Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL

Bad Hombres and Borders: Illegal Migration and the Mexican-‐American Relationship POLS846

Prof. Beesan Sarrouh John Gallant 10025373 December 13th 2016

Gallant 10025373

2

Table of Contents Introduction 3 Literature Review 4 Methodology 7 Theoretical Framework 9 Historical Context 10 Mexican-‐American Illegal Migration in the Millennium 13 Analysis 15 Conclusion 19 List of Figures 22 Notes 24 Bibliography 27

Gallant 10025373

3

In the American discourse of immigration, how has the concept of smuggling illegal

migrants been securitized? Recent evidence from the 2016 presidential elections would suggest

there is a shift towards illegal migration and smuggling from Mexico being treated as a threat to

national identity according to bi-‐partisan and public opinion. This is the product of a turbulent

historical relationship between Mexico and the United States, extrapolated upon by post-‐9/11

understandings of terrorism as an existential threat to the country. The change has been

informed by among other things legislation geared towards border enforcement in lieu of

migrant accommodation coupled with a degree of ‘conceptual creep’ between smuggling and

human trafficking. The movement towards a more security-‐focused approach to regulating

immigration into the US means smuggling has become readily associated with more serious

criminal phenomenon, and therefore is treated as something considerably more threatening

than the original act. Arguably what has ensued is conflation of illegal migrants into the USA

from Mexico with more serious criminal phenomena such as terrorism and human trafficking,

and therefore is reflective of how migrants in the USA are then treated. This conflation is often

informed by the measurement of immigrant integration into society via a binary of good and

bad. For migrants from Mexico and other regions there is a distinction between ‘bad’

immigrants and ‘good immigrants’, which is problematic in that it presupposes that

immigrants – especially illegal ones are a menace to society. Scholarship on the subject would

indicate that securitization of illegal migration in the US in effect reinforces illegal border

activities by virtue of the fact that alternate avenues of transport are sought to circumvent the

security measures introduced. What ensues is a positive correlation between security measures

taken by the host country and the number of methods taken to surmount them. However, the

Gallant 10025373

4

body of literature on the subject of smuggling between Mexico and the US largely addresses

mainstream approaches of the topic and the need for it’s re-‐evaluation, without critically

assessing how these frameworks surrounding migration have been created and maintained.

Therefore, this paper will endeavor to explain the phenomenon of securitizing illegal migration

in the United States of America in order to better understand the necessity for a re-‐negotiated

approach towards treatment of illegal migration.

Literature Review

To begin, Van Liempt and Doomernik’s 2006 study Migrant’s Agency in the Smuggling

Process: The Perspectives of Smuggled Migrants in the Netherlands provides a useful conceptual

basis for analysis. This work addresses issues of agency associated with smuggling agents and

migrants smuggled into the Netherlands from Iraq, the Horn of Africa and the former USSR.1

Drawing on the example of the New Alien Act in the Netherlands the study evaluates the

relationship between smuggler and migrant in terms of the decisions made influencing the

process and volatility of illegal migration itself. Van Liempt and Doomernik’s study is relevant

for this analysis in it’s addressing of insufficiencies in the discourse of smuggling and it’s

relationship to mainstream conceptions of immigration.2 However, it does not address these

issues on a broad enough level, something this analysis will attempt to achieve through a

different context. Comparatively then Kyle and Koslowski’s Global Human Smuggling adopts a

similar approach but does so across a broad range of national contexts3. Their work

problematizes mainstream perspectives on smuggling, addressing them as a reductionist

project that focuses on the criminal aspect in lieu of broader networks of benefiting actors.4

Further, this study distinguishes between migrant-‐exporting schemes and slave-‐importing

Gallant 10025373

5

operations where the latter is intrinsically illicit while the former is not.5 Additionally, their

analysis addresses the relationship between law enforcement and illegal migration, specifically

the notion that the relationship is decidedly ‘symbiotic’.6 This conclusion will inform the

analysis of this paper however in a more specific context. This is due to the fact that Kyle and

Koslowski reach this conclusion through a historical context, compared to this paper’s analysis

that will adopt a defined analytical framework to address contemporary examples. To wit, this

paper will engage with the type of framing used to reach this conclusion beyond identifying

agents in smuggling and migration while being critical of mainstream approaches to the topic.

More specifically then, Tiano et. al’s 2012 overview of the Mexican-‐American context Borderline

Slavery: Mexico, United States and the Human Trade outlines the subject matter in a focused

approach.7 Tiano et. al provide a detailed account of human trafficking and sex trafficking

between the two countries, and adopt the valuable distinction between smuggling and

trafficking persons according to UN criteria.8 This study is concerned with the ramifications of

human trafficking in the context of human rights, specifically in terms of the intersectionality of

actors involved as gendered subjects.9 On an institutional level Tiano et al.’s analysis outlines

the bilateral responses to human trafficking through law enforcement with the provision of

special visas to trafficking victims and the challenges concerned as a result.10 This work is useful

in the provision of an overview regarding human trafficking and smuggling in it’s employment

of a distinction between the two concepts. However, this book is more concerned with

addressing human trafficking as a criminal phenomenon and outlining efforts to address it

bilaterally. This is to say it is not directly concerned with what informs understandings of human

trafficking beyond international norms and where criminal explanations may be insufficient.

