Humane Borders Essays And Opinion Pieces: The Story Of Humane Borders
By Rev. Robin Hoover, Ph.D.
March 2005
Deadly Strategy
United States Border Patrol officials devised a strategy to deter economic migrants from crossing the Mexico-US border beginning in 1993. The strategy was to make a show of force along the border in urban areas to push the migration out in to the desert where the migrants were supposedly more easily apprehended. The strategy would result in fewer migrants coming, greater control in the urban areas, and more effective law enforcement between the ports of entry.
This strategy began in El Paso, Texas and the surrounding areas including southeastern New Mexico. Almost immediately, this strategy was copied in the border area south of San Diego, California. In the mid 90s, more than half of all Border Patrol apprehensions occurred along the 20 mile of border between the Pacific Ocean and the mountains to the east. During the 90s, Congress authorized the doubling of the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwest border of the US in order to implement this strategy.
The consequences of these public policy choices have included a significant rise in the numbers of migrants who have died all along the 1,962 mile border. North and south migration across what is now the US-Mexico border has been a feature of the area for hundreds of years. Indigenous populations, Spaniards, Mestizos, Texians, and early US citizen populations have crossed the area with almost no restriction. The US Border Patrol was not formed until 1924, and then it was part of the US Labor Department. It is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, and it is known as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Prior to the 90s, there were few border agents of any kind stationed in the southwest. Today, there are more than 2,200 uniformed BCP agents supported by another 200 non-uniformed personnel just in the Tucson Sector. One fifth of all US CBP agents are stationed in this part of the desert.
The large, expensive deployment of personnel, technologies, and strategies have resulted in record numbers of migrant deaths. Since 1994, migrants have been intentionally pushed into the open desert as a result of consciously chosen public policy (Meissner, 1994). A number of related US border policies have caused exponentially rising death rates and untold human suffering among those seeking a better life and, in many cases, mere survival.
The positions taken in this essay are mine, but informed by and shared by the leadership of Humane Borders. It is obviously a normative position; however, this account is also accurate as to details and data. I offer this brief account and analysis of the migration along the southwest border, especially in Arizona; a brief account of the history, size, and scope of Humane Borders; an analysis of the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and a contribution to the discourse on the shape that immigration reform needs to take in the hopes that it will invite collaboration, understanding, consensus building, and in some cases, raw data, for others to use in their work toward bi-partisan, red state-blue state immigration reform.
Humane Borders, Inc. is a response to the problem of migrant deaths in the desert. Humane Borders chose to help the migrants and to try and change US policies. Humane Borders currently provides passive humanitarian assistance by erecting and maintaining water stations in remote, strategic desert areas on both sides of the border where most migrants travel and where, unfortunately, most migrants die.
Through these efforts, many migrants are fortunate enough to find water stations or fortunate enough to be found by Humane Borders volunteers. These humanitarian efforts are effective. Deaths in the desert are reduced in the areas where water stations are deployed. The Border Patrol and county health officials have credited Humane Borders with contributing to the survival of many migrants.
By placing water in the desert, Humane Borders has also drawn attention to the plight of the migrants and invited all interested persons, groups, authorities, and jurisdictions to engage in conversations designed to change the politics of the migration. Humane Borders has been exceptionally effective at engaging local, regional, national, and international media to tell the story of the plight of the migrant away from the border. By doing that, we have also been able to engage in various kinds of advocacy including conversations with national politicians in immigration reform conversations and legislative proposals.
This essay locates Humane Borders in the broader border story. The Humane Borders faith response is described and includes accounts of the founding, the mission, the organizational structure, and the history of Humane Borders. This is followed by a description of Humane Borders' distinctive politics, an account of the challenging context of the border in southern Arizona, and proposals for political reform to end this unfolding human tragedy.
Humane Borders manifests a theoretical model for social change that is played out in the interactions between Humane Borders' volunteers, various migration stakeholders, and the public administrators and elected officials with whom we work. Humane Borders draws deeply upon traditional, biblical models for organizing the work of the organization. They include the priestly, kingly, and prophetic traditions. The organization has also drawn heavily from religion and politics theory as well as public policy and public administration theory. These accounts are designed to give the reader a greater understanding of the human costs of the border as well as a theoretical framework useful for activists.
Deaths In The Desert
The alarming number of migrant deaths in the desert reveals that the size of the human tragedy is significant. Problems plague data gathering efforts for studying migrant deaths, but CBP data reveal the trends. The Tucson Sector of the CBP reports the following number of deaths for the five most recent fiscal years: FY2000-44, FY2001-78, FY2002-121, FY2003-136, FY2004-176.
