US History

During our recent visit to the border, Isabel García of the Tuscon, AZ organization Derechos Humanos discussed that though our nation was founded on ideals of liberty, justice and equality, we have a long history of human rights abuses that deny justice to people – especially to immigrants and people of color. Isabella shared that the only way to create change is through reeducation. Much of our public education system zeros in on the progress that the U.S. has made to bring liberty, justice and freedom to people, while glossing over the ways in which we have denied liberty, justice and freedom to many. My hope through this post is to aid in your and my reeducation in some small way. My hope is not to paint the U.S. as a monster that denies justice, but rather to reveal a more realistic picture that recognizes that the freedom and justice that reigns in our country is also mixed with abuses of power, acts of injustice, and a refusal to welcome the foreigner. In the following space, I retell snippets of U.S. history that speak to how we have treated the immigrant, the foreigner, the other. I do not provide a solution, nor do I want to convince you how to think. My hope is that you will see the way that history has repeated itself in different eras and with different people groups in hopes that we can move toward being a nation that is welcoming and accepting of the other – a nation that respects the human rights of EVERYONE.

***

The land that is now called the United States of America holds a long history of immigration and the interaction of various people groups. Academics believe that the first people to migrate to this land came from Eurasia tens of thousands of years ago. After this great migration, these peoples established various cultures and ways of life throughout the Americas. Over the following thousands of years, lots of internal migration would occur in the Americas. Trading and wars took place between different people groups. But nothing would so shake this landmass as the arrival of outsiders at the end of the 15^th Century.

In 1492, Columbus and his crew “discovered the Americas.” By 1521, the Spaniards were “settling” Mexico and interacting with the indigenous people in a diverse variety of ways. They would eventually explore much of the “new world,” including what is today the South and Southwest United States. In 1607, the English established their first settlement – in what is today the United States – in Jamestown, Virginia.

The interaction that ensued between the English and indigenous peoples – Native Americans – was fascinating. Native American tribes frequently attacked European settlements. Europeans unintentionally gave Native Americans diseases that would wipe out vast numbers of people. Natives traded Europeans food and animal pelts for guns and ammunition. Natives taught Europeans to grow maize, beans, squash and more. Europeans pressured Natives to “tame the wild” and to adopt sedentary, agricultural lifestyles. Europeans tried to “civilize” the Native Americans and make them Christians. As the Europeans adapted to the “New World” over time, greed seemed to take over.

The demand for land was met by invading and conquering larger and larger swaths of territory. American Indians became a growing impediment to white European “progress,” and during this period, the images of American Indians promoted in books, newspapers and magazines became increasingly negative. As sociologists Keith Kilty and Eric Swank have observed, eliminating “savages” is less of a moral problem than eliminating human beings, and therefore American Indians came to be understood as a lesser race – uncivilized savages – thus providing a justification for the extermination of the native peoples. (Alexander, 2011, 23)

***

Many of the first English and Western European settlers were dissenting Christian groups who came to the “New World” seeking the freedom to practice their faith without persecution. Other European settlers came to seek wealth, or to escape economic languor. The well-off English settlers established plantations, where crops such as cotton and tobacco were grown for export. The rest of the English settlers came as indentured servants. Their voyage across the Atlantic was paid for in trade for years of labor on a plantation. At the same time, Europeans began to capture African men and women, sending them to the “New World” where they were also forced to work on plantations.

Initially, the African bondsmen occupied the same status as the white indentured service in the new world. These white men and black men were said to have worked together and relaxed together. (Alexander, 2011, 22-23).However, things soon changed.

The growing demand for labor on plantations was met through slavery. American Indians were considered unsuitable as slaves, largely because native tribes were clearly in a position to fight back. The fear of raids by Indian tribes led plantation owners to grasp for an alternative source of free labor. European immigrants were also deemed poor candidates for slavery, not because of their race, but rather because they were in short supply and enslavement would, quite naturally, interfere with voluntary immigration to the new colonies. Plantation owners thus viewed Africans, who were relatively powerless, as the ideal slaves…

By the mid-1770s, the system of bond labor had been thoroughly transformed into a racial caste system predicated on slavery. The degraded status of Africans was justified on the ground that Negros, like the Indians, were an uncivilized lesser race, perhaps even more lacking in intelligence and laudable human qualities than the red-skinned natives. The notion of white supremacy rationalized the enslavement of Africans, even as whites endeavored to form a new nation based on the ideals of equality, liberty and justice for all. Before democracy, chattel slavery in America was born. (Alexander, 2011, 23-25)

“Here, in America, the idea of race emerged as a means of reconciling chattel slavery – as well as the extermination of American Indians – with the ideals of freedom preached by whites in the new colonies.” –Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow, p.23

***

Throughout the 18^th Century, fewer Europeans arrived in the American colonies by boat. Eventually, the majority of the population had been born in the Americas. The colonists came to see the British influence as an oppressive hand that was not welcome. In 1776, the colonists declared independence, and the Revolutionary War began. Fighting ended by 1781 and Britain officially recognized the United States of America as an independent nation in 1783.

Preceding independence and in the years after, European-Americans began to expand westward. The westward movement was driven by the desire for cheaper land and the concept of Manifest Destiny – the belief that white settlers had the right to the North American continent, that it was their God-given duty to settle and civilize the land. As this westward migration began, indigenous peoples were killed and displaced. The actions taken against the native population was nothing short of genocide.