Gallant 10025373

6

Addressing securitization could provide another dimension of analysis to properly justify why

specific approaches to human trafficking have been taken. With relation to Tiano et. al’s

overview, David Spener’s Clandestine Crossings: Migrants and Coyotes on the Texas-‐Mexico

Border adopts a similar approach in addressing the complexities of illegal migration between

the countries.11 Spener’s ethnography analyzes the relationship between smuggling and

smuggler agents in the journey between Mexico and the USA. In particular, his work is

concerned with the social processes in place within Mexican culture that permit and facilitate

smuggling into the USA. Spener supplies an interpretive framework as an alternative to

mainstream perspectives on the topic informed by ‘everyday resistance, social capital, and

funds of knowledge’.12 Contrary to other works Spener argues against the presence of a

symbiotic relationship between smuggling agents and border enforcement services as it

presupposes these actors reinforce a repressive structure against migrants.13 Instead Spener

proposes that the relationship between smuggling agent and migrant is a strategic albeit

conflicted alliance in the social field.14 This is similar to the work of Van Leimpt and Doomernik

in the provision of a critical perspective of the smuggling agent-‐migrant relationship, moving

beyond simplistic definitions of the two. Lastly Chuang’s 2014 study Exploitation Creep and the

Unmaking of Human Trafficking Law outlines related issues to previous literature on the

topic.15 This work argues that contemporary approaches to human trafficking prevention in the

USA are a product of ‘exploitation creep’. Specifically, this study argues that the Obama

administration’s efforts to promote a broader definition of the trafficking has enabled a

recasting of forced labor as trafficking, and therefore branding it as slavery.16 Chuang argues

that this recasting of trafficking towards labor shifts the concern towards issues of labor policy,

Gallant 10025373

7

and specifically a need to strengthen labor protections to reduce vulnerability to trafficking.17

This is relevant to the analysis insofar as it is concerned with the reframing of human trafficking

by the US government to justify alternate approaches to addressing it, however the analysis will

argue that this reframing has from at the cost of a non-‐securitized definition of smuggling in the

case of Mexican-‐American relations.

The literature on the subject of smuggling and illegal migration within USA-‐Mexican

relations is significant in breadth. Approaches to this topic challenge conventional assumptions

of the smuggling process, and in particular the relationship between smuggling agent and

migrant. Conversely other perspectives in the literature engage with smuggling as a

phenomenon closely related to human trafficking and therefore approaches it as a criminal

activity irrespective of the relationships between the actors involved. This analysis will attempt

to understand the use of framing informing mainstream approaches to smuggling and how this

in turn relates to aspects of immigration in the future of the Mexico-‐USA relationship.

Methodology

For the purpose of this paper, definitions will be offered regarding the terms used to

describe the smuggling process. In particular, this will address the agents involved and the

labels given by the state and international community in the process of illegal migration.

Terms: Smuggling agent, migrant, smuggling, human trafficking

Smuggling Agent-‐ For this analysis smuggling agents will be understood as those “hired by

autonomous migrants to help (migrants) cross the border and reach their U.S. destinations” .18

Gallant 10025373

8

This term will be used interchangeably with coyote -‐ the Spanish term offered in Spener’s

analysis to colloquially refer to smuggling agents of non-‐regional significance in Mexico.19

Migrant-‐ The principal agent participating in the process of migration from one country to

another for reasons economic, social, criminal, or political. This is not to be confused with

refugees-‐ those who migrate from one country to another forcibly due to conflict involving one

or more states in the first country. It is worth mentioning for this analysis that migrants will also

refer to agents who may be passing through a transitional country to reach a destination

different from the starting country.

Smuggling-‐ Smuggling in this analysis will refer to the procurement, negotiation, and usage of a

smuggling agent by a migrant to clandestinely transport the migrant across the political borders

of a given country. This definition uses the destination of a migrant in a broader sense due to

the fact that negotiation between migrant and smuggling agent is one that often results varying

outcomes of destination. It will be assumed for this analysis that smuggling is a common activity

concerned with the process of illegal migration from Mexico into Canada.