CBP data systematically understate the size of the tragedy. For instance, only deaths in counties adjacent to the border are counted. A Border Patrol agent must be the one who made the discovery, otherwise the corpse or human remains has to be investigated and counted by the county Medical Examiner. CBP will not count skeletal remains from an unknown year or a body that is determined to be a human smuggler since by CBP definition smugglers are not migrants. Migrants frequently die in automobile rollover accidents or in shootouts along the interstate highways that are in counties that do not touch the border. These are not counted by CBP as migrant deaths. Other authorities try to assemble more comprehensive data. The results are noticeable. Once all identifying forensics are completed sometime in 2005, the total migrant death toll in Arizona for FY2004 will be close to 250.
In the past eight years, the migration through Arizona has become an inexorable exodus from the poverty of the south to the economically codependent north. The death toll continues to rise as the various border policies of the last ten years have been enacted and as border realities have been redefined in terms of national security. The rise in the number of desert deaths has been most notable in southern Arizona. The increased deaths are a direct result to increased border enforcement concentrated in El Paso, San Diego, and even the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. (Eschbach, et al. 2001).
These conclusions are not merely those of border activists or only a few academics pointing to unsubstantiated data. The U.S. General Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office) has evaluated the pattern of militarization of the border for over ten years and reached the same conclusions concerning causation (United States General Accounting Office, 1997, 1999, 2001).
The US is also systematically abusing migrants through visionless law enforcement patterns and wasting enormous sums of money and human capital. (Advisory Committees to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. 1997, 2003). For more than 12 years, law enforcement has not reduced the numbers of migrants entering into the US. All US policies have done is change where migrants cross the border. Deterrence can only work in targeted areas, not all along the border.
For more than 10 years, the death rate along the border has been one per day. Adding numbers of migrants who die but are not counted in CBP statistics and migrants who actually die in Mexico, the actual number of deaths in any one year may be as high as 500-600. Using a conservative daily death rate of 1.25 persons for ten years, 4563 migrant deaths are estimated for the past decade. Though only an estimate, this number is not an exaggeration. It is not uncommon for some who are in medical distress to be apprehended in the US, voluntarily returned to Mexico by the Border Patrol only to die in Mexico due to the inability to pay for healthcare services such as dialysis. US policies dictate that if the person is medically stable, he or she will be transported outside of the US.
Even the very lands where these deaths occur suffer. Because men, women, children are in these deserts, because law enforcement pursue them in the desert, and because search and rescue efforts are mostly in the desert, there is an unprecedented strain on pristine, irreparable deserts filled with archaeological treasures and endangered wildlife. There is no justification for continuing policies such as these.
Through our eyes, we conclude that borders, border policies, and border law enforcement should not kill people, freeze them, shoot them, run over them in high speed pursuits, dehydrate them, confine them, or drive them into medical distress. Yet through informed eyes, we see that the policies of the United States have done just this for far too many years. Border policies in the form of unfair international trade agreements that drive persons to the border should be made more humane. Each policy should be evaluated in terms of human costs.
There is no such thing as US border policy. There are actually many border policies that combine to have such deleterious effects on people and lands. They include: immigration policies, trade policies, law enforcement policies, labor policies, environmental policies, drug policies, national security policies; all of the policies of the nation that drive migrants into our dangerous and delicate deserts, our rivers, our canals, and our mountains. Each of these policies contribute in some way to migrant deaths.
Humane Borders' Faith And Strategy
Humane Borders, Inc. is a strategic faith response to the rising numbers of migrant deaths. Both strategy and faith were present in the founding of Humane Borders, the writing of the mission statement, the early organization of the corporation, and in the unfolding history since those days. By focusing upon the deaths of the migrants, Humane Borders has been able to speak to matters of faith and to focus political energies toward policy changes. We always say that our primary focus is upon migrant safety issues. Such a focus is right, but it is also strategic. By focusing on the deaths, we can speak about public policies that have led to the deaths. By learning all we can about the deaths in the desert and the migration policy area, Humane Borders has achieved both warrant and wisdom for the immigration reform discourse. The deaths are the most visible epiphenomenon of the larger, underlying problematic. Nonetheless, the plight of the migrant is the pivotal motivation for all of our work.
In Humane Borders no one is required or expected to represent any particular faith or any religion at all. However, faith has founded and sustained where other influences have not. What happens to the weeping, sorrowful, hurting, marginalized, and dying is the ultimate test of a social system, be it religious, governmental, or cultural. As a Christian, I use the Christian language of "the least of these" to reference these people, but every religious tradition has accessible language, too. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible the concept is expressed in the word Anawim, meaning the marginalized. In our case, the plight of the migrants goes to the bottom line question of what kind of people we are and want to become.