“To say we were built on these beautiful concepts [liberty, justice, equality] is wrong. We were built on genocide of indigenous people and slavery.” –Isabel García, Derechos Humanos

In 1836, Texas won independence from Mexico and was officially incorporated into the United States of America in 1845. By 1848, the U.S had won the Mexican-American War. In the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico was forced to cede the northern half of its territory to the U.S. This Mexican Cession included what is today California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. Though sparsely populated, this land held great natural resources - something that the United States recognized immediately with the discovery of gold in California.

***

The Gold Rush in California began in the late 1840s. White citizens flocked to the West. As this boom occurred on the West coast, a need was sparked for cheap labor to work the mines, build railroads, and grow crops. Cheap labor was soon found in the Chinese. Many Chinese were also happy to live China as a result of political unrest and economic pressures. U.S. and Chinese authorities negotiated the legalization and movement of Chinese laborers to the west coast of the United States. Nearly 300,000 Chinese immigrants entered the U.S. between 1850 and 1899 (though half would eventually return to China), and another 100,000 were born in the U.S. during that time (Hooper & Batalova, 2015).

As early as 1852, however, locals sought to block the importation of “coolies.” Brutal racial discrimination persisted for decades. “Suspicious” Chinese females were not permitted entry in order to avoid births of those of Chinese origin on US soil (and so the right to citizenship, according to the Fourteenth Amendment); there were all kinds of restrictions placed on these immigrants at local levels, and violence exploded against them and their property on a number of occasions. This antipathy culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred introduction of any further Chinese labor and denied the Chinese any claim to citizenship; this prohibition would be renewed on several occasions. Chinese were not accorded the right to become citizens until 1943 with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act (the Magnuson Act). (Carroll, 2008, 31)

Furthermore, “little Chinese immigration was permitted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 overhauled the U.S. immigration system and significantly expanded migration opportunities for non-European immigrants” (Hooper & Batalova, 2015).

***

At the end of the 19^th Century and beginning of the 20^th, millions of Irish and southern Europeans - especially Italians - arrived to the United States. These immigrants fled economic stagnation and famine in their home countries. Furthermore, they were drawn to the bounty of jobs in the U.S. Nevertheless, opposition soon arose

on the claim that these new groups were educationally and culturally inferior, a drain on the economy, and politically problematic. Moreover, in contrast to the general Protestant flavor of the majority culture of the day, these immigrants were overwhelmingly Catholic. All of these negative features, it was felt, would damage the American ethos. A quota system to limit the admission of immigrants from certain countries was put into place with the immigration Acts of 1921 (the Quota Act) and 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). (Carroll, 2008, 32)

***

While the Chinese were prohibited entry to the U.S. at the end of the 19^th Century, a great need for labor remained. “Ironically, the exclusion of one immigrant people opened the door to another” (Carroll, 2008, 33). The need for cheap labor was soon found in Mexico. Ever since that time, Mexican labor has played an important role in the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, U.S. attitude and policies toward Mexican immigrants has varied greatly over the years.

The outbreak of World War I created a demand for more laborers in industry to support the war effort. Meanwhile, U.S. men joined the armed forces, and European Immigration halted due to the war. Mexican laborers were called upon to fill the gap. Many Mexicans happily came to the U.S. at this time as “The agricultural and industrial decisions of Porfirio Díaz (1876-1910) created a large landless population desperate for work… [and] The Mexican Revolution (1910-1917) drove many more across the border in search of safety” (Carroll, 2008, 33).

The Stock Market Crash of 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression and the soaring rate of unemployment, led to “a backlash on foreign workers. Restrictions on immigration were added and deportations began. Because of the difficult atmosphere, many Mexicans left of their own volition. Coincidentally, the land reform of President Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-40) made returning to Mexico an attractive option for those who desired to own property” (Carroll, 2008, 33-34).

World War II created a need for additional manpower once again. Furthermore, the 1942 bracero agreement welcomed Mexican immigrants. “The bracero program granted visas for temporary contract work. The numbers stipulated in the treaty never satisfied the need, however, and over time undocumented immigration began to grow” (Carroll, 2008, 34).

***

While the U.S. remained neutral to World War II through 1941, the eyes of our nation – like those of the rest of the world – were focused on the conflict in Europe, and on an aggressive Japan to the East. On December 7, 1941, our nation was rocked by the attack on Pearl Harbor. The next day, war was declared on Japan, and on December 11^th war was declared on Germany and Italy. While the military mobilized and fighting escalated in these foreign theaters, a war was also waged within the United States against citizens and residents.

Starting in 1942, over 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned in Internment Camps.  Of this population, 62% were U.S. Citizens. We had become overwhelmed by fear, and understandably so, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. We allowed this fear, though, to transform into hysteria and race prejudice. We unjustly incarcerated and mistreated a massive group of people on the basis of race. Were we really as different from the enemy Nazis as we thought we were?