Human Trafficking-‐ This analysis will use the terminology created by the Trafficking Victims

Protection Act (TVPA) passed by the US Government in 2000: “the recruitment, harboring,

transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for services, through the use of force, fraud,

or coercion for the purpose of involuntary servitude”.20

Theoretical Framework

This analysis will use Buzan et. al’s 1998 work Security: A New Framework for Analysis as

Gallant 10025373

9

the theoretical framework for discussion, in particular the notion of securitization. Buzan et. al’s

work defines this as “the intersubjective establishment of an existential threat with a saliency

sufficient to have substantial policy effects”.21 This approach is concerned with the study of

discourse and political constellations, specifically whether or not these spheres can enable an

audience to tolerate certain actions taken by principal actors that would not otherwise be

permitted.22 As a result, this theory is concerned with the presence of an existential threat, or

the intersubjective creation of one in order to allow extraordinary political actions to be taken.

This involvement of an existential threat is often directly concerned with certain facilitating

conditions that enable the process to take place. Further, these facilitating conditions can be

present on a variety of levels from local to global.23 Although how these conditions are handled

is largely dependent on the actors. Securitization is concerned with three specific facets:

referent objects that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to

survival, securitizing actors who declare a referent object to be existentially threatened, and

lastly functional actors who affect the dynamics of a sector.24 Without being a referent object

or actor calling for security on behalf of the referent object, this is an actor who significantly

influences decisions in the field of security.25 The relationship worth highlighting in the

framework of securitization will be between the securitizing actor and referent object in

question as it greatly influences the outcome of the process. The ability of the securitizing actor

to successfully legitimize the claim of the referent object facing existential threat is crucial to

securitization of a subject, in this case illegal migrants from Mexico. This analysis will use the

three facets of securitization proposed by Buzan et. al to evaluate the treatment of smuggling

by the US government over the course of the Obama administration and into the leadership of

Gallant 10025373

10

President-‐elect Trump. Specifically, this study will be concerned with this policy as it relates to

illegal migration into the USA from Mexico. The objects of analysis here will be speech acts of

the US government, legislation and initiatives created pertaining to smuggling and human

trafficking.

Historical context

Mexico’s relationship with the USA has been one often defined by imperial interest. Early

instances of the Mexico-‐US relationship are found in the enactment of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine,

which sought to enforce American values abroad away from Euro-‐colonial influence.26 Post-‐

revolution Mexico saw the leadership of José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori over a thirty-‐five-‐year

period that further entertained the US as a foreign investor above all else. This was defined through

modernization of the Mexican economic infrastructure, drawing considerable American investment

while at the cost of rural land ownership.27 However, the colonial implications of this relationship

were reinforced by the humiliation of Mexicans and national elite in their loss of the Mexican-‐

American War of 1846-‐48.28 This loss was understood by the US as owed to deficiencies in the

Mexican character, bolstering national narratives of racial superiority. Legacies of colonialism

between the US and Mexico maintained throughout the remainder of the 1800s, however into the

20th century Mexico became an increasing source of labor in the USA as the country moved into

World War 1 and 2. Following World War 1 the US entered a period of economic depression

however, resulting in the expulsion of thousands of Mexican immigrants who had previously

worked in the US under privately contracted railroad and agricultural organizations, sanctioned by

the US Department of Labor.29 Once the US had recovered from postwar economic downturn, the

demand for Mexican migrant labor in the country had taken on a new fervor, to compensate for

Gallant 10025373

11

legislation in the 1920s that prevented the use of immigrant workers from Europe.30 Past the 1920s

and into the 2nd World War the relationship between the US and Mexico continued to be defined by

the requirement of Mexican labor to make up for deficits suffered by the US in their entry into the

conflict. A landmark of the relationship in this period was the creation of the Bracero Program,

which involved issuing contracts for Mexican men to work in the United States.31 While this

program occurred over a twenty-‐three-‐year period, certain exceptions were made regarding which

states adopted it. Specifically, Texas was treated as exempt from the implementation of the Bracero

Program by virtue of the fact that historical treatment of Mexicans in the state by law enforcement

and the farming communities was understood to be negative.32 However, in doing so previous

Mexican laborers in Texas then became classified as undocumented migrants. As a result, by the

1940s Texas harbored a high concentration of undocumented migrants, bolstered by the use of the

region as a transit state for other migrants working deeper in the US.33

In order to counter historical prejudices however in Texas and beyond with relation to Mexico

and other minorities in the US, the Roosevelt administration created the Fair Employment Practices

Committee (FEPC) on June 25th 1941.34 Created with the purpose of combatting discrimination in

the workplace, this organization provided a vehicle through which Mexican civil rights leaders could

lobby for change and seek federal protection against discrimination.35 While effective as a federal

body, agents called for the creation of more regional committees specific to Texas resulting in the

birth of the Texas Good Neighbor Commission in 1943 and the Office of the Coordinator for Inter-‐

