72
3. Reactions to the
hypeRboRdeR
The conditions and discrepancies that surround
and contribute to the hyperactivity of the U.S.–
Mexico border have sparked numerous reactions
from varying groups and institutions. From
government officials to policymakers to vigilant
U.S. citizens to immigrants’ rights activists to the
press, the state of the border and the methods for
resolving its problems have become the interests
of everyone.
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
73
Post-9/11 LegisLation
In the wake of 9/11, politicians and policymakers in
the U.S. have rallied around national security and
immigration reform as central issues for today’s
political arena. Since the terrorist attacks, numer-
ous bills pertaining to these themes have been
proposed and many passed into law, effectively
changing the way the United States, a country often
referred to as a nation of immigrants, receives
foreign visitors and migrants. September 11, 2001,
marked a major turning point for the U.S.–Mexico
border, because now in addition to illegal immi-
gration, drug trafficking, organized crime, and the
many other issues surrounding the border region,
it has become an important element of the U.S. war
on terrorism.1 The following segments highlight
the most aggressive legislation to come forward
since the attacks of 9/11, many of which will have a
profound impact on the U.S.’s common border with
Mexico and immigrants residing in the U.S.
Usa-patRiot act (OcTOBer 2001)
On October 26, 2001, less than two months after the tragic events
of 9/11, President George W. Bush signed into law the “Uniting and
Strengthening of America by Promoting Appropriate Tools required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”—more popularly known as the
USA-PATrIOT Act. The highly controversial law dramatically changed
the parameters of the government’s investigative and surveillance pow-
ers by authorizing unprecedented license to conduct secret searches,
tap into telephones and internet usage, obtain personal information,
and exchange intelligence between different agencies. The PATrIOT
Act also expanded the definition of terrorist activity and granted the
Attorney General authority to order detentions of “aliens” without
showing that the person poses a threat. According to the American civil
Liberties Union (AcLU), this new legislation has resulted in the depor-
tation and detention of more than one thousand immigrants, often
without due process.2
change of addRess ReqUiRement (2001)
In the months following September 11, in an effort to track non-citizens
residing in the U.S., the Department of Justice announced renewed en-
forcement of Section 265(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952, which requires non-citizens to submit change-of-address forms
to the government within ten days of moving residences.3 For immi-
grants in the United States—many of whom are unaware of the law—
this piece of legislation is critical as the penalty for its violation can be
as grave as deportation, even if the person is a Legal Permanent resi-
dent (LPr). The first high-profile case of the law’s application, against
a Palestinian man, brought something of an administrative nightmare
to Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) offices around the
country, as personnel scrambled to process tens of thousands of forms
that began arriving daily. As the majority of these documents—now out-
dated—have yet to be processed, thousands of immigrants have been
put at risk of “deportation for allegedly failing to comply with the law,”4
as Michele Waslin points out, and the INS and its successor agency,
the Department of Homeland Security, have been swamped with more
information than can be managed.
enhanced boRdeR secURity and Visa entRy RefoRm
act (NOVeMBer 2001)
In the immediate investigations that followed September 11, it was dis-
covered that several of the hijackers had entered the U.S. on student
visas, which provoked congress to pass the enhanced Border Secu-
rity and Visa entry reform Act in November 2001. The bill, which was
signed into law on May 14, 2002, allows for the enhanced tracking of
foreign students by requiring schools they attend to provide INS with
their personal information and to certify that they have enrolled within
thirty days of arrival to the United States.
execUtiVe oRdeR by pResident bUsh: citizenship
eligibility foR foReign-boRn soldieRs (JULy 2002)
In July 2002, President Bush signed an executive order stating that
any foreign-born soldier serving active duty in the wake of September
11, 2001, was eligible for U.S. citizenship. The president claimed that
these soldiers were willing to put their lives at risk to defend the free-
dom of others and should therefore be accepted as full members of
the society they represent and protect.5 At a recent citizenship ceremo-
ny, Bush stated that there are currently more than 33,000 foreign-born,
non-U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. armed forces.