In the spring of 2000, rising migrant deaths brought migrant advocates together in Tucson, Arizona and surrounding areas. The death of one young woman named Yolanda Gonzales Garcia captured the imagination and resolve of many across southern Arizona when her story was published in the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson's leading newspaper. She gave the last of her water to her infant who survived. The infant was found by a female Tohono O'Odham police officer.
Around that time, the Rev. Phil Anderson, a Lutheran pastor/activist from Washington, D.C., was a catalyst for gathering some interested persons together to talk about the deaths in the desert. These included Rick Chase of BorderLinks, the Rev. John Fife of Southside Presbyterian Church, David Perkins of Pima Friends Meeting, Amy Schubitz and Marianna Neil of the Center for Prevention and Resolution of Violence. There were others.
Many conversations later, Humane Borders was founded. Eighty-five persons met in the Pima Friends meeting house Pentecost Sunday, June 11, 2000. A Quaker query method of intentional exploration/discussion was followed. The query was in the form of a two-part, but related, question. First, how can we respond with compassion to the migrants who are risking their lives crossing the deserts along the US-Mexico border? Second, how can we work to change the US immigration policies that place these persons at risk in the desert?
At that meeting, eight points were decided and recorded by me in the order they were decided. These became the Humane Borders platform. First, we would put water in the desert. It was some time before we developed a technology to do that. Second, we wanted to significantly challenge the Immigration and Naturalization Service and United States Border Patrol's migration policies, especially in the area of migrant safety. Third, the logo would include the big dipper and the North Star. The "drinking gourd" reminiscent of the US anti-slavery movement of the 1800s would show water being poured. Fourth, we would become an organization of organizations, something of an umbrella group for interested parties. Fifth, a steering committee was appointed to include Tracy Carroll of St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Church, David Perkins of the Pima Friends Meeting, and myself of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Sixth, we would work bi-nationally as soon as possible and as cooperatively as possible. Seventh, this would decidedly be a faith-based organization. Finally, the eighth point was that we would utilize the media to tell the story of the plight of the migrant away from the border because only when others understand what is happening here will any change take place. Tucsonans can't change US policies by themselves. Arguably, in large measure, what has followed since that date has merely been the implementation of that first, viable vision.
In our large, macro social systems, we like to measure things in terms of their efficiency and/or effectiveness. We in the faith traditions and in interfaith organizations like Humane Borders like to measure things in terms of equity. By equity, we mean the larger ethical referent systems (Frankena, 1973) that have helped faith communities influence both markets and governments. We should never believe, however, that faith communities have a corner on the values and virtue market. These belong first to the people of God, no matter where and no matter in what system they are. The few in Humane Borders can serve only as a voice for the migrants who are dying, but the larger context provides us with a very legitimate role. The mostly white males in Congress who created the dysfunctional border might be influenced by the predominately white folks in southern Arizona who are advocates for reform.
Both the size and scope of Humane Borders changes nearly daily, but the focus remains the same. Volunteers and supporters have created and sustained a substantial organization. By the spring of 2005, Humane Borders volunteers were operating seventy water stations in both Arizona, USA and in Sonora, MEX. Several more water stations have already been approved for 2005. In the federal fiscal year of 2004, Humane Borders dispensed more than 25,000 gallons of water, drove more than 38,000 miles, made more than 500 trips to the desert (including trips more than 300 miles in length), and donated more than 5,000 hours of volunteer labor just for servicing water stations. Even more hours are donated by volunteers building and preparing equipment, staffing educational, and fundraising events.
Humane Borders has six officers. Sr. Elizabeth Ohmann is the corporation secretary. The order to which Sr. Elizabeth Ohmann, OSF belongs (Franciscans) makes it possible for her to donate at more than half of her time. Donated executives and paraprofessionals from First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) as well as graduate student interns from neighboring University of Arizona make very valuable contributions.
Humane Borders is an Arizona corporation and recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) organization. As such Humane Borders cannot receive tax-deductible contributions. Most of its institutional supporters are 501(c)(3) organizations, such as congregations, so the tax station is not a limiting factor. Individuals may make contributions to their congregations or other organizations that in turn contribute funds to Humane Borders. As a so-called C4, Humane Borders can expend a significant portion of its budget directly to the work of lobbying. This is a tradeoff of benefits which has yet to be fully realized.