American Affairs (OCIAA) dedicated solely for people of Mexican origin.36 These organizations

differed from FEPC on the basis that they drew criticism for being comprised largely of Caucasian

representatives in lieu of Mexican civil rights leaders found in the FEPC.37

Gallant 10025373

12

While this regional lobbying and advocacy provided a strong basis for protection of Mexican-‐

American interests during the period of the Bracero Program, illegal immigration became an

increasing public concern into the Reagan government of the 1980s. The Reagan government was

punctuated by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which among other things

granted more resources to Border Patrol services to apprehend migrants being smuggled from

Mexico through weapons, equipment, and training.38 Records indicate that by 1992 the

enforcement budget for Immigrant and Naturalization Services increased to $702 million from

previous funding of $352 million in 1986 as a product of the IRCA under Reagan.39 This marked a

shift to a more controlling approach by the US towards the smuggling of migrants into the country,

bolstered by provisions beneath the IRCA that repealed previous legislation allowing migrants to

work illegally in the US during World War 1 and 2.40

A particularly relevant landmark in the historical context for this analysis however is that of

Operation Rio Grande. Initiated on August 25th 1997 this operation was created with the purpose of

capturing the remaining migrants that eluded Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS)

authorities in the previous Operation Blockade in El Paso, Texas.41 This operation dramatically

increased security for the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Texas-‐ Mexico border, between El Paso

and Nuevo Laredo (Figure 1.1).42 However, as the operation moved into the millennium,

apprehensions fell sharply into FY2003 from below two hundred thousand compared to the

operation’s peak of approximately half a million in FY1997 (Figure 1.2).43 Additionally, following the

launch of the operation, deaths of migrants grew significantly in response to attempting to

circumvent the tighter security measures. According to monitoring organizations as well, migrants

who were apprehended by immigration authorities faced a 38% increase in human rights abuses

Gallant 10025373

13

along the South Texas border including instances of psychological/verbal abuse, sexual assault, and

unlawful seizure or destruction of property.44 Initiated in the context of America’s involvement in

the Middle East in the 90s and into the natal stages of the ‘War on Terror’, Operation Rio Grande

marked an escalation in the US from viewing illegal migration as a general security concern to a

threat to national identity.

Mexican-‐American Illegal Migration in the Millennium

9/11 marked a shift in security priorities for the US to their presence in the Middle East, while

simultaneously attempting to preserve the national homeland from racialized threats. In many

respects this was reflected in the Bush and Obama administrations’ approaches to immigration and

combatting smuggling, often with relation to the US-‐Mexico border. In terms of protecting national

interests the millennium brought a renewed protection for the American national identity

maintained by tactful rhetoric informed by a narrative of a world filled with existential threats

against the United States. A key aspect of this change was the creation of the Department of

Homeland of Security in 2003, charged with the administration of border security and immigration

efforts.45 This period saw increased funding to border agencies across the US including Customs and

Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), both entities beneath

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whose budget reached a peak of approximately $56

million in 2011.46 Additionally, Bush era immigration saw the introduction of the Comprehensive

Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Containing the DREAM Act beneath, this act proposed stronger

enforcement along the border with Mexico coupled with a system of verifying employment

eligibility for migrants. In terms of accommodating migrants however it outlines a proposed guest-‐

worker program for migrants coupled with ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ visas as a means to a pathway to citizenship

Gallant 10025373

14

for guest workers and undocumented migrants.47 Ultimately though this bill was not passed as it

faced bipartisan criticism regarding the concern of workers ‘overstaying’, and the possibility of

denying rights to Mexican immigrants in turn. However, as the Bush presidency drew to a close, the

USA’s approach to immigration arguably did not change

While still focused on matters of terrorism and threats abroad, the Obama presidency directly

associated itself with Mexican immigration and the challenges posed albeit in a Janus-‐faced

manner. More specifically, the Democrats’ approach to illegal migration under Obama was equal

parts controlling and liberal. Two pivotal aspects of this period were the proposal of the Deferred

Action for Children After Arrival Act (DACA), and the Deferred Action for Americans and Lawful

Permanent Residents (DAPA). The proposal of these acts was important for Mexicans and illegal

migrants as 2014 onwards marked a surge of migrants both unaccompanied and otherwise into the

USA seeking refuge from cartel violence in the northern triangle of Central America.48 Established in

2012, DACA was proposed as a program that would allow for 1.2 million individuals brought to the

US as children to regularize their status.49 Indeed, since the introduction of this act the country of

origin with the highest number of DACA beneficiaries was led by Mexico with 78%, followed by El

Salvador with 4%, lastly with Guatemala and Honduras at 3%.50 It is worth noting however that this

bill faced considerable opposition simply due to the presence of a Republican majority in Congress

for most of Obama’s presidency effectively stifling the legislative process. Following DACA was the

proposal of DAPA as a means to expand on the former in order to permit an additional 3.6 million

to regularize their status.51However, it is important to note the decidedly Janus-‐faced nature of the

