The War on Terror and Border Politics

We want our Border Patrol agents chasing, you know, crooks and thieves and drug-runners and terrorists,” said George W. Bush in December of 2004. Following in the wake of the events on September 11, 2001, was the passing of conservative policy as a result of increased worries about the security of the United States. One of the main focuses of conservative policy during the Bush era became the borders, with discussions centered on the U.S. Mexico border. The changing political climate and increased attention paid to safety, in order to prevent another attack, resulted in increased regulation, discrimination, and concern by many lawmakers. It also lead to bias against many within society.

“The president committed as much money to the borders already as the House of Representatives was planning on doing in five years. So, he was serious before – he’s perfectly cognizant of the possibility there may be terrorists crossing over. We have intelligence assets deployed in the area, and so he’s not going to be anymore concerned because he’s already very concerned about it,” said Tony Snow. Authors Elizabeth Boyle and Erike Busse believe that as a result of 9/11, and the shock that the attack had on the U.S., the institutionalized beliefs and interests within our systems were upset. Immigrants within the U.S. experienced fallout from this shock, as the opportunity to become more connected with other citizens arose, but that was also mirrored by discrimination also existing. While legislators experienced changes directly in the law, non-experts most likely experience the impact that such an event as the “war on terror” has had on the societal level.

While focusing on a group such as immigrants from Latin America, and laws concerning the border between the U.S. and Mexico, it is also important to note the impact that 9/11 had on the lives of immigrants from other places around the globe. As was observed in the Twin Cities by Elizabeth Boyle and Erika Busse, immediately after the terrorist attacks, immigrants felt as though they were involved in a victim/terrorist dichotomy, as the attacks “called the identities of immigrants into question for many Americans.” For instance, the PATRIOT Act “expanded the offenses for which immigrants could be deported, or detained for. Some government officials have linked immigration and terrorism. This can be found on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Web sit, where “threat advisory”, is next to information about policies and programs for migrants.

The war on terror no doubt effected immigrants. Following 9/11, the U.S. government, without any formal charges, detained over 1,200 noncitizens, primarily Arab and Muslim Men. Eventually they were charged with technical violations of immigration law, and were held from days to months at a time. Others were also put under surveillance. The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was implemented on September 11, 2002 (http://www.ice.gov). Under this system, men from designated countries (which were predominantly Islamic, and included Somalia and Eritrea) were required to check in at government offices, where they were interviewed, fingerprinted, and photographed.”

Muslim Men and others who tried to migrate to the U.S. near the time of the attacks were oftentimes rejected when seeking refugee status.The political asylum process was also affected, with “favorable rulings on asylum appeals going down 25 percent prior to 2001 to less than 5 percent in 2002.” Along with this, officials oftentimes use small violations of immigration law to detain people.

The issue of identity politics has also effected many citizens and non citizens alike since 9/11. In a study done by Rita Verma on Sikh immigrant communities after 9/11, she noticed that “notions of belonging and home are deeply fragmented for the Sikh families, especially the youth.” “When I go to school, I try to come late so I am not in the hallway with other kids. I try to walk close to the wall in the hallway so I don’t get caught in the middle of some White kids. That is where they grab my patka and push me down,” said a Sikh boy within Verma’s study. Within this boys school, there were efforts to educate those about their religion, but this resulted in primarily negative responses in the post 9/11 world. Many tried to fit in by cutting their hair, as was practiced by their families in India at one point in order to avoid persecution, and this seemed to help, but the boys who wore turbans were also targeted. This negative environment resulted in many of the children within the study dreading school, living in fear for their families and themselves, as they were worried that something bad would happen to them.

While Arab, and Muslim men have been discriminated against, grouped into the same small category, and picked on in regards to immigration and within society, it is important to also address how increased security has impacted those who have crossed, and will cross the Mexico/U.S. border. Programs implemented over the years have invited people from the south into the country, and while we depend economically on those from other places, they are oftentimes alienated, or targeted in raids and by law enforcement. Since 9/11 border policing and U.S. immigration geopolitics have been greatly affected by the war on terror. While claiming to want to fight terrorism, the programs focus on undocumented labor migration across the U.S/Mexico border.