***

After World War II, the Soviet Union became our national enemy. In the first years after World War II, confessions by several individuals that Soviet spies had infiltrated the U.S. government before and during WWII led to hysteria among the American public. Senator Joseph McCarthy seized the opportunity to assume power as a result of this fear. McCarthy led a movement that saw the erosion of civil rights for anyone who was a communist or perceived to be a communist. Whether there was significant evidence or not, many individuals were drug to trial to determine their role in espionage and subversion for the Soviets. The Red Scare had taken hold of American citizens, and allowed the denial of basic rights for many U.S. citizens and residents.

“…scare tactics, marginalization and irrational hyper villainization is as American as apple pie. From the Know Nothing Party in the 1850s who opposed immigration, particularly of Irish Catholics, to the Red Scare in the 1950s over Communism that led to the detainment of thousands of Asian Americans and numerous congressional hearings, to even modern day politicians fearing illegal immigration and the erasure of "white culture," using fear to scare voters into voting for the pseudo-leaders who hold these outrageous beliefs is a successful tactic. Scapegoating marginalized members of society has often been a tactic to reassure the public that the government is in control, often with the undertones of “the ends justify the means.” However, this success comes with consequences…” -Ezez Sehar (2015)

***

During the McCarthy era, the pervasive fear of everything foreign, lead to a crack-down on illegal immigrants from Latin American, too. U.S. officials claim that over a million undocumented immigrants were deported.

In 1965, the bracero program was shut down due to pressure from union and civil rights groups. (Carroll, 2008, 34)

This same year, the Hart-Cellar Immigration Bill was passed to set the quota of immigrants from the Western Hemisphere to the U.S. at 120,000, while capping any single country at 20,000. Though, “the number of legal visas for Mexicans was eventually raised considerably,… it never reached levels to match labor needs. The pressure for migration northward was exacerbated by worsening economic conditions n Mexico and the rapid increases in its population. In other words, while restrictions were growing, more and more people were trying to enter the country to find work” (Carroll, 2008, 35).

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act increased regulation on immigration. Border Patrol grew, and sanctions were placed on employers who hired undocumented workers. Additionally, amnesty was provided to those had been in the U.S. since 1982 and those who did certain types of agricultural work. This arrangement, though, did little to slow immigration as the government had hoped.

Many employers balked at the amount of required paperwork, while others simply did not want to lose their cheap source of labor. The demand for documentation also spawned a black market in fraudulent papers and encouraged many employers to pay salaries in cash to evade their legal responsibilities. In addition, the preference system for reuniting families allowed those who had received amnesty to bring over their kin; this led to the admission of many more people than the government had anticipated. The resulting emerging Hispanic networks and communities in turn fostered the conditions to receive and help even more immigrants come to the country. (Carroll, 2008, 35-36)

Since the mid-1980s, a number of other steps have been taken to “secure our southern border” and stop immigration. [Feel free to read about these strategies on my previous blogs “PREVENTION THROUGH DETERRENCE” and “CRIMINAL inJUSTICE.”] These steps have come at a time when undocumented immigration and anti-immigrant sentiments in the U.S. have spiked.

***

In 2001, the U.S. was shocked by an attack on our soil. The extremist Muslim group al-Qaeda launched a terrorist attack that killed thousands of individuals in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Our nation – and much of the world – was shaken by the event. Airlines saw a huge decline in traffic and security increased at airports. The U.S. established the Department of Homeland Security, and folded Border Patrol and Immigration and Naturalization Service into the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency within Homeland Security. The National Security Agency and various other intelligence and surveillance agencies saw an increase in funding and power. The USA Patriot Act granted the government increased surveillance of citizens and residents in order to discover to discover, deter and punish terrorist acts; and it granted the government exemption from upholding the basic human rights of those perceived guilty of participation in planning or carrying our terroristic acts. Guantanamo Bay was established to house suspects of terrorist activity. The War on Afghanistan was declared to search out the al-Qaeda members behind 9/11. Muslims and Arabs throughout the U.S. became the victims of hate crimes and discrimination.

Over the last fifteen years, Muslims have become a national target of discrimination and hate. During the days after the 9/11 attacks, American Muslims were victims of vandalism, arson, assault, shootings, and various other threats and abuses. American Muslims have also been profiled in airports, and endured discrimination against their practices in public schools and other spaces throughout the U.S.

“Japanese-Americans and Muslims in particular share another touchstone experience: a major attack on U.S. soil to which their community was ascribed collective blame. Following the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor and the entry of the United States into World War II, Japanese-Americans were subjected to an unprecedented degree of hostility and scrutiny, particularly by mainstream media figures. ‘After Pearl Harbor, Japanese-Americans not only saw their travel restricted, but they came to be viewed by many Americans as an advance guard for a hostile power,’ Lee said. ‘There were allegations throughout the media that they represented a fifth column in American society, and that ultimately their allegiance would lie with the Japanese Emperor instead of the United States.’” -Murtaza Hussain (2016)

***

Post-9/11 fear of immigrants and the desire to “secure our border” has allowed the passage of legislation and the increased funding of Border Patrol to seal off our southern border. Though there has been no recorded entrance, or attempted entrance, of terrorists through our southern border, the price that we pay to secure this border has skyrocketed; so have the effects that Latin American migrants feel. [See my previous blogs “PREVENTION THROUGH DETERRENCE” and “CRIMINAL inJUSTICE” for details on how Latin American immigrants have felt the effects of border strategies since 9/11.]