Obama Democrats’ approach to immigration, and in particular the treatment of illegal migrants

arriving in the country. To elaborate, the Obama administration has deported a record 438,421

Gallant 10025373

15

illegal migrants in FY2013, a marked increase from the Bush era.52 With regard to public opinion

surveys, the Hispanic-‐American community opposes the measures taken by ICE and other border

agencies to increase deportations in lieu of pathways to citizenship by a total of 60% overall.53 The

presidency however made border enforcement a priority in his immigration platform perhaps due

to the stalling that occurred of DAPA and DACA by the Republicans, earning him the moniker

‘deporter-‐in-‐chief’ by some. However, as we move into the leadership of President-‐elect Donald

Trump, future migration from America’s neighbor could very well be thrown into jeopardy.

Analysis

Given the historical context of migration from Mexico and Latin America to the USA, it is clear

there is a shift towards immigration being understood from the perspective of national security. In

particular border efforts have focused on combatting smuggling and human trafficking, and in many

respects this has come at the cost of migration policy. Using Buzan et. al’s theory of securitization

we can first examine the presence of referent objects in relation to how illegal immigration is

treated by the US government. For this case the referent objects in question are the nation and

state, and their preservation. After 9/11 these objects became national security priorities, as

terrorism became perceived as an existential threat to the American national project. It is worth

mentioning however that existential threats towards the USA have been perceived as ones directed

at the ‘nation’ and not at the state. Though attacks on the ‘nation’ as a referent object are often

assumed by securitizing actors to be attacks on the state as well. In many respects this has been the

case with relation to smuggling and illegal migrants passing into the USA from Mexico and Latin

America. For this analysis then, 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror’ exists as a facilitating condition for

securitization of migrant smuggling into the US. Obama’s speech-‐acts on the subject of illegal

Gallant 10025373

16

migration have been difficult to depict solely as decrying smuggling, although the approach to

illegal migration has been a firm one as indicated in his 2014 address:

[…] I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable -‐– especially those who may be dangerous.54

Here the aforementioned relationship between securitizing actor and referent object is clear in

the legitimization of the nation as under threat from illegal migration. Granted the president is in a

unique position in which securitizing illegal immigration outright will have serious political

implications both in the present and future, however this did not preclude it from happening on a

lower level. Securitizing actors in this case are Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and to a lesser extent Citizenship and Immigration Services.

While these lower level organizations have not securitized illegal migration through speech-‐acts,

they have instead done so through advertising and the formation of anti-‐smuggling initiatives in the

country. An example of this is the creation of the Southern Borders and Approaches Campaign in

2014 by Homeland Security. This initiative was created to fortify the South Texas border against

influx of smuggled illegal immigrants and ultimately “reduce the terrorism risk to the Nation”.55

Again the relationship between securitizing actor and referent object is legitimized in this case by

virtue of the fact that the organizations that have taken part in this relationship are representatives

of the state. What has ensued from this initiative is an increased security presence at the Mexican

border even as we enter the current year. As of 2016 then Texas has one of the highest

concentrations of migrant detention centers in the USA, second only to Philadelphia.56 Given that

there is the presence of two preceding factors applicable to Buzan et. al’s model of securitization,

Gallant 10025373

17

we can observe the presence of the third component to this approach: functional actors. In terms

of agents who directly influence the security agenda in this case we can first observe terrorism as

having a key role. The post-‐9/11 hysteria with relation to securing borders whilst maintaining a

clear national identity provided a basis for justification of typically extraordinary policy measures in

order to protect against foreign threats, for example one can observe legislation such as the Patriot

Act of 2001. On the side of Mexico however, actors that influence the security agenda are slightly

more splintered. A particularly formidable actor in this case influencing the security agenda is Los

Zetas cartel in Mexico, the only criminal organization in the country that has taken part in migrant

protection and smuggling.57 Criminal organizations like cartels influence smuggling networks

through providing smuggling services as well, but from a much more profit-‐driven approach that

often sacrifices safety and predictability. This actor influences the securitizing agenda by virtue of

the fact it can be readily associated with smuggling as a contributor. In other terms it is a

securitizing actor due to the sheer size of the organization, and its ability to function as a cohesive

agent. Another functional actor on the Mexican side is that of smuggling networks, and their

respective coyote smuggling agents. Often hired through a lengthy negotiation process, these

actors have the responsibility of smuggling migrants across borders by way of evading bureaucratic

regulation.58 Smuggling agents influence the securitization agenda for both Mexico and the USA in

turn but in a different way, this is due to the fact smuggling agents are largely inconspicuous and

thus cannot be confronted via conventional security approaches. Compared to the sheer size of

cartels, smuggling networks are able to influence the security agenda due to their ubiquity in

Mexico and Latin America.