homeland secURity act (NOVeMBer 2002)
The Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 is an anti-terrorism bill
that further increased federal law enforcement agencies’ citizen sur-
veillance powers and created the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), resulting in the largest government reorganization in contem-
porary history. In a public statement, the DHS reported that one of the
principal points of its six-point agenda was to “strengthen border secu-
rity and interior enforcement and reform immigration processes.”6 Inci-
dentally, one of the numerous institutions that the DHS replaced after
its implementation in March 2003 was the INS, whose immigration-
related responsibilities were transferred to the U.S. citizenship and
Immigration Services (UScIS), a bureau of Homeland Security. The
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
ReaCtions to HYPeRBoRDeR
74
implication of this change is that the U.S.–Mexico border, immigration,
and consequently migrants themselves are now viewed as national se-
curity issues and threats since the DHS—an institution designed to pro-
tect the nation from terrorism—is now responsible for border control
and immigration services.
the aViation tRanspoRtation and secURity act
(NOVeMBer 2002)
In November 2002 congress passed the Aviation Transportation and
Security Act (ATSA), a law that requires all airport baggage screeners
to be U.S. citizens, thus uniting the concept of security with citizenship.
According to the legislation’s critics, ATSA implicitly criminalizes and
provokes fear of foreign-born persons by prohibiting their occupation
of jobs in airport security. Passage of the law resulted in the immedi-
ate dismissal of thousands of legal immigrant workers who had previ-
ously composed at least 20% of baggage screeners in airports across
the country.7
pRoposition 200: aRizona (NOVeMBer 2004)
The 2004 elections in the border state of Arizona brought a revival of
anti-immigrant legislation to its voters. Proposition 200—considered
very similar to california’s notorious Proposition 187, which was later
deemed unconstitutional—was passed by 56% of the state’s vote. The
law requires employees of the local and state governments to verify
the immigration status of people seeking government benefits, and
to report any violations that are encountered or suspected to federal
officials. Failure to report is considered a criminal offense, which ef-
fectively puts local police officers, health workers, public school teach-
ers, and all other government employees in the position to break the
law if they do not enforce the new legislation. The law also requires
proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The constitutionality of
the new legislation is being challenged by the Mexican American Legal
Defense and education Fund (MALDeF) with the argument that Propo-
sition 200 violates federal law because states do not have the authority
to establish their own immigration enforcement system and because
the law would “jeopardize the health and well-being of families and
children who depend on public benefits for their basic necessities.”8
The proposition also trespasses upon the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human rights, which holds that no individual may be
denied health services and a basic education.9
intelligence RefoRm and teRRoRism
pReVention act (DeceMBer 2004)
considered the greatest intelligence reform since the National Se-
curity Act of 1947, this act creates the position of Director of National
Intelligence, currently served by Michael Mcconnell, who acts as the
principal adviser on national security issues. He oversees the National
counterterrorism center (created with this act) and promotes intel-
ligence sharing among all intelligence agencies such as the cIA and
FBI. The bill establishes a National Intelligence council to produce
national intelligence reports to the federal government and creates
the National counterterrorism center as a gathering point for all
terrorism intelligence. It also calls for the increase of border patrol
agents by at least 2,000 per year between Fy 2006 and 2010, increas-
es penalties for human smuggling, and provides extraterritorial fed-
eral jurisdiction over offenses related to nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction.10
Real id act (MAy 2005)
In May 2005, President Bush signed the real ID Act—an attachment to
a military spending bill—into law. real ID requires states to follow new
federal driver’s license standards, including fraud and tamper-resistant
features; biometric identifiers; and information about each person’s
name, age, Social Security number, and proof of identity, residency,
and legal presence in the United States.11 The congressional Budget
Office estimates the new system will cost each state $100 million over
five years, though critics claim it will be closer to $500–$700 million.