“We at War. We at war with terrorism. We at war with racism. Most of all, we at war with ourselves." –Kanye West, “Jesus Walks”

In the last handful of years, Mexican migration has declined. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center report shared that for the first time in more than four decades, there is net negative in migration of Mexicans to the U.S. In other words, more Mexican nationals are returning to Mexico than coming to the U.S. Many attribute this to the U.S. recession, an improved Mexican economy and tighter border security (Gomez, 2015). Nevertheless, even as the number of Mexican immigrants – legal and illegal – declines, Central American migration has continued to grow as people seek economic opportunities in the U.S. and flee the rampant gang violence that has made Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala among the most violent countries in the world. While more and more Central Americans are trying to find refuge in the U.S., increased border vigilance and negative public attitudes toward migrants is making it harder for these individuals to find safety in the United States.  As our nation continues to receive more Central American migrants and refugees – as well as immigrants and refugees from other places around the world – how will we respond?

***

“As Americans, we face some tough decisions moving forward. We, like many other nations, face an identity crisis in this twenty-first century. But we must remember the values we claim to hold. Two of the most important are the equality of every [person] in this nation and the freedom to practice whatever belief system you wish.” –Ezez Sehar (2015)

My hope is that we will recognize that the history of our nation is quite complex. One moment we have invited immigrants into our nation, and the next we have deported them. While we have made tremendous progress to provide the “liberty and justice of all,” we have also permitted the perpetuation of injustice, inequality, and denial of human rights. My hope is that we will recommit ourselves to ending injustice, and uphold the beautiful words of liberty and justice that abound in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and throughout our nation’s history.

“The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class – it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity.” –Anna Julia Cooper

“We have a great dream. It started way back in 1776, and God grant that America will be true to her dream.” –Martin Luther King Jr.

“Every generation has the obligation to free men’s minds for a look at new worlds… to look out form a higher plateau than the last generation.” –Ellison S. Onizuka

Reference List

Alexander, M. (2011). The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of

            colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

Carroll R., M.D. (2008). Christians at the border: immigration, the church, and the Bible.

            Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Ezez, S. (2015, September 22). Islamophobia, the new red scare. The Crimson White.

Retrieved from http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2015/09/islamophobia-the-new-red-scare

Gomez, A. (2015, November 19). More Mexicans leave than enter USA in historic shift.

USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/19/mexicans-returning-home-migration-shift-united-states/76013230/

Hooper, K. & Batalova, J. (2015, January 28). Chinese immigrants in the United States.

Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/chinese-immigrants-united-states

Hussain, M. (2016, January 14). Fearmongering around Muslim immigrants echoes anti-

            Asian hysteria of past. The Intercept. Retrieved from

            https://theintercept.com/2016/01/14/fearmongering-around-muslim-

immigrants-echoes-anti-asian-hysteria-of-past/

Other links of interest:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/22/467113401/lo-mein-loophole-how-u-s-immigration-law-fueled-a-chinese-restaurant-boom

http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2013/02/new-green-scare-islamophobia-and-politics-empire

CRIMINAL inJUSTICE

 “Mr. Juárez García, did you enter the United States illegally near the town of Sasabe on or about March 13, 2013?”

Silence.

“Mr. Juárez García, did you enter the United States illegally near the town of Sasabe on or about March 13, 2013?”

Silence.

“Can you please explain to your client that he needs to verbally respond to my question?”

Mr, Juárez García looks confused. His lawyer whispers something in his ear, and he suddenly kneels down on the ground in front of the judge as if praying for mercy.

“Please tell your client to stand up. Mr. Juárez García do you understand what is

 happening here today, sir?”

“Your honor, my client doesn’t speak a lot of Spanish. He is not a native Spanish speaker. He speaks a native dialect.”

“Do you think he speaks enough Spanish to enter a plea?”

“I think so, your honor.”

“Mr, Juárez García, do you understand what is happening, sir?”

“Culpable.”

“Sir, I am not asking for a plea yet. I am asking if you understand what is happening today.”

“Sí.”

“OK, very well. Let’s continue. Mr. Juárez García, did you enter the United States illegally near the town of Sasabe on or about March 13, 2013?”

“Sí.”[1]

(De León, 2015, p.111-112)

As I watched a similar scene play out in front of me during our group’s visit to Operation Streamline in Tuscon, Arizona, my mind recalled the recent, popular Netflix-series “Making a Murderer.” In the series, intellectually disabled 16-year old Brendan Dassey is talked into making a confession of a gruesome murder. As a result of his reserved-nature, interrogators force confessions out of him. “Brendan, isn’t it true that…?” these officers would ask before spouting at him their presuppositions about what happened. In light of the pressure of the interrogation, it appeared as if Brendan felt helpless to do anything but agree. It seemed as if he didn’t fully comprehend his right to refuse the interrogation. It seemed as if he was oblivious to the consequences that words would bring. It seemed as if he was being manipulated.

While “Making a Murderer” was shocking for many of us middle-class, white U.S. Americans, I am sadly reminded that for many people – citizens and non-citizens, but overwhelmingly the poor and people of color – the U.S. criminal justice system is anything but just.

