    Deterrence is a word that gets thrown around often in border security conversations.  An entirely separate post could be written on the topic, but I want to keep it brief here.  Yes, the cartel does find ways to go over, under, and even through the border wall.  The creativity is endless… and even amusing at times. (See pictures below.)  A wall, as I mentioned previously, will not stop illegal immigration or drug smuggling.  But it will (and does) discourage, siphon, and illuminate these crimes.  The cartel does not get around the wall without significant monetary and manpower costs to themselves, while decreasing their effectiveness.  It also forcefully funnels their efforts into more recognizable and predictable patterns, leading to better prevention and apprehension by U.S. authorities.  Deterrence does work toward the overall goal of combating criminal operations on the American side, and a wall is one of the most effective forms of non-lethal physical deterrence. 











    One other tip:  Make sure to do your own research and read between the lines when some lawmakers and media outlets talk about the current border wall or border barriers.   Some use the word “wall” or “barrier” to refer to any type of physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border including “Normandy-style” anti-vehicle barriers and simple two-strand barbed wire fencing, neither of which are sufficient for preventing individuals from simply walking across the border.   Some go further still and even include electronic barriers such as drone coverage, cameras, and sensors as part of their definition of “border wall”.  In reality, the latter forms only serve to reveal border crossings, not prevent them.  The type of wall most people envision is what I would refer to as an anti-pedestrian border wall - typically a tall, steel structure that goes through border towns and cities.  Current figures suggest that only about 20% of the nearly 2000 mile US-Mexico border is demarcated by an anti-pedestrian wall. 

     




    Conclusion

    1. The information I have gathered and the stories I hear on a regular basis leave me no other avenue than to conclude that the porous nature of our border is an articulable threat with only the potential to grow… not necessarily because of the migrants themselves, but because of the criminal organizations operating behind the scenes.
    2. What maintains and strengthens these criminal organizations is the success of the human smuggling and drug smuggling business across our Southern border. 
    3. Border security efforts must be effective in stopping the cartels, which means combating human smuggling (illegal immigration) and drug smuggling.  A wall would be an effective addition to border security efforts, but must also be built in conjunction with increased law enforcement presence.
    I used the word “terrorists” previously, and, personally, I believe that the cartels should be classified as terrorist organizations.  If you gather nothing else from this post, please understand that the immigrants coming in are in many cases utilized as a smokescreen, offered up as scapegoats, and treated as pawns in the hands of murderers.  They deserve better.  We can do better for them.  It may seem antithetical, but protection for them also means standing up to the criminality that begins at the border… and stopping it.  And that means making border security more effective while also finding ways to make the immigration process more accessible for those who would otherwise place themselves in the hands of human smugglers.


    Final note: If you have difficulty separating the facts of the individual issues from the person and rhetoric of Donald Trump, you are not alone.  I struggle regularly with not allowing my judgement to be clouded by my personal opinions of the man.  But the obvious truth is that President Trump does not define an issue.  Anything he says – good or bad – about an issue does not change the reality.  I do not want to allow my dislike of him to dictate my personal convictions or to wash away my attempts at objectivity.  I pray we will all look at the facts and examples for ourselves without letting any politician or any media source on either side of the political aisle tell us what to think.


    A few articles for reference: 
     

    at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

    Up Against a Wall

    Lately, discussions surrounding the proposed border wall seem to be a “lose-lose” scenario for all sides involved.   I suppose this really ...