The 2001 income was less than $30,000. In 2004, Humane Borders received over $110,000 in gifts and contracts to support its work. Approximately three-fourths of the funds go directly for equipment, trucks, insurance, fuel, tanks, stands, and other essential support. Approximately one-fourth of the funds support the program coordinator's position and the administrative work which is essential to Humane Borders' success.
The organizational model is that of a self-perpetuating nonprofit board of six directors that conducts all meetings in public, usually in front of some 30 or more volunteers who routinely interact with the leadership making this a fast-moving but de facto consensus model. Frequently, media are present, and unless there is something unusually sensitive, all comments are on the record.
Some 100+ volunteers in and around Tucson provide most of the volunteer hours. Some 35-40 volunteers routinely service water stations from Phoenix. Volunteers live in Sahuarita, Yuma, Bisbee, Douglas, Benson, and most cities in southern Arizona. Hundreds of volunteers have come from as far away as Denmark and Korea. A 15-person youth group came all the way from New Hampshire to give us a week of their volunteer time. Other large groups from California and Texas have donated significant hours of labor. More than 5,000 volunteers have gone to the desert to service water stations. Three interns have each given a year of work to Humane Borders, and at least a dozen have given a couple of months on average.
The water stations are low-tech, and environmentally friendly. They typically are composed of a metal stand that holds two 58 gallon food-grade polyethylene barrels fitted with spring-loaded valves to reduce accidental spillage. The majority of the barrels are recycled Coca-Cola syrup barrels. Each is painted light blue to reduce the temperature of the water, to be recognizable as water barrels, and to prevent algae blooms inside the tanks. The water is frequently chlorinated to reduce bacteria and other parasitic growth.
The water is typically delivered to the sites in one of four specially built trucks that have large water tanks, gasoline powered pumps, and hose reels. Each driver receives special training, and the vehicles are stocked with food packs, first aid, satellite telephones, GPS devices, maps, tools, and other resources for the volunteer crews and for the migrants. On average, these vehicles are valued at more than $40,000 when new and fully equipped.
Media exposure has been phenomenal. Humane Borders' media archives contain some 1,500 print articles that at least reference Humane Borders, quote volunteers, or even feature Humane Borders. Articles have been printed or reproduced in Russian and Mandarin Chinese. Stories have been found on the internet from Pakistan, the Pacific Rim, all over Europe and all of the Spanish-speaking world. Humane Borders is regularly cited in most media markets in the US, usually with quotations from me since I serve as both the president and primary spokesperson. In November 2004, an Associated Press wire story appeared in more than 150 newspapers in the US on one weekend alone. Humane Borders has archived more than 150 video clips ranging from a few seconds of local news to hour-long network features, some shown internationally.
It turns out that simply putting water in the desert takes care of many of the rest of the things because it saves lives, calls attention to the plight of the migrants, and enables us to obtain resources for the work, but the one major obstacle to putting water in the desert was obtaining permission to be on the public lands where the migrant trails were. We had no idea at the time of that meeting how important the federal land managers would be. And to this date, we still do not have permission to place water in enough locations to make a huge difference.
The Theological and Socio-Political Contours of Humane Borders
The mission statement of Humane Borders merely "references" theology by beginning with the words: "Motivated by faith, members of Humane Borders will...." Within the first sentence, as an interfaith organization, the emphasis is placed upon our behavior. Our intentional focus is upon the migrant, not our theology. Theology is the source of motivation for many, but theologies (plural) traditionally divide organizations. Many faith traditions are represented in Humane Borders, and what is more important than theology is social theology, that is, the connection between theology and matters of public policy (Hoover, 1998).
Though we may not use explicitly religious language or appear to be engaged in classic moral discourse, we, of course, are. For instance, in a meeting, we may take a moment for silence to remember those who have died that week. We have worship services in which crosses bearing the names of the dead are read and arrayed at the front of the church. We march in the streets of Tucson beneath signs making moral judgments about US policies. And, our media interactions are imbued with moral judgments and religious sentiments.
In part, part of our organization is inspired by the story of the so-called Good Samaritan found in Luke's Gospel at chapter 10. There is certainly a prophetic notion in the global understanding of neighbor. There is a kingly, or organizational concern expressed in the provision of care for the injured person found on the side of the road. There is a priestly function fulfilled by the Samaritan who binds up the wounds of the injured. But as this kind of ministry takes on an institutional form, the decisions must be made as to how secular or how sectarian to be, how ecumenical and how corporate to be, how much inside or outside the organization should stand relative to the government agency it is criticizing, and so on. Once the warrants and wisdom for discourse are established in terms of theology, social theology, and social theory in general, the faith-based organization can learn a lot from the fields of public policy and public administration (Hoover, 1995).