The Bracero program was the original program implemented in 1942 by the U.S. This was a program that brought over workers from Mexico to work during the harvest season, only to be sent back when their time was up. Seemingly caught up in a catch-22, the program opened up the U.S. to workers legally, who decided to illegally stay here. Since the 1940’s, the issue of immigration via the U.S. Mexico border has been on the minds of the government.

Previously established trade and immigration agreements, such as NAFTA and the Bracero program had created environments that have increased immigration from Mexico to the United States. NAFTA is one of the key neo liberal policies that has effected Latin America immigration since it was passed on January 1, 1994. This agreement abolishes tariffs between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. over an extended period of time. Along with the 170,000 new jobs promised by president Clinton, was the assurance that the increase in economic activity between North America and Latin America would “slow the tide of illegal immigration.” However, as a direct result of the agreement, many farmers in Mexico could not compete with U.S. produce prices and were thus forced to move to other countries, such as the United States in search of new work. Latin American workers were not the only ones affected by the agreement. Because processing jobs were transferred to Mexico in order to allow cheaper production, 214,000 U.S. factory jobs were lost between 1994 and 1998. With programs like these, agreements seem to be conducive to a migration climate, although increased border security is no doubt discriminating.

By linking 9/11, terrorism, and immigration, the spread of discrimination once again became prevalent within the U.S. borders, as well as along the border. “The September 11 hijackers all came through the front door, but illegal immigration… is the passageway of countless terrorist brethren,” said Michelle Malkin in her post-9/11 best seller, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. As a side note, it is important to mention that the hijackers did not cross into the U.S. via Mexico… or any land border for that matter.

In his study, Mathew Coleman mentions that, while there was certainly border policing policy prior to 9/11, it was no doubt accentuated by the event. In this post 9/11 time, there has also been the criminalization of immigration law, as well as a use of non-federal delegates to enforce immigration law. The new laws implemented in post 9/11 days increased the amount of felony crimes that undocumented immigrants could be jailed for, as well as dissolve the number of avenues and rights available to them for defense against the law. The PATRIOT Act authorizes federal officers “to arrest and imprison a broad class of non-citizens on immigration grounds without legal review and without public disclosure of the specific charge for a period of seven days, or for a maximum of six months if the case is deemed a national security risk.” Immigration law has become a part of criminal law enforcement because of the war on terrorism.

“At the same time, the events of 9/11 provoked even further restrictions on judicial oversight over immigration law enforcement practices related broadly to alien criminal activity.” Immigration law enforcement has also moved inwards within the U.S. and has targeted people like never before. Such can be seen in the increased felony charges and there was a significant increase of immigration apprehensions at the southwest border. There has also been an increase in ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, operations within the U.S. interior. An example of the power of ICE, and the raids conducted on workplaces can be seen in the numbers. In 2008 850 criminal arrests were made, of those 775 were undocumented employees. There were also 2,900 non-criminal arrests made for undocumented immigration violations. The communities that these raids occur in suffer, as family members are taken away often, leaving few to fend for themselves.

“If we weren’t allocating a tremendous amount of our resources in Iraq, we wouldn’t have to outsource to companies like Blackwater,” Scott Borgerson, a fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations says. “I feel we shouldn’t outsource our sovereignty.” With the arrival of increased border security and tighter immigration policy, the emergence of private border forces was no surprise. Blackwater, one of the biggest private security firms in the U.S., is planning to build a new training facility in California within 8 miles of the border. Residents in the area fear that Blackwater may exceed its use as a successful mercenary group and as a result, there will be a resulting army around who answers to the highest bidder. In 2005, the companies then president, Gary Jackson mentioned that Blackwater agents may be used to train U.S. Border Patrol agents as well. He went on to discuss the contracts may be worth $80 to $200 million for personnel. Blackwater and DynCorp, another private contractor responded to the May 2006 call by the Bush Administration for a sharp increase in manpower at the border by 50 percent by proposing contracts.