Gallant 10025373

18

This paper would be remiss to not acknowledge the advent of the Trump presidency and how

this will affect illegal migration from Mexico. The recent election has seen an unprecedented

securitization of illegal migration by Donald Trump’s administration, to the extent it has become a

policy priority. With regard to referent objects, Trump has made the security of the USA a focal

point for his leadership, for evidence of this one can simply observe the ubiquity of the Make

America Great Again slogan. As for speech-‐acts relevant to securitizing illegal migration from

Mexico there have been numerous occasions into his election in which this has been demonstrated,

notably his infamous speech in June 2015 on the campaign trail:

[…] Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.59 Indeed, the fact that Trump was able to capitalize on white American fears about safety

and sovereignty to the extent that building a wall to Mexico became a national priority should

be sufficient evidence that illegal migration has been securitized. Given the comparison to

previous governments it appears that there has not been a change in terms of aforementioned

aspects of securitization, rather the way they are interpreted has changed. This is to say that

the strength of the referent object has changed into the leadership of President-‐elect Trump to

be decidedly stronger, indicated by the frequency in which ‘nation-‐hood’ is evoked by Trump as

something facing existential threat.

Gallant 10025373

19

Conclusion

Alternative supplementary explanations for the treatment of illegal migrants in the US,

especially with relation to Mexico would suggest this phenomenon is motivated along racial

lines. Evidence of this is indicated by the ‘whitelash’ across the US during the 2016 elections, in

which anti-‐immigration and nationalist sentiment reached a near-‐fever pitch among the

electorate. Alternate narratives of this phenomenon however would do well to address the

relationship between securitizing actors and the referent objects in this case as it would serve

to explain the division along racial lines. In the case of the US the shift toward a stronger

adherence to the referent object, specifically ‘the nation’ would indicate a movement towards

more exclusionary understandings of national identity demonstrated by the sense of alienation

and anger motivating supporters of Donald Trump. Racial explanations of the behavior towards

illegal migration from Mexico are sufficient insofar as they describe the phenomenon, however

securitization theory extrapolates from this approach in its examination of the roots of the case

while providing a normative basis for further research. Moreover, applying theories of

securitization to describe this better demonstrate how racial motivations may play out on a

policy level.

The preceding discussion has attempted to outline how illegal migration, and more

specifically smuggling has been securitized in the USA and what this could mean for future

understandings of the matter. As for the conclusions of this analysis however we can observe

that the securitization of illegal migration and smuggling could pose serious implications. This

increased adherence to the nation as a referent object may be used as a justification for further

securitization of other aspects of immigration into the USA, demonstrated by the proposed

Gallant 10025373

20

Muslim registry. The central conundrum in securitizing illegal migration is whether or not

criminalizing an act done so without the purpose of harming a national project can be justified.

This is complicated insofar as the evidence presented contradicts classical narratives of the

United States of America as a ‘nation of immigrants’. The potential for definitional overlap

between smuggling and human trafficking that ensues from evoking a nation under attack will

result in migrants from Mexico and beyond being essentialized into a category that is

significantly more criminal. Abroad such problems have already been demonstrated in

organizations such as the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR) that has faced

criticism for interrogating refugees in a manner that would suggest criminal prosecution, that is

to say conducting refugee status negotiations with the purpose of seeking to disprove a claim

from the outset.60 Given this, further research into the securitization of illegal migration in

Mexico would provide valuable insight into the Mexican-‐American relationship. Indeed,

application of Buzan et. al’s theory of securitization to Mexico would indicate a different

network of actors facing a similar array of challenges. Comparison between the two cases may

have meaningful results for the future of this foreign policy relationship. Additionally, solutions

may lie in the way the categories of ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ are understood by the Global North

and how these categories are contingent on political contexts. Understanding the privilege

underpinning the determination of these categories could offer an increased sensitivity to the

context of illegal migrants, and therefore present an opportunity to be critical of mainstream

approaches to them. Ultimately with the evidence presented by this analysis, additional areas

of research can be found in the relationship between illegal and legal immigration both in the

US and beyond. More broadly there is a need to understand the limitations of an approach to

Gallant 10025373

21

immigration understood solely through the language of border enforcement, and how this

might harm perceptions of migrants in turn.