Humane Borders utilizes some of the communicative democratic theory of Jurgen Habermas as adapted by Fox and Miller (1995). One must learn the arguments in a policy area, fully prepare for the public conversations, allow for discursive redemption, and push for substantive policy decision making. Until the literature and dynamics of the public policy area of interest to a group is mastered along with an understanding of public administration (the world of the influential players), the new organization should expect limited results.
Each year, journalists, activists, administrators, and academics produce an enormous body of raw data, analysis, and commentary about the migration through the borderlands. While many denominations have long been involved in human migration, increasing attention is being given to the border by faith communities, denominations, theologians, and other persons friendly to religion. Humane Borders is in a unique nexus between the secular and the religious along the border and between the activists and representatives of the government (Hoover, 1998).
We have held up our arms, pointed to death in the desert, declared that what is happening there is immoral, and invited anyone with warrant and wisdom on this issue to come to the table as part of Humane Borders or as fully recognized interested parties such as the Border Patrol, federal land managers, health care providers, elected officials, and others, to discern viable means of changing what we see. At that table, uncharacteristically of many organizing methodologies, we have chosen to speak with all interested parties in a non-adversarial way.
Each time a decision has been taken and actions undertaken, everything Humane Borders officers and volunteers have done has been public, open, transparent, and within the bounds of law. When facing opposing policies such as those concerning the border, a lawful strategy is most appropriate because the appeal is being made for the U.S. to constrain itself to exert its authority and jurisdiction in a lawful manner. This commitment has been a distinguishing feature of Humane Borders among the other organizations that seek to provide humanitarian assistance and/or migrant advocacy in southern Arizona.
Humane Borders has undertaken these kinds of public discourse without using explicitly religious language or appealing to any specific religious heritage either within the organization or in public. There is good reason for using this approach.
Here are just a few of the kinds of quotations that journalists and broadcasters have chosen to feature in their coverage of Humane Borders: "US border policies are intentionally marching migrants down death trails in the desert." "Using the desert itself as a form of deterrence in US border policy is immoral." "Migrants have a fundamental right not to evaporate into the Arizona sky." "No matter what the legal infraction is for crossing the border, no one should have to pay for it with one's life." "It is our religious conviction that we must respond with humanitarian assistance and political advocacy to take death out of the immigration equation." While Humane Borders may be fully engaged in routine conversations with government agencies, it is also fully engaged in a critical discourse in the public. Humane Borders has one foot inside and one foot outside and operates as a specialized, non-market, non-governmental entity (Fowler and Hertzke. 1995. Chap. 3.)
To appropriately locate Humane Borders on the political spectrum, one has to look in the middle. We believe that the correct political placement of Humane Borders, Inc. is in the passionate center of the US immigration reform discourse. We have allies and detractors on both sides of the aisle in Congress. We are primarily concerned about the well-being of the migrants. Migrant safety is of utmost concern to us, but then, too, we are very concerned about our delicate desert, the questions of economic justice, the questions of social justice, and many others kinds of judgments including the judgments of moral and religious obligation we each must make relative to how we deal with the "other" in our midst. And, it is possible to generally hold a passionate, centrist view when discerned from the breadth of immigration reform politics, economic interests, and theological viewpoints.
Our organization is called Humane Borders, not open borders, or no borders, or something else like that. While there may be a time when the US moves further toward a European Union approach to borders with neighbors, borders can, and do, mean something. They have to do with authority and jurisdiction, thus they are primarily political. The differences play out in social, cultural, legal, and other ways. Sometimes they influence denominational concerns.
Humane Borders recognizes and even applauds differences and diversity, but no matter what they are, they must be humane. Borders should not kill people. Because they do, we formed our organization.
The Challenges of the Physical and Political Geography
The US federal government owns approximately 85% of all of the land in the state of Arizona. The rest of the land is urban, private rural, or Arizona State Trust Lands. The trust lands produce income for the Arizona public education, usually from livestock grazing leases. Thus, when migrants cross the border, they are usually crossing public land for part or all of their journey into the US.
Seventy-six miles of the Arizona border is on lands of the dependent sovereign Tohono O'Odham Nation. The 2.8 million acres of the Tohono O'Odham Nation, a land mass larger than Connecticut, and the Nation's leadership and governance styles have presented daunting challenges to the provision of humanitarian assistance.