Mr. Juárez García’s journey through the U.S. Criminal Justice system likely began 24-48 hours earlier when he was picked up by a Border Patrol officer in the desert. He was then taken to a Border Patrol station where he sat in a detention cell for a night or two. The morning of his hearing, Mr. Juárez García was bussed to the Federal Courthouse in Tuscon, Arizona. There, he had the opportunity to meet with his lawyer, who is contracted by the U.S. government and paid $125 an hour. (De León, 2015, p.111) His lawyer had five other clients, and with only a few hours until the 1pm hearing, the lawyer was only able to meet with Juárez García for twenty-five minutes.[2] This gave the lawyer just enough time to explain to his client that he would plea guilty to the misdemeanor charge “U.S. Statute 1325: Illegal entry around a port of entry.” By accepting this guilty charge, his client would serve less time in prison and would avoid the lengthy delays involved in fighting one’s cause in court. By the time the lawyer finished explaining the process, time was up. Mr. Juárez García signed the document affirming his plea of guilt and recognizing that he was not in any way forced to plea guilty. Was this document presented to Juárez García in Spanish or English?

That’s a good question.

At promptly fifteen ‘till one, Juárez García was ushered into the court room for Operation Streamline, chained at the hands and feet. His diminutive stature allowed him to be overshadowed by the other 43 people on trial this day. His head hung low as his shuffled forward in file, feet passing over the glazed stone floor. As he looked up, he found himself in an imposing room. Rows of polished wooden benches lay largely empty. In front of him sat the judge upon his throne. Decorating the judge’s stand was a large stone seal, stating “United States District Court – District of Arizona.” Behind the judge, marble tiles ran thirty feet up the wall toward the ceiling. The room felt enormous, distant, cold.

After all were seated, five to ten defendants were called forward at a time. Joined by their lawyer, each individual heard their name called out. Then the judge, went one by one down the line. When he came to Juárez García he asked,

“Are you a citizen of Mexico and did you enter the United States illegally near the town of Sasabe on March 13, 2013 by going around the Port of Entry?”

“Sí.”

“Do you want to give up your rights and plead guilty knowing you will receive sixty days?”

“Sí.”

“How do you plead?”

“Culpable.”

After addressing each individual standing before him, the judge then asked the group, “Has any one made any promises, forced or threatened you in regards to your plea of guilt?”

“No,” they replied.

“Any comments?” asked the judge.

After no comments were made, the judge announced the request of one defendant to serve his time near Houston, Texas where he has family[3]. Then, the group was dismissed, and the next group of individuals came forward.

Later that day, Mr. Juárez García was put on a bus for the Corrections Corporation of America’s private prison facility in Florence, Arizona. There he would serve his sixty-day sentence. Afterwards, he would be transferred to a detention center, where he would wait for his travel arrangements to be made to the Mexican border. More than likely, he would be taken to Nogales, Sonora. However, if he was dealt an unlucky hand, he could become a victim of lateral deportation – a strategy of the U.S. government to deport Mexican citizens to locations on the border other than where they crossed, so that they are less likely to encounter familiar people and resources to cross the border again. Juárez García had already been dealt an unlucky hand once by ending up in Operation Streamline. He could likely draw another crummy hand and end up in Tijuana, El Paso or elsewhere.

Standing in a dusty lot just south of the U.S.-Mexican border, Mr. Juárez García would find himself between a rock and a hard place. Would he swallow his pride, admit defeat and try to scrounge up a few thousand pesos for the thousand-mile bus ride back to his rural Oaxacan village where he would only be further in debt, still struggling to put food on the table and now feeling ashamed? Or, would he try to connect with his coyote and make another attempt to cross the desert into the United States[4], knowing that if he was caught and sent to court again he would be dealt a felony for illegal re-entry and forced to serve a longer prison sentence?

*****

Did the U.S. have a choice but to criminalize illegal entry?

Prior to immigration reforms in the mid-2000s, including the introduction of Operation Streamline, stopping the massive flow of immigrants from the south seemed hopeless. Most illegal entrants from Mexico were “returned with minimal processing in a procedure known as voluntary departure.” Instead of attending an administrative hearing as occurs in a formal deportation, immigrants would return to Mexico without a trial or prolonged detention. Thus, after getting caught by Border Patrol, illegal entrants would answer some basic questions, sit in a detention for a short period, and then take a bus to the Mexican side of the fence.[5] Later the same day they could make another attempt to cross into the U.S. “It was not uncommon during most of the twentieth century for an agent to apprehend the same person more than once in a twenty-four-hour period, creating a game of catch-and-release that frustrated the Border Patrol and did little to discourage someone from trying again.” Undocumented entrants “became socialized to the routine process of deportation.” Border Patrol did nothing to stop illegal entrants. All they did was delay these individuals. (De León, 2015, p.109)

In an effort to enforce the border with more consequences, and thus deter undocumented immigrants from making future entrance attempts, the Department of Homeland Security decided to criminalize illegal entrance into the United States.[6] In 2005, the first Operation Streamline court was opened in Del Rio, Texas. Today, Operation Streamline happens five days a week in three of the nine southern border sectors.[7] “Under this program first-time offenders are convicted of a misdemeanor and can serve up to six months in jail. A repeat visitor to Streamline can find herself charged with felony reentry, which generally carries a two-year maximum penalty or up to twenty years in prison if the defendant has a criminal record” (De León, 2015, p.110). However, not all undocumented immigrants are funneled through Operation Streamline. Many Border Patrol sectors apprehend hundreds of illegal entrants every day. While Operation Streamline prosecutes up to seventy individuals in the Tuscon sector each day, the majority of undocumented immigrants are still sent back with little fanfare through voluntary deportation.  Ending up in Operation Streamline rather than on an immediate bus back to the border is just a matter of bad luck.