Gallant 10025373

22

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 A visual representation of Operation Rio Grande in terms of the area covered on the Texas-‐Mexico Border

Source: "Perry-‐Castañeda Map Collection." University of Texas Libraries. 1997

Gallant 10025373

23

Figure 1.2 Homeland Security data outlining the results of Operation Rio Grande from FY1993-‐FY2005

Source: Spener, David. Clandestine Crossings: Migrants and Coyotes on the Texas-‐Mexico Border. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Gallant 10025373

24

Notes

1 Ilse Van Leimpt, and Jeroen Doomernik. "Migrant's Agency in the Smuggling Process: The Perspectives of Smuggled Migrants in the Netherlands." International Migration 44, no. 4 (2006): 165-‐90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-‐2435.2006.00383.x. 2 Ibid. 3 David Kyle, and Rey Koslowski. Global Human Smuggling: Comparative Perspectives. 32 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid 33 6 Ibid 122 7 Susan Tiano, Moira Murphy-‐Aguilar, and Brianne Bigej. Borderline Slavery: Mexico, United States, and the Human Trade. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. 8 Ibid 56 9 Ibid 109 10 Ibid 223 11 David Spener. Clandestine Crossings: Migrants and Coyotes on the Texas-‐Mexico Border. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. 12 Ibid 11 13 Ibid 231 14 Ibid. 15 Janine Chuang. "Exploitation Creep And The Unmaking Of Human Trafficking Law." The American Journal of International Law 108, no. 4 (2014): 609-‐49. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609. 16 Ibid 611 17 Ibid. 18 Clandestine Crossings 12 19 Clandestine Crossings 13 20 "FACT SHEET: HUMAN TRAFFICKING (English)." FACT SHEET: HUMAN TRAFFICKING (English) | Office on Trafficking in Persons | Administration for Children and Families. August 2, 2012. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/endtrafficking/resource/fact-‐sheet-‐human-‐trafficking 21 Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap H. De. Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. 25 Boulder: Rienner, 1998. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid 17

Gallant 10025373

25

24 Ibid 36 25 Ibid. 26 Thomas E. Skidmore, Peter H. Smith, and James Naylor Green. Modern Latin America. 434 New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 27 Ibid 437 28 Ibid. 29 Mark Reisler. By the Sweat of Their Brow: Mexican Immigrant Labor in the United States, 1900-‐1940. Westport, CT: Greenwood, Press, 1976. 30 Lawrence A. Cardoso. Mexican Emigration to the United States, 1897-‐1931: Socio-‐economic Patterns. 83 Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1980. 31 Clandestine Crossings 40 32 Kitty Calavita. Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. New York: Routledge, 1992. 33 Clandestine Crossings 40 34 Matthew Gritter. Mexican Inclusion: The Origins of Anti-‐discrimination Policy in Texas and the Southwest. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2012 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Clandestine Crossings 43 39 Dunn, Timothy J. The Militarization of the US-‐Mexico Border: 1978-‐1992: Low-‐intensity Conflict Doctrine Comes Home. Austin: Center for Mexican American Studies, the Univ. of Texas, 1996. 40 Clandestine Crossings 43 41 Clandestine Crossings 47 42 "Perry-‐Castañeda Map Collection." University of Texas Libraries. 1997. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/mexico_rel97.jpg. 43 Clandestine Crossings 50 44 Nate Seltzer, and George Kourous. "Immigration Enforcement and Human Rights Abuses." Borderlines 6, no. 9 (1998). 1998. Accessed December 06, 2016. 45 Borderline Slavery: Mexico, United States, and the Human Trade 181 46 Ibid. 47 Danielle Renwick, and Brianna Lee. "The U.S. Immigration Debate." Council on Foreign Relations. February 26, 2015. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-‐immigration-‐debate/p11149

Gallant 10025373

26

48 International Crisis Group. "Easy Prey: Criminal Violence and Central American Migration." International Crisis Group. July 28, 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-‐america-‐caribbean/central-‐america/easy-‐prey-‐criminal-‐violence-‐and-‐central-‐american-‐migration 49 US Government. "Executive Actions on Immigration." US Citizenship and Immigration Services. April 15, 2015. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Gonzalez-‐Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. "U.S. Deportations of Immigrants Reach Record High in 2013." Pew Research Center. October 02, 2014. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/10/02/u-‐s-‐deportations-‐of-‐immigrants-‐reach-‐record-‐high-‐in-‐2013/ 53 Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "Americans Split on Deportations as Latinos Press Obama on Issue." Pew Research Center. March 11, 2014. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/03/11/americans-‐split-‐on-‐deportations-‐as-‐latinos-‐press-‐obama-‐on-‐issue/ 54 Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Immigration." The White House. November 20, 2014. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-‐press-‐office/2014/11/20/remarks-‐president-‐address-‐nation-‐immigration 55 US Department of Homeland Security, Secretary. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. November 20, 2014. Memorandum: Southern Border Approaches Campaign, Washington D.C. 56 US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Detention Facility Locator." US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.ice.gov/detention-‐facilities 57 Easy Prey-‐ International Crisis Group 2016 58 Clandestine Crossings 91 59 Hanrahan, Tim. "Donald Trump Transcript: ‘Our Country Needs a Truly Great Leader’." The Wall Street Journal. June 16, 2015. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/16/donald-‐trump-‐transcript-‐our-‐country-‐needs-‐a-‐truly-‐great-‐leader/ 60 Espinoza, Gerardo, and Salvador Lacruz. "International Crisis Group Interview." Interview. International Crisis Group. July 28, 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016.