Private land owners, state land lease holders, and ranchers on the O'Odham lands are justified in part for their outrage toward the effects of the migration on the lands they own or manage. Fences are cut. Water systems drained or disturbed. Migrant trash is a huge, expensive issue and dangerous to livestock. It includes everything one can imagine falling out of a broken suitcase at an airport, every conceivable kind of garbage one would find at a picnic site, every article of clothing you can imagine, plus bibles, hymnals, family photos, love letters, employment records, educational documents, medicines, and more. Bicycles with flat tires are strewn all across southern Arizona. A traditional baby stroller was found 23 miles north of the border in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Millions of dollars are being spent by various agencies to clean up the trash and keep debris and pharmaceuticals and such away from the livestock that graze the lands. Humane Borders volunteers contribute many hours to cleaning up the desert every month.
The public land managers face the same things private land owners and lease holders face, except they usually face far stricter land use requirements particularly in wilderness designated areas that make it extremely difficult to operate on the lands to enforce laws and clean up the countryside. The death of a National Park Service ranger in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument points to how inadequately prepared the land managers and law enforcement are to deal with all of the effects of the migration. In this case, the ranger was responding at the border to drug traffickers who were fleeing Mexican authorities and ended up a shooting victim. Increasingly, drug trafficking and human trafficking are becoming more intertwined.
Environmentalists are very displeased with the migration. Not only are huge amounts of trash encountered in places that are mandated to be kept pristine, but large numbers of vehicles are operated by drivers who daily drive off-road through the desert causing widespread destruction. In some areas of Arizona's west desert, it is common for no rainfall to be detected for up to one year. That means that there's insufficient moisture to restore the devastation created by the automobile tires. Most migrants are on foot, and they camp in places that are very sensitive to human presence. The ancient Hohokam people left many signs of human artifice that are systematically being destroyed for future generations to share. Several of the environmental groups active in southern Arizona are working with Humane Borders and share the vision of immigration reform as the avenue to saving the desert and the deserts' plants and wildlife.
Additional Stresses On Local Infrastructure
The migration is of major concern to health care providers. In any given year, millions of dollars will be expended by county governments in southern Arizona to re-hydrate, dialyze, and rehabilitate many migrants brought in from the desert. These funds are not reimbursed by the federal government. Many more dollars are spent to provide healthcare when federal inspectors at the ports of entry provide humanitarian waivers for foreign nationals to seek indigent care in southern Arizona hospitals at county expense. Episodic partial reimbursements from federal coffers are all that can be obtained by the hospitals. Systematic reimbursements attached to the waivers and mandatory Border Patrol reimbursements will have to be part of future comprehensive immigration reform. Similar, very legitimate complaints are made by emergency responders such as ambulance companies, rural tax-based fire departments, and others. The abundance of non-reimbursed, federally mandated expenditures threatens the viability of many of these organizations.
Many law enforcement jurisdictions in Arizona report they are ill-prepared to deal with the migration and the related claims it makes upon their work. Officers report being forgotten or neglected. They report insufficient training, equipment, and personnel numbers to respond to the demands placed upon them. Most of the local law enforcement jurisdictions do not systematically cooperate with federal law enforcement when it comes to determining the legal status of a person in the US. Most only respond when there is a complaint of a particular violation or crime.
Elected officials at all levels have serious concerns that stem from the migration. They are rightfully concerned about the well-being of those who are in transit across the lands in their jurisdictions, but they are also very mindful of the claims made upon their budgets, the resentments of the taxpayers, and the demands of the various groups who are frustrated with the migration. Pima County Government has voted twice to contract with Humane Borders to erect and maintain water stations in the desert. Not only do the supervisors consider this the right thing to do, it is also a cost-effective response that keeps persons out of the hospitals and off of the examination table of the medical examiner.
Some view the migration as the result of the federal government's abrogation of responsibility. We agree that as a sovereign nation, the US has the right to control the border, who crosses it, when, where, and under what circumstances. What we disagree is on how border control is achieved and at what human toll.
There is a sentiment expressed by vigilante-types that the government's first responsibility is to protect citizens, which, according to leaders of many border-order activists, the government is not doing. Notable examples from the news in southern Arizona include Jack Foote of Ranch Rescue, Chris Simcox of the Civil Homeland Defense, Glenn Spencer of the American Border Patrol and americanpatrol.com, as well as Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen.
To further confound persons trying to analyze the border, there are actually three sets of laws that overlap along and a little bit to either side of the border line: international human rights laws, conventions, and treaties come up to, and, in limited ways, cross the border from outside of the US even though the United States is not a signatory on many Human Rights treaties and conventions. The Immigration and Naturalization Act and subsequent laws governing terrorism since 1996, and especially since 2001, provide a corpus of law that is both enforced and interpreted by the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection at the border and for several miles into the US. Finally, the rights accorded US citizens does not govern undocumented persons in general, but some due process and equal protection provisions do.