The federal government, the entity mandating the new standards, will
not cover these expenses.12 The driver’s license provisions take effect in
2008; any person from a state that has not adjusted its standards will
be unable to obtain federal benefits, access federal buildings, or board
airplanes.13 Temporary-visa immigrants will have a different license
from U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, asylum seekers, and
refugees, which would expire on the same date of that visa or after one
year if the visa holds no expiration date. real ID also includes new pro-
visions for asylum, requiring applicants to prove “race, religion, nation-
ality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was
one ‘central reason’ for their persecution”—something widely consid-
ered difficult to prove.14 The law further impedes non-citizens’ access
to due process by limiting the federal courts’ ability to review detention
and deportation cases and most “discretionary actions” taken by the
DHS. All provisions, aside from the national driver’s license standards,
went into effect immediately after being signed into law.
boRdeR pRotection, antiteRRoRism, and illegal
immigRation contRol act: the sensenbRenneR bill,
h.R. 4437 (DeceMBer 2005, NOT eNAcTeD)
In December 2005, the House of representatives passed the Border
Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration control Act of 2005
(H.r. 4437)—also known as the Sensenbrenner Bill for its sponsor,
representative James Sensenbrenner (r-WI), the chief proponent
of the real ID Act. The bill—which was not passed by the Senate in
2006—sparked controversy in the international community and ani-
mosity on the part of the Mexican government for its authorization of
seven hundred miles of new walls and fences along the border. The en-
deavor—which critics called reminiscent of the Berlin Wall—would have
cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $2 billion. A noteworthy clause was
the expanded definition of “smuggling” to include anyone who aids or
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
75
transports an undocumented person, thus putting migrant-friendly
churches, legal services, refugee agencies, and social service organi-
zations in the same criminal category as human smuggling organiza-
tions.15 H.r. 4437 also moved to make “unlawful presence” in the Unit-
ed States a felony and called for the involvement of local law officers in
immigration enforcement, something opponents said would have both
deteriorated trust between immigrant communities and their police
force, as well as distracted officers from more pressing issues of crime
and security.16 Although the bill was referred to the Senate committee in
January 2006 and was not likely to be approved, President Bush signed
a measure the following October, granting the DHS $1.2 billion for bor-
der security enforcement. Days later, he approved the construction of
seven hundred miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, despite
a call from Mexico’s President Fox to veto the bill, and a request signed
by twenty-seven other Organization of American States countries.17
opeRation JUmp staRt: national gUaRd deployed
to the boRdeR (MAy 2006)
In the midst of the heated immigration debate gripping the United
States in the spring of 2006, President Bush announced plans for the
implementation of Operation Jump Start, a maneuver placing 6,000
National Guard troops along the border. Then-president of Mexico
Vicente Fox immediately objected to the operation, concerned about
the prospect of an explicitly militarized border. yet Bush claimed the
deployment of the guard would only be temporary: by 2008, when
the Border control doubles its ranks to 18,000 agents, the National
Guard’s participation in Operation Jump Start will be terminated.18 The
troops are not meant to detain the migrants, but instead to operate
surveillance and report what they see to the Border Patrol, who still
holds the sole responsibility for capturing illegal crossers. reports
indicate that migrants are now more fearful of entering the country
illegally because of the military uniforms they see on the other side.
In July 2006, Border Patrol chief David Aguilar claimed apprehen-
sions on the southern border had fallen by 45% from the previous two
months—a sign that fewer people are crossing—as a direct result of the
National Guard’s presence.19
HeigHteneD BoRDeR seCuRitY
A new level of anxiety surrounding terrorism
and the country’s national security has shaped
the post-9/11 climate of the United States. The
well-funded Department of Homeland Security
undoubtedly represents the Bush Administration’s
most concerted effort to address the heightened
angst found in the government, media, and popu-
lation. As a result of the monumental adminis-
trative restructuring attending the creation of
the DHS, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) has become the agency within the DHS that
now encompasses the offices of U.S. Customs, U.S.
Immigration, Animal and Plant Inspection Service,
and the U.S. Border Patrol.20 Robert C. Bonner, the
former Commissioner of CBP, outlined the chang-
ing nature of his agency:
On the morning of 9/11, I realized that my
agency’s mission had been dramatically altered.
It was clear to me that the priority mission of
U.S. Customs had changed from the interdic-
tion of illegal drugs and regulation of trade, to
a national security mission—preventing terror-
ists and terrorist weapons from getting into the
United States.21
According to Bonner, because CBP works at the
border, its officers have the broadest law enforce-
ment authority of any agency in the United States,
bar none.22 CBP is composed of more than 41,000
agents who work to manage, control, and protect
all official U.S. ports of entry and the border ter-
rain between.