(De León)

Since Operation Streamline began, the U.S. Southern border has seen a significant decrease in apprehension of illegal entrants nearly every year. Many government officials attribute the decline in immigrants to the success of Operation Streamline in deterring immigrants from returning. To a degree they are correct. David, a Central American migrant I met at La Sagrada Familia migrant shelter, has served two prison sentences in the United States. The second was an eighth-month sentence for illegal re-entry. Though he lived [undocumented] in the Dallas-Fort Worth area for nearly two decades with his wife and kids, David has vowed to not return to the U.S. because of the fear of being sent to prison again. Instead, he plans to live just south of the U.S.-Mexico border with his father-in-law in hopes that his wife and kids – who are citizens – will move to south Texas and come visit him south of the border on the weekends.

David’s story reveals that the criminal prosecution of undocumented immigrants has deterred some immigrants from returning. However, many analysts point to the U.S. economic decline, rising smuggling costs, and increased anti-immigrant sentiments as accounting for the largest decline in entrants into the U.S. over the past decade.[8] One study even suggests that the effect of Operation Streamline [and more so, the desert] in deterring people is negligent. “In four… studies, we found that fewer than half of migrants who come to the border are apprehended, even once, by Border Patrol…. [T]he apprehension rate found in these studies varied from 24% to 47%. And of those who are caught, all but a tiny minority eventually get through, between 92 and 98 percent, depending on the community of origin. If migrants do not succeed on the first try, they almost certainly will succeed on the second or third try” (Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego as quoted in De León, 2015, p.110).  

Despite the fact that no evidence can prove that criminalization has caused the reduction in border crossings, “prosecutions for illegal entry and re-entry rose from fewer than 4,000 a year at the start of Bill Clinton’s presidency, to 31,000 in 2004 under George W. Bush, to a high of 91,000 in 2013 under President Obama” (Wessler, 2016).

*****

What does the criminalization of undocumented entry look like?

Seth Freed Wessler writes about the prison boom in the U.S., and how the addition of tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants to this population has resulted in the birth of private-prison corporations.

By the late 1990s, the flood of inmates from this new class of prisoner, coupled with a raging War on Drugs, sent the Bureau of Prisons searching for places to put them. The BOP returned to private companies to operate a new type of facility, low-security prisons designed to hold only noncitizens convicted of federal crimes. As of June 2015, these facilities – which are distinct from immigration detention centers, where people are held pending deportation – housed nearly 23,000 people.
 Three private companies now run 11 immigrant-only contract prisons. Five are run by the GEO Group, four by the Corrections Corporation of America, and two by a privately held company called the Management & Training Corporation… Except for a prison used to house inmates from Washington, DC, these 11 facilities are the only privately run prisons in the federal criminal-justice system. In 2013, the BOP spent roughly $625 million on them…
 The BOP’s contracts with these facilities are meant to cut costs. Though the prisons are part of the federal infrastructure, the companies that run them operate under a different – and less stringent – set of rules in order to allow cost-cutting…
 Repeated federal audits and reports have found these facilities to be in crisis. Prison medical care is notoriously bad, but for years, immigrant- and prisoner-rights advocates have sounded the alarm about these sites in particular, describing them as separate and unequal, segregated on the basis of citizenship…” Nevertheless, neglect of detainees – especially in regards to medical care – in this privately-run prisons has continued.  (Wessler, 2016)

(Aanie Zhang)

*****

What is the U.S. prison boom?

In 1972, less than 350,000 were in prison or jail in the U.S. Today, more than 2 million are imprisoned. The majority of these individuals have been charged for non-violent crimes. The U.S. prison population skyrocketed over the last four decades as the War on Drugs put more and more people in prison – especially people of color. “Until 1988, one year of imprisonment had been the maximum for possession of any amount of any drug” (Alexander, 2011, 54). Now, however, the death penalty is evoked for serious drug-related offenses, and mandatory minimum sentences have been imposed for a number of drug offenses – such as “a five-year minimum for simple possession of cocaine base” (Alexander, 2011, 53). In addition to these outrageous sentences, the war on drugs has created a created a culture of prisoners and criminals. After receiving a felony drug charge, one is barred from voting, prohibited from receiving federal student loans, “barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to “check the box” indicating a felony conviction on employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions,” (Alexander, 2011, 94). One becomes locked out of mainstream society and economy. It becomes nearly impossible to find legitimate work. The lack of opportunities tends to point one right back to old addictions and illicit sales, and as a consequence, more jail time.  

In addition to drug charges, charges of illegal entry and illegal re-entry have been leading prosecutions in federal courts in recent years. In fact, about half of the individuals prosecuted in federal court nationwide in 2015 – and over half in 2014 – were prosecuted for crossing the border. Since Operation Streamline began, around 700,000 individuals have been charged for illegal entry or re-entry, including 70,000 in 2015 alone.