The controversy with Blackwater and other private security companies is that they tend to operate in a grey area when it comes to the law. With questionable operations taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater was officially kicked out of Iraq after it was discovered that operatives had killed 8 civilians for no reason. The Iraqi government called for the contractors to be tried in their courts, but “officials in 2004 granted its private security contractors legal protection from prosecution in Iraq and the United States.” “The incident “gives us real concern as to what they will be up to domestically,” said Christian Stalberg, who is organizing an opposition group called Blackwater Watch near company headquarters in North Carolina. “Congress needs to act to put a brake on them because they are totally unregulated.””

Private security forces are not the only ones being contracted to participate in a sort of border control. In 2006, five military contactors, Boeing, Ericsson, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon were asked by the U.S. government to put forth proposals to increase anti immigration technology at the border. Their duties would include apprehension, detention, the processing of, and potentially incarcerating and deporting those seeking to enter the U.S. via Mexico. The allocation of funds has been a major part of this initiative. The Indefinite Quantity Contract for the Secure Border Initiative Network in 2006 was worth about $2.5 billion. In order to provide contrast, the Homeland Security budget for 2007 was $43.5 billion with a 20 percent increase in internal enforcement and border protection.

There is also profit to be found in the imprisonment of migrants. The Wackenhut Corporation is a Danish security corporation from Denmark. George Zoley is the CEO of GEO Group INC, which operates privatized prisons within the U.S, and donated $100,000 to Bush’s reelection campaign. In 2007 GEO won contracts for an immigration detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, as well as a prison in Eagle Pass, Texas. Upon reaching full capacity at Jena, La., there will be $23.5 million annually allocated to the company. There is another facility owned by GEO in Boca Raton Florida, as well as. Halliburton as well, received $385 million to build immigration detention centers in 2006. In regards to transporting prisoners, Wackenhut received a contract worth about $50 million a year for five years. Wackenhut said, “Transport service will initially involve over 100 secure, motor coach buses to include state of the art confinement systems, on-board digital/video surveillance, GPS tracking and over 270 armed security personnel from Wackenhut’s Custom Protection Division.” The privatization and militarization of border control is yet another example of questionable security and policy implementations within the U.S.

“The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand,” said Obama. “The Walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christians and Muslims and Jews Cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” While presidential candidate Barack Obama had told a crowd in Berlin that the wall erected between the U.S. and Mexico would best be knocked down, the construction of the border fence continues. Obama has continued the same controversial border fence policies as Bush, even though, while on the campaign trail he said he would take a different approach. Many were hoping for the reinstatement of environmental, public health, and cultural heritage laws, lost under the bush administration. Environmentalists were concerned with the endangerment of species along the fence area, as well as Native American graves, and have sought protection to little avail.

Critics of the border fence have backed off the Obama administration for the most part.

When the Bush administration announced a year ago that it was waiving roughly three dozen environmental laws, a number of powerful Democrats signed their support to a Defenders of Wildlife lawsuit contending that the waivers were unconstitutional — an effort spearheaded by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). Requests for comment from nearly all the supporters of that push — including Thompson, who was traveling on the border with Napolitano — went unanswered last week.

The administration seeks to finish the remaining 60 miles of the 670 of fence that had already been contracted. With the young administration in place, it may take some time before the effects and difference in policy between it and the past administration are noticed.

The issues of immigration laws, and discrimination on both a societal and governmental level are things that need to be addressed by the public, as well as the new administration. Previously established notions concerning an influx of terrorists over our borders, and the extreme and costly lengths that we go to in order to prevent these non-existent terrorists are ridiculous. Whether effective or not, the idea that by securing our borders against immigrants we could also keep out the terrorists assumed to be clamoring to enter our country is a shaky one at best.

Related posts:

1. Liner Notes: 6/25/09
2. Primary Benefactors of the U.S. War on Terror
3. Liner Notes: 8/20/09

Tagged as: 9/11, border politics, Bush Administration, discrimination, immigration, NAFTA, War on terror, Workers Rights