Since its inception, the DHS has annually
received increased funding from the U.S. govern-
ment. The institution’s budget for 2006 was $34.2
billion, a 7% increase from 2005. In 2006 the Border
Control received $37 million for the hiring of 210
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
ReaCtions to HYPeRBoRDeR
76
additional Border Patrol agents, and $20 million
for new Border Control vehicles and aircrafts. Since
September 11, 2001, the Border Patrol workforce has
grown by nearly 1,200 agents, an 11% increase. The
2006 federal budget also enhanced the America’s
Shield Initiative, which calls for the application of
surveillance, video, and detection systems, among
other new technologies along the border,23 which
some critics point to as evidence of “the militariza-
tion” of the U.S.–Mexico border.24
One of the Department of Homeland Security’s
principal concerns for its effective enforcement of
U.S. immigration laws is the detention and removal
of illegal aliens from United States soil. The 2006
federal budget provided a hefty sum in order to
achieve this goal: funding for “enforcement” was
increased by $176 million, $90 million of which was
designated to detention beds and additional deten-
tion and removal officers. Other areas set to receive
funding included: repatriation costs (directed
toward desert crossings, $39 million); apprehension
of alien fugitives ($8 million); direct deportation of
aliens convicted of crimes back to their countries
($5.4 million); and DHS attorneys working to pros-
ecute immigration cases ($3.5 million).25
PusHing tHe BoRDeR awaY FRom tHe
uniteD states
Part of the Department of Homeland Security’s
vision for the nation’s protection involves expand-
ing surveillance beyond the border and U.S. ports
of entry. According to Bonner, CBP has “twin goals”
in its agenda—security and facilitation:
At present there are more American border patrol agents than soldiers
in Afghanistan.
We are achieving these Twin Goals by employing
better technologies, managing risk, and through
a layered, defense-in-depth strategy that pushes
our borders—our zone of security—out beyond
our physical borders, so that we know who and
what is headed our way before they arrive.26
US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology), a program that has
adjusted the procedures for obtaining visas and
crossing into the United States, is an example of the
“pushing-the-border-away” strategy. As stated on
its website:
In many cases, US-VISIT begins overseas, at the
U.S. consular offices issuing visas, where visitors’
biometrics (digital finger-scans and photographs)
are collected and checked against a database of
known criminals and suspected terrorists. When
the visitor arrives at the port of entry, we use the
same biometrics to verify the person at our port is
the same person who received the visa.27
US-VISIT also claims to help protect the iden-
tity of visitors entering the United States, as one’s
biometric information cannot be stolen or used by
another person. According to P. T. Wright, Director of
Mission Operations Management for US-VISIT, “the
program separates the needles from the haystack”;
in other words, undesirable visitors can be stopped
from entering the U.S. before they depart from their
country of origin.28 In the summer of 2005 the sec-
ond phase of US-VISIT began its implementation,
as radio frequency identification (RFID) tags were
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
77
MOBILE VACIS
Exclusion Zone
Cargo
Detector
Mobile
VACIS
Truck
Mounted
Boom
Radiation
Source
RAIL VACIS
Exclusion Zone
Detector
Radiation
Source Operator
Station
Vehicle and cargo Inspection Systems (VAcIS) are used in U.S. ports
and the U.S.–Mexico border. These gamma-ray imaging systems allow
for fast inspection of containers, trucks, and personal vehicles to de-
tect contraband items, weapons, and people. Other border inspection
methods include canine scrutiny and surveillance cameras for remote
areas along the border.
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
ReaCtions to HYPeRBoRDeR
78
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
79
Opposite, above: Video monitors in a Border Patrol station in Nogales,
Arizona. April 26, 2006. Below: Border Patrol agent Tony McAuliffe
photographed in a monitoring station in Southern california on Febru-
ary 17, 2005.