One must ask, why are drug offenders being locked up and not sent to rehabilitation treatment, saving government money and helping addicts overcome addiction? Why are these individuals given such lengthy sentences knowing that longer prison terms increase the probability that one will have more difficult reintegrating into society and will likely relapse and/or end up back in prison? (Alexander, 2011, 89-90).

Why are illegal entrants held in prison when all they wanted to do was find work to support their families back in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador? Why are tax-payers spending so much money to imprison undocumented immigrants when these individuals only wanted to work minimal-wage jobs that would benefit U.S. citizens by providing us with cheaper fruit, hamburgers, cleaning services and houses? Why are we imprisoning people even though they are likely to make another attempt to enter the U.S., whether to provide for their family, or to avoid the shame of returning home with nothing?

One explanation is the unethical relationship that exists between private prison corporations and anti-immigrant legislators, between Department of Justice prisons and anti-drug legislators. “Both parties seem to have agreed that if one builds more detention centers the other will find ways to fill them” (De León, 2015, p.113). U.S. tax payers end up paying for each bed in detention centers and prisons, whether they are filled or not.  As a result, private-prison companies are making profits in the billions. The U.S. spent over $5.5 billion incarcerating criminally prosecuted immigrants between 2006 and 2011, including $1.02 billion in 2011 alone. Private-prison companies made a profit of over $246,561 per day - $90 million per year – for incarcerating immigrants on criminal charges in 2011. The two largest U.S. private-prison companies – Corrections Corporations of America and GEO Group, Inc. – received nearly $3 billion in revenue from federal government contracts in 2010. While these numbers are staggering, these for-profit prison companies only account for about “6% of state prisoners, 16% of federal prisoners, and… nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government” (ACLU, 2011).  The total price tag of the U.S. prison complex is much, much higher than $3 billion.

Central American migrants often pay upwards of $8,000 to be smuggled through Mexico. Sometimes clients are held at ransom on private Narco ranches, where they are forced to work without pay until a family member can send a few thousand dollars ransom. Central American and Mexican migrants typically pay $3,000-5,000 to be taken across the Sonoran Desert of the Rio Grande and into the U.S. Migrants crossing the desert often encounter thieves named bajadores that rob the migrants of whatever money they are carrying. Finally, once in the U.S., some undocumented migrants are held captive and not allowed release until they pay up to $30,000. This quota isn’t charged by Narcos, traffickers or petty thieves though. This is the bond fee that the U.S. government forces undocumented migrants to pay to leave detention.

Another explanation for the illogical and costly imprisonment of drug offenders and undocumented immigrants is race.

Isabel García of Derechos Humanos in Tuscon, Arizona shares that we choose what we want to punish. We will never have enough people to prosecute every crime committed or rule broken. Thus, we choose what we think is most applicable to prosecute. Lots of laws were broken in the 2008 financial crisis, but few punishments ensued. Meanwhile, we have chosen to prosecute – more than any other crime – illegal entry and re-entry.

Along similar lines, Michelle Alexander writes “for reasons largely unrelated to actual crime trends, the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history. And while the system alone might suggest that it would touch the lives of most Americans, the primary targets of its control can be defined largely by race” (Alexander, 2011, 8).[9] [I urge you to read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. She eloquently details the way in which mass incarceration and the war on drugs has been used to create a racist system that succeeds slavery and Jim Crow in oppressing people of color.] In his recent article “Legalize It All,” Dan Baum quotes a 1994 interview with John Ehrlichman, who had been President Nixon’s domestic-policy advisor, that concisely explains the way in which the war on drugs is a form of social control. Ehrlichman shares

You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. (Baum, 2016)

Thus, a racist system of social control, disguised as policy to be “tough on crime,” was born. While earlier systems of control exploited black labor, “mass incarceration is designed to warehouse a population deemed disposable – unnecessary to the functioning of the new global economy” (Alexander, 2011, 18).

*****

So, what’s the point? What’s the solution? What’s the conclusion to this post [that has more or less turned into a paper]?

i don’t know

I’m stunned that our justice system doesn’t actually do people justice.

I’m shocked that I had never heard of the controversy, injustice, and indiscrete racism of the war on drugs before.[10]

I’m surprised by the number of connections between the War on Drugs, whose main target is people of color in the U.S., and the enforcement of the Southwest U.S. border, whose main target is undocumented immigrants.[11]

I’m perplexed by these wars we are fighting. In both the War on Drugs and the war against illegal immigrants, we are fighting an enemy that we have created. Outside of a few rare cases, neither drug offenders nor undocumented immigrants are fighting back. These “enemies,” the “criminals” are nonviolent. Yet, we have implemented military-grade technology on our Southern border and in our police forces.[12] There is no need for this military-grade technology. Nevertheless, we have decided that we want to make these wars more than just figurative.

I’m alarmed by the fact that “the enemy” is always a minority, usually poor, and many times a foreigner.

I wonder, will we act on the proclamation on which our nation was founded: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

I am curious, will we remember that we were once poor, a minority and a foreigner?[13]

I hope we will listen to the stories of Israel’s time in exile, baby Jesus’ search for refuge, and Yahweh’s commandments to love the foreigner, the poor, the imprisoned. I pray that we will see that these stories weren’t just the history of a distant people, but are rather living exhortations to us today.