All of this makes for a challenging proposition for the legal defense of persons charged with violations and crimes in the borderlands, not to mention the fact that most migrants cannot pay for the legal services rendered and that most migrants have usually already been placed on the other side of the border before their story comes to the attention to legal service providers. For a great many of the legal proceedings that take place along the border, there is no judicial review.
The migration must be moved back to the ports of entry where persons are treated as persons with dignity and rights and where concerns such as national security, health status, worker documentation, and other considerations can be addressed. When the migration is moved back to the actual golden doors of the US, law enforcement will be left to do traditional work between ports of entry, and the citizens of the US will be safer as a result. As it is, approximately two thirds of the persons who enter the US illegally are simply unidentified and unknown to law enforcement officials.
Many United States Border Patrol agents working in southern Arizona agree with this. They perceive themselves first as peace officers and secondly as front line defenders of the homeland. This observation is particularly true of those agents with longer tenures in southern Arizona. This corporate culture will probably change as new recruits focus primarily on homeland security. That is, however, yet another reason to reform border policies now, because in the future, the ranks of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection will probably be filled with persons who do not see themselves first as peace officers. I articulated this position as part of my testimony to a Congressional field hearing in Sells, Arizona, March 10, 2003.
The position of Humane Borders has been that a lot of the so-called rights language discourses in our society have become quite sterile, that is, while they all have their respective constituents and advocates, they do not contribute to the mobilization of very many persons. Our volunteers routinely appeal more to religious language than to rights language in their deliberations, and if law enters into the discussion, it is usually expressed in terms of human rights concepts and concepts of justice. We believe that if enough US citizens become aware of the border story, they will extend appropriate rights to the persons in question and remedy many of the legal conundrums in which migrants find themselves.
Faith communities are concerned about the migration for a variety of reasons. There are questions of human rights, philosophical questions, questions of family reunification, and questions of moral and religious obligations of believers. Many of these are raised in the work of Humane Borders.
The Complexity Of Immigration And The Challenge of Immigration Reform
The "list of players" above is certainly not exhaustive, and Humane Borders is not the only faith-based or interfaith organization providing goods, services, or advocacy on behalf of migrants. Nonetheless, it is illustrative of the diversity of interests and the depths of the complaints concerning the migration. It is certainly worth noting again what all scholars agree upon, and that is the fact that in 1994, the migration was occurring elsewhere and there were no deaths in the deserts of southern Arizona. In 2004 some 1.2 million crossings occurred, though many resulted in apprehensions, and over 250 migrant died in Arizona.
Many proposals have been put forward by legislators, advocacy groups, and executive branch personnel including the President of the United States. Generally, the proposals focus on economic interests or upon human and labor rights questions. Earlier worker programs, most notably, the so-called Bracero programs were abusive, and all parties agree that the abuses of the previous systems will have to be avoided in the comprehensive reform proposals before Congress.
Humane Borders holds several elements to be key provisions in reform proposals. As a matter of justice the first priority is to extend a legal status to those who are living in the United States of America without the basic legal recognition or protection. Rational people can disagree as to what that status would be, whether it would lead to citizenship, and for what period of time. But what must be extended is the right to seek emergency help, police, and other services without fear of apprehension; the right to travel back and forth across the border using public transportation; the right to organize and be organized, and rights for the universally-deserving children of these adults. It is simply un-American to keep these people in a virtual state of slavery subject to being excluded from the US at any time.
The second thing is to provide legal work opportunities for those who wish to work in the US. Again, rational people can have significant differences on how this gets accomplished, but the organized work opportunities for up to 750,000 persons a year should be made available to foreign nationals who are not participating in other programs. Visas would go directly to the migrants to seek employment in certain sectors of the US economy at will. Migrants could organize, have their families follow them, and be able to move from employer to employer at will to avoid Bracero-style working conditions. They would have the right to organize, enjoy Labor Department protections and judicial relief, and generally have the pleasure and benefit of living among the citizenry without prejudice.
How all of this happens is open for discussion. Most with economic interests should expect very simple, very easy to implement requirements to make the employment of migrants as uncomplicated as possible. Most with rights interests should expect that the migrants' contributions to the economy would be recognized, valued, and rewarded.
Finally, there should be concerted efforts to work cooperatively between nations to provide for economic development in the migrants' countries of origin. Globalization is here to stay. Many of the unjust effects occur in the most marginalized, sending communities and must be addressed by all nations participating in the new realities of inter-dependent political economies.