This page, top: Border Patrol agent monitors suspicious activitiy. The
station is equipped with surveillance cameras and sensors that detect
illegal crossings day and night. That summer, President Bush signed
an emergency $1.9 billion bill to increase border security. Below: This
car was dismantled and reassembled in order to fit a woman behind
the dashboard so that she could be smuggled into the United States.
People often tolerate similar conditions for days when attempting to
cross the border.
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
ReaCtions to HYPeRBoRDeR
80
distributed to visa holders entering the U.S. The
RFID tag is part of a document that visitors must
present each time they enter the country. When a
visa carrier reaches a crossing point, an antenna
positioned up to thirty feet away recognizes their
tag. Immediately the traveler’s biometric informa-
tion will register, notifying the guard of their iden-
tity before they arrive at the checkpoint. Over 41
million people have already gone through the first
phase of the program, 900 of whom were criminals
detected through this process, and 12,000 visas
have been turned down based on the applicants’
biometrics. As of the summer of 2005, only five
crossing points between the U.S. borders with
Canada and Mexico were testing the RFID tags for
the second phase of US-VISIT.
Within the new DHS/CBP “Security and Facili-
tation” strategy, the United States has also intro-
duced the Container Security Initiative (CSI), a
program that seeks to protect the global trading
system and trade lanes between ports around the
world. About 90% of the world’s cargo moves in con-
tainers, and nearly 7 million cargo containers enter
U.S. seaports each year. The purpose of CSI is to
change trade regulation processes by screening the
cargo entering the United States before it departs
from its point of origin. This is meant to ensure that
international supply chains will not be used for
the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction and
other illegal or dangerous commodities. At present,
eighteen countries have agreed to participate in the
initiative, thus connecting thirty-eight CSI ports.
With the introduction of programs such as this, the
U.S. is essentially pushing its borders away by con-
ducting U.S. immigration and customs processes
abroad instead of at its own ports of entry.
PusHing tHe BoRDeR awaY FRom mexiCo
The U.S. government is not the only actor interested
in pushing border activities away from the physi-
cal international divide; for both convenience and
security, Mexican government officials have agreed
to open the first foreign and Mexican customs facil-
ity in the United States in 2006. It will be stationed
in Kansas City, Kansas, the geographic center of the
NAFTA region, located almost 1,000 miles from the
border.29 The new facility is expected to induce cost
savings and to make the transportation of goods
between Canada, the United States, and Mexico
more efficient, as it will cut back on delays suffered
by truckers at the border. Upon arrival at Mexican
entry ports, cargo will be free to move across with-
out further inspection as long as the electronically
sealed containers have not been tampered with.
SPOKANE
BLAINE
HAVRE
DETROIT
BUFFALO
MIAMI
NEW ORLEANS R
AM
EY
LAREDODEL RIO
MARFA
EL PASOTUCSON
YUMA
EL CENTRO
SAN DIEGO
LIVERMORE
Mc ALLEN
SWANTON
HOULTON
GRAND FORKS
9500 MEN & WOMEN SUPPORTED BY SOPHISTICATED TECHNOLOGY, VEHICLES, AIRCRAFT AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
21 SECTORS OF THE BORDER PATROL
16 BORDER POLICE STATION
4 TACTICAL CENTERS
TIJUANA
TECATE
MEXICALI
SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO
SONOYTA
NOGALES
CABORCA AGUA PRIETA
CD JUAREZ
PALOMAS
OJINAGA
PIEDRAS NEGRAS
NUEVO LAREDO
MIGUEL ALEMAN
REYNOSA
MATAMOROS
44 BORDER CONTROL STANDS IN BORDER ROADS
8 TRAIN CROSS CONTROLS
GUAYMAS
CHIHUAHUA
MONTERREY
Romero, F. (2007). Hyperborder : The contemporary u.s.-mexico border and its future. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from newschoolarch-ebooks on 2021-06-04 09:18:25.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
7.
P
rin
ce
to
n
A
rc
hi
te
ct
ur
al
P
re
ss
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
81
imPRoving tHe BoRDeR: tHe inteRest
oF eveRYone
The present circumstances of the U.S.–Mexico bor-
der have sparked action from a variety of groups
at both the grassroots …
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more