I am desperate for us to recognize the truth in Shane Claiborne’s words: “When you fight fire with fire – you only get more fire. The more we pick up the sword the more we die by it. There is another way. Violence is always a failure of imagination.”

Let us commit ourselves to a world of justice, freedom and equality for ALL people. In honor of those imprisoned, deported, and left suffering by our broken system, and in the footsteps of the liberator Jesus, let us say not to injustice and dedicate ourselves to creating a more peaceful, just and loving world.

“Streamline tries to grind down people’s hopes and dreams of return… the U.S. Sentencing Commission recently reported that about 50 percent of immigration re-entry offenders have children living in the U.S. They all say the word culpable or guilty while shackled in front of a judge with no due process and little understanding of how that could forever ruin their chances of legalizing their status… I locked myself under the bus as a true expression of my faith. I believe in a God of radical love and inclusion who sets the captives free. Operation Streamline is a modern-day slave trade steeped with racism, selling shackled migrants to fill the beds of private prisons for 30, 60, 180 days, and years if caught again. My conduct that day may have been a “public nuisance,” but for that day it prevented an unethical and unjust harm to 70 people on those buses. With these charges, now I’ll be a criminal too, but in solidarity with my heroes.” 

–Maryada Vallet, statement during trial for arrest as one of 12 Operation Streamline protesters on October 11, 2013, who chained themselves to the wheels of the two buses that carrying undocumented migrants to federal court in Tuscon

Reference List

Alexander, M. (2011). The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of

            colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

American Civil Liberties Union (2011, November). Banking on Bondage: Private

Prisons and Mass Incarceration. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration?redirect=prisoners-rights/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration

Baum, D. (2016, March 22). Legalize it all: how to win the war on drugs. Harper’s

            Magazine, April 2016. Retrieved from

            https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

De León, J. (2015). The land of open graves: living and dying on the migrant trail.

            Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Garsd, J., & Kestenbaum, D. (2016, January 8). Episode 675: the cost of crossing.

Planet Money. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/08/462438973/episode-675-the-cost-of-crossing

Wessler, S.F. (2016, January 28). This man will almost certainly die. The Nation.

            Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-

prison-deaths/

---

[1]Juárez García is a pseudonym used by Jason De León. I have continued this same pseudonym and character into this blog as I discuss Operation Streamline.

[2]In Tuscon, each lawyer can have no more than six clients. However, it has been said that in Operation Streamline Del Rio, 75 individuals are tried in the morning and 75 in the afternoon. One lawyer is present for the first 75, and another lawyer for the next 75.

[3] Louis, a long-time volunteer with No More Deaths, shared that though the judge may read a defendants’ request to serve their sentence in a particular region of the country, these requests are rarely upheld. Nearly everyone prosecuted in Operation Streamline Tuscon is sent to the private CCA prison in Florence, AZ.

[4] Many coyotes have a three-try rule. “basically, if you're crossing the border and border patrol catches you and sends you back, you get two more tries - tres intentos, three tries” (Garsd & Kestenbaum, 2016).

[5] De León writes “During this same era, non-Mexican nationals… who were caught transgressing the geopolitical boundary fared even better, as they were usually released on bail and told to appear in court for a formal deportation or removal hearing at a later date. Unsurprisingly, this practice yielded a low courtroom appearance rate” (2015, p.109).

[6] The criminalization of illegal entry and re-entry actually occurred as a part of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, but was rarely enforced until just over a decade ago.

[7] Operation Streamline occurs in the Del Rio, Laredo and Tuscon Sectors. At its height, it was happening in six of the nine southern border sectors.

[8] Additionally, it is important to note that the decline in undocumented entrants cited is actually the record of the number of immigrants apprehended by Border Patrol. We do not have any accurate numbers on the total number of immigrants – those apprehended by BP, and those who make it into the U.S. successfully.

[9] National drug use was on the decline when Regan escalated the War on Drugs in the early 80s.

[10] “Relatively little organized opposition to the drug war currently exists… The war has become institutionalized. It is no longer a special program or politicized project; it is simply the way things are done” (Alexander, 2011, 84).

[11]In addition to other similarities already described, the chase for drugs among law enforcement is much like the chase for immigrants among Border Patrol agents. Drug task force shifts have been reported to start their shifts with comments like “Let’s go out and kick ass” and “Everybody goes to jail tonight for everything right?” (as quoted in Alexander, 2011, 80). Meanwhile, Border Patrol agents make very similar comments. A picture of Border Patrol ATVs at the Douglas Station we visited was captioned “Outrun These.”

[12]The Pentagon has been more than willingly to send military equipment to local police forces cracking down on drugs. Between January 1997 and October 1999, 3.4 million orders of Pentagon equipment were placed by local agencies. Additionally, SWAT teams have sprung up in virtually every U.S. city, and paramilitary SWAT raids have increased from a few hundred raids in the U.S. in 1972 to more than 40,000 in 2001 (Alexander, 2011, 73-80).  On the Southern Border, Border Patrol uses motion sensors, hi-tech cameras, drones, and more military grade technology. For discussion on the border as a warzone, check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krsZ0I2G_WY from 8:55-10:05

[13]From the perspective of a white U.S. Christian: My heritage comes from European immigrants. Many of these individuals came poor and worked as tenant farmers. Many also came to exercise religious freedom - as Protestants were a minority in 16^th Century Europe.