There are, however, several points that should be addressed that are not usually considered in comprehensive immigration reforms. This list is certainly not exhaustive. Instead of including these at the end of the list, it should be pointed out that usually asylum law, laws concerning unaccompanied minors, lengths of detention, removal proceedings including expedited removal, and many other features of immigration law beg for reform.
The length of a migrant visa needs to be addressed. In the 1980s, the average length of a migrant stay in the US was roughly 30-36 months. Now, estimates range as high as nine years. The length has increased because border law enforcement and the high costs associated with crossing the border have in effect trapped many persons here. Now, many men send for their families and place them at risk by having them cross the desert with smugglers. Far too many others, though, forsake their families and start new lives with new loves here in the US. Any serious attempts at immigration reform must address the social costs of the migration.
A serious economic incentive for visa compliance should be created. Somewhere between 45 and 55% of the persons who are in the US without permission and proper documentation are persons who have overstayed their legal permission to be here. There's basically no way for authorities to track the whereabouts of these persons, and the only remedy available to law enforcement when the persons are discovered is to place them in exclusion proceedings.
I propose that when a migrant comes to the port of entry to enter the US with a migrant worker visa, he or she puts up a bond at the port of entry in his or her name. The economists can figure out how much this bond would be, but it is logical that it be tied to the average cost of crossing the border. Clearly, migrants are willing and able to expend some funds. And, obviously, this would take money out of the human smuggling rings. As the migrant begins to work, he or she is paid a modest hourly stipend in the wage structure. Again, others can propose a number, but the stipend would be at least higher than the existing 51 minimum wages in the US. This would keep unscrupulous employers from paying migrants less than the minimum wage or from breaking covenant with those sheltered workers in our society with whom we have a collective social contract such as persons with disabilities.
The amount of the stipend, and perhaps some of the wage, accrues by electronic transfer to the migrants' bond account every pay period. Since an average wage earner works some 2,000 hours each year, simply multiply 2,000 times the hourly stipend or total contribution, and the annual contribution to the bond can be calculated. At the end of the visa period, the migrant is compelled to make a choice: go back to the port of entry, pick up the bond which is now worth thousands of dollars, and leave the US or go underground. If the migrant does not comply with the visa and pick up the bond within the specified time, the money is forfeited to law enforcement. Since the migrant does not enjoy the full benefits and legal protection of citizenship, law enforcement would for the first time have access to the IRS records that would lead law enforcement to at least the last reported employment and residence of the migrant so that visa compliance could be obtained.
While this may seem harsh, the social costs of the migration could be addressed, visa compliance could be addressed, the smuggling of humans could be addressed, deserts could be protected, and the necessary return to the migrant's country of origin would significantly enhance economic development and education. Additionally, any proposals that do not consider law enforcement components and funding proposals will not meet general public acceptance.
Humane Borders is deeply involved and profoundly engaged with public leaders, activists, and various players in the migration policy discourse. We offer many substantive ways for volunteers to do something about the circumstances that migrants face and many substantive ways to work toward comprehensive immigration reform. As with our very first gathering, we invite all persons of good faith to join us in this work.
References
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas Advisory Committees to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. 1997. "Federal Immigration Law Enforcement in the Southwest: Civil Rights Impacts on Border Communities."
Briefing Before the Arizona Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights. 2003. "Tragedy Along the Arizona-Mexico Border: Undocumented Immigrants Face the Desert."
Eschbach, Karl, Jaqueline, Hagan, and Nestor Rodriquez. 2001. "Causes and Trends in Migrant Deaths Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 1985-1998". University of Houston: Center for Immigration Research.
Fox, Charles J., and Hugh T. Miller. 1995. Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fowler, Robert Booth and Allen D. Hertzke. 1995. Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices. Boulder: Westview Press.
Frankena, William K. 1973. Ethics, 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
Hoover, Robert Lane. 1998. Social Theology and Religiously Affiliated Nonprofits in Migration Policy. Ph.D. diss. Texas Tech University.
Meissner, Doris. 1994. Border Patrol Strategic Plan 1994 and Beyond. United States Department of Justice: United States Border Patrol.
United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 1997. "Illegal Immigration: Southwest Border Strategy Results Inconclusive:More Evaluation Needed." GAO/GGD-98-21.
United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Committees. 1999. "Illegal Immigration: Status of Southwest Border Strategy Implementation." GAO/GGD-99-44.
United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Committees. 2001. "INS' Southwest Border Strategy: Resource and Impact Issues Remain after Seven Years." GAO-01-842
For more information, please contact us.