Sara Ritchie-Helmuth is the Connecting People Coordinator with MCC Guatemala.
The U.S. has historically honored and respected those who have journeyed to new lands—notable figures such as Christopher Columbus, Lewis and Clark, and John Smith. We refer to historical migrants as great explorers, pioneers, and settlers, giving nobility to their courage to trek to unknown territories regardless of their treatment to indigenous populations along the way.
However, the modern migrant’s quest for new life isn’t recognized with this same level of respect. We assign words to these migrants that do not give them an ounce of dignity. We call them wetbacks, undocumented, illegals, aliens. We have constructed a political arena where this kind of rhetoric is permitted in order to sustain a social norm and political model that makes borders permeable only to those with geographic, economic, and ethnic privilege.
Saulo Padilla.
I was just weeks old when NAFTA was signed and was sitting in Mrs. Allen’s third grade class when the Twin Towers fell, two major events that sparked Border Patrol expansion, particularly along the southern US border. I grew up in a political era where border militarization, counter-terrorism efforts, and the presence of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were common themes. I assumed that was normal until I recently participated in MCC’s Borderlands Learning Tour in Southern Arizona last May to learn abou the political climate and history surrounding border and immigration issues. On our first evening in Tucson, we heard Todd Miller speak about his book, Border Patrol Nation, during which we learned about key events that gave rise to border militarization and the tension, politics, economics, and even campaign tactics that surround this issue.
Miller stated that at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, there were only 16 physical borders around the world. Now there are 70. Specifically in the U.S., Border Patrol first began in 1924 when Congress enacted legislation that set a limit on the number of immigrants that could enter the country and created the classification of “entry without inspection,” furthering the concept of being “illegal.” Now there are more than 21,000 agents. The implementation of NAFTA in 1994 and the creation of the DHS post-9/11 are two major events that made the border the de facto war zone that it is today: copious amounts of agents, high tech thermal and motion activated sensors, combat-like operations and missions, watch towers, concrete-filled steel beams, and vehicle barricades. What will likely be the 3rd major event in the militarization of the border is upon us: the rise of Trump.
Sara Ritchie-Helmuth.
The first expansion of the southern border wall in 1994 was largely a result of the Commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner, convincing Congress to harden the US southern border in preparation for the displacement of Mexicans as a result of NAFTA, even though NAFTA’s promoters made lofty promises that it would bring “first world status” to the people of Mexico. Even the Mexican president at that time, Carlos Salinas de Gortiari, said, “We want NAFTA because we want to export goods, not people.” However, NAFTA did not fulfill these expectations and in 1994, the number of Border Patrol agents increased to 4,000.
After the implementation of NAFTA, total agriculture exports from the U.S. to Mexico rose drastically from $4.6 to $9.8 billion annually. Mexican farmers were forced to compete with this U.S. subsidized, agribusiness model. As a result, livelihoods were stripped away and people began fleeing to the U.S. in equally astonishing masses—as Doris Meissner predicted. Nearly 20,000 jobs in the Mexican pork industry were lost in direct relation to imports, according to the director of the Confederation of Mexican Pork Producers. More than 2 million maize farmers lost their jobs due to imported U.S. corn being sold to Mexicans at a lower price than locally grown corn. From 1992 to 2008, tonnage of corn imports rose from 2,014,000 to 10,330,000.
Saulo Padilla.
It is unethical that we intervene in nations to promote our own economic agenda only to turn around and reject the very individuals who are harmed by our presence. The issue becomes more unethical when propaganda tells US citizens that the justification for border militarization is to combat drugs and terrorism. First off, most drugs are smuggled through the 48 legitimate ports of entry “in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers,” as was reported in the 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment published by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). As for counteracting terrorism, there is no evidence that Border Patrol is offering protection because they are combating an inmensurable, threat—it simply can’t be legitimately confirmed. Instead, it likely pushes drug trafficking and violence underground.
Originally, Trump’s promise to build a “great wall” seemed like a flimsy campaign tactic, especially because he spoke of the subject as if a wall didn’t already exist! However, he appealed to those who felt their privilege was at risk. He further propelled the idea that the immigrant was something to be feared, and that a wall was the cure to keeping our society pure of the illegal, seeing as there is hardly a reasonable avenue for those who wish to enter the U.S. to do so on legal terms. Because we’ve criminalized migration, a once respected endeavor, we’ve allowed political rhetoric to paint the image of an unwanted, dangerous “other” that is to be expelled. In seeing immigrants in this light, we can ignore the most accurate narrative: the individual that flees their country in pursuit the American dream because the U.S. has played a role in stripping away their ability to access their own livelihood in their home country.
But the U.S. believed Trump when he said, “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” They believed him when he said the answer must be a wall. If the goal is separation, a wall may serve as a temporary deterrent. If you’re trying to socially construct an “other” population, yes, a wall would serve as a great physical reminder of their “otherness.” However, walls do not tame human spirit—it will not stop families attempting to reunite with their loved ones, mothers trying feed their children, fathers looking for work, or anyone who thinks that the grass just may be greener on the other side.
Saulo Padilla.
But the issue with the issue of immigration, for both those who want tighter enforcement and those who want an open-border policy, is that we are all focusing in on this wall. For liberals it is a symbolic representation of the broken immigration system and for conservatives it is a symbolic representation of their right to security and privilege. There is too much focus on building it higher or breaking it down when both of those unrealistic ideas don’t address the REAL issue: why people are leaving their homes and why people are literally dying searching for a better life. Since 2000, more than 6,000 migrants have died in the desert trying to cross the border. These deaths include an increasing number from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, territories to which the U.S. has extended its own border, funding border militarization throughout Central America, specifically along the Guatemala-Mexico border.
Political beliefs aside, that fact in itself—more than 6,000 deaths—should be reason for concern. And that number is only counting the number of remains found on U.S. soil—it does not include the many who died during their journey of peril before they reached the U.S.-Mexico border. This should be deemed a humanitarian crisis. However, that kind of language or common recognition of human life doesn’t exist in the politically-charged discussion of immigration
But it needs to.
The first thing we need to do is change the way in which we talk about immigration. We need to start referring to border crossing as a humanitarian crisis, not a national security threat. In addition, we need make terms such as “forced migration” and “displacement” more common in the immigration conversation and refer to those who are crossing as “displaced persons,” instead of illegals and aliens. If we could begin by internationally recognizing mass migration, the reasons for it, and resulted deaths as a humanitarian issue and start identifying people as “displaced,” “forced to migrate,” or “fleeing,” that would be a good start to restoring the truth and compassion that is missing from the whole issue.
Interested in participating in a Learning Tour to gain a deeper understanding of migration issues? Contact your regional MCC office for more information.