You can easily miss it. The steel fence towers over the small memorial for Carlos Lamadrid, who the Border Patrol shot in the back as he climbed over the 18-foot steel-pillared fence. Under the Border Patrol’s system of “threat assessment,” the 19-year old resident of the Sonora border town of Agua Prieta was considered a member of a “Transnational Criminal Organization” since he was trafficking drugs across the border.
Standing at the memorial constructed by family and friends, looking over at the U.S. homeland through the massive fence that marks the line between Agua Prieta and the small Arizona town of Douglas, is as good a place as any to reflect on the $45-billion “border surge” that is the sine que non of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which recently passed the Senate with the support of 13 Republican senators.
For most close observers of the border security buildup since 2001, the border surge of hundreds of miles in additional border walls, a doubling of the Border Patrol, more Predator drones, and a new splurge in high-tech ground surveillance systems is overkill.
For many borderlanders in Arizona and in southern New Mexico (where I live), border security has devolved into a joke. Many remark here in Douglas that “there are more Border Patrol agents than ocotillos,” (spindly, orange-blossomed, cactus-like desert plants). And in the El Paso sector, which extends along the New Mexico-Chihuahua border, it is commonly noted that the “Border Patrol are tripping over one another” because there are so many of them and so few immigrants trying to come across (average immigrant haul for each agent was 3.4 immigrants last year.)
You don’t have to be a political scientist to grasp that the proposed border surge is not about border security, homeland security, or even about another escalation in the drug war. Border security is primarily about politics, along with a helpful side of pork. Since 9/11 the link between the new border security buildup and counterterrorism within the newly created Department of Homeland Security has been all but lost—except for the Border Patrol slogan about constituting the frontline against foreign terrorists.
During the 2005-2007 immigration reform debate, the term “border security” (which replaced the pre-9/11 concept of border control and regulation) became almost exclusively focused on “securing the border” against the “invasion” and “infiltration” of immigrants crossing the border illegally to seek work or reunite with family. Immigrant reform proponents acceded to the demands of more border security— including the “virtual fence,” drones, and the “Secure Border Fence”—in the hope that billions of dollars more in border security would close the deal on immigration reform. It didn’t, predictably, because the border hawks are virulently anti-immigrant and over-the-top nationalists.
After the immigration debate faded as a political possibility, the continuing border security buildup was driven in 2008-2012 by bipartisan (albeit largely Republican with some border Democrats seeking border security pork) demands to secure the border against transnational criminal organizations, spillover violence from drug wars, and narco-terrorists in Mexico. The Obama administration acceded with an array of new border security programs and emergency spending.
Today, in the heat of the new immigration reform debate, immigrants are once again the main target of the border surge—with the threat of terrorists long forgotten (but with the rhetoric of homeland security still very much operative). Meanwhile, it goes unmentioned that more than $100 billion in border security spending over the past decade has done nothing to stop the flow of illegal drugs, mostly marijuana, into the US.
Carlos Lamadrid was a U.S. citizen living in Mexico but going to Cochise College in the Douglas area. Yes, he was smuggling marijuana into a state that, along with 19 others, permits the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The first memorial for Lamadrid was built on the U.S. side of the fence since he was shot in the U.S. while trying to climb back to relative safety in Agua Prieta. But the Border Patrol demanded its removal.
Lamadrid was a casualty of a border policy shaped by politically hyped threat assessments that have resulted in a military-like approach to regulating the southwest border. What now constitutes immigration policy reform—language tellingly not even found in the title of the Senate bill—is a casualty of the failure to recognize that our post-9/11 border policy is as broken, counterproductive, and tragic as immigration policy itself.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 8 days to add 460 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.