Gallant 10025373

27

https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-‐america-‐caribbean/central-‐america/easy-‐prey-‐criminal-‐violence-‐and-‐central-‐american-‐migration Bibliography Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap H. De. Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Rienner, 1998. Calavita, Kitty. Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. New York: Routledge, 1992. Cardoso, Lawrence A. Mexican Emigration to the United States, 1897-‐1931: Socio-‐economic Patterns. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1980. Chuang, Janine. "Exploitation Creep And The Unmaking Of Human Trafficking Law." The American Journal of International Law 108, no. 4 (2014): 609-‐49. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609. United States Government. "Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)." US Citizenship and Immigration Services. October 14, 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-‐deferred-‐action-‐childhood-‐arrivals-‐daca. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Detention Facility Locator." US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.ice.gov/detention-‐facilities Dunn, Timothy J. The Militarization of the US-‐Mexico Border: 1978-‐1992: Low-‐intensity Conflict Doctrine Comes Home. Austin: Center for Mexican American Studies, the Univ. of Texas, 1996. International Crisis Group. "Easy Prey: Criminal Violence and Central American Migration." International Crisis Group. July 28, 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-‐america-‐caribbean/central-‐america/easy-‐prey-‐criminal-‐violence-‐and-‐central-‐american-‐migration Espinoza, Gerardo, and Salvador Lacruz. "International Crisis Group Interview." Interview. International Crisis Group. July 28, 2016. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-‐america-‐caribbean/central-‐america/easy-‐prey-‐criminal-‐violence-‐and-‐central-‐american-‐migration US Government. "Executive Actions on Immigration." US Citizenship and Immigration Services. April 15, 2015. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction

Gallant 10025373

28

"FACT SHEET: HUMAN TRAFFICKING (English)." FACT SHEET: HUMAN TRAFFICKING (English) | Office on Trafficking in Persons | Administration for Children and Families. August 2, 2012. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/endtrafficking/resource/fact-‐sheet-‐human-‐trafficking Gonzalez-‐Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. "U.S. Deportations of Immigrants Reach Record High in 2013." Pew Research Center. October 02, 2014. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/10/02/u-‐s-‐deportations-‐of-‐immigrants-‐reach-‐record-‐high-‐in-‐2013/

Gritter, Matthew. Mexican Inclusion: The Origins of Anti-‐discrimination Policy in Texas and the Southwest. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2012 Hanrahan, Tim. "Donald Trump Transcript: ‘Our Country Needs a Truly Great Leader’." The Wall Street Journal. June 16, 2015. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/16/donald-‐trump-‐transcript-‐our-‐country-‐needs-‐a-‐truly-‐great-‐leader/ Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "Americans Split on Deportations as Latinos Press Obama on Issue." Pew Research Center. March 11, 2014. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/03/11/americans-‐split-‐on-‐deportations-‐as-‐latinos-‐press-‐obama-‐on-‐issue/ Kyle, David, and Rey Koslowski. Global Human Smuggling: Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Liempt, Ilse Van, and Jeroen Doomernik. "Migrant's Agency in the Smuggling Process: The Perspectives of Smuggled Migrants in the Netherlands." International Migration 44, no. 4 (2006): 165-‐90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-‐2435.2006.00383.x. Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Immigration." The White House. November 20, 2014. Accessed December 06, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-‐press-‐office/2014/11/20/remarks-‐president-‐address-‐nation-‐immigration "Perry-‐Castañeda Map Collection." University of Texas Libraries. 1997. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/mexico_rel97.jpg Reisler, Mark. By the Sweat of Their Brow: Mexican Immigrant Labor in the United States, 1900-‐1940. Westport, CT: Greenwood, Press, 1976. Renwick, Danielle, and Brianna Lee. "The U.S. Immigration Debate." Council on Foreign Relations. February 26, 2015. Accessed December 06, 2016. http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-‐immigration-‐debate/p11149

Gallant 10025373

29

Seltzer, Nate, and George Kourous. "Immigration Enforcement and Human Rights Abuses." Borderlines 6, no. 9 (1998). 1998. Accessed December 06, 2016.

Skidmore, Thomas E., Peter H. Smith, and James Naylor Green. Modern Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Spener, David. Clandestine Crossings: Migrants and Coyotes on the Texas-‐Mexico Border. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. Tiano, Susan, Moira Murphy-‐Aguilar, and Brianne Bigej. Borderline Slavery: Mexico, United States, and the Human Trade. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. US Department of Homeland Security, Secretary. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.November 20, 2014. Memorandum: Southern Border Approaches Campaign, Washington D.C.

Documents

Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL