Mexico's Drug War

"Immigration reform’s hidden border-crossing charge."

Here is an excerpt from Mark Johanson's article in the International Business Times:

"If the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has its way, Congress may soon authorize the study of a fee to be collected at all land crossings with Canada and Mexico. The contentious issue was buried deep within the department’s proposed 2014 budget, released last week by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. It may have gone relatively unnoticed if U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., hadn’t sounded the alarm late Friday... Higgins also suggested that the fee along the 5,530-mile (8,900-kilometer) Canada-U.S. border would unfairly 'subsidize' the more challenging and expensive southwestern border with Mexico. According to Section 544 of the budget proposal, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection should 'conduct a study assessing the feasibility and cost relating to establishing and collecting a land border crossing fee for both land border pedestrians and passenger vehicles along the northern and southwest borders of the United States.' Currently, travelers aren’t charged fees for crossing the border by car, bus or train... It remains unclear whether the fee would focus on those entering or exiting the U.S., or both. How much each crossing may cost travelers has yet to be determined." Link to Full Article (via Salon.com)

Analysis: As a (very) small business owner, I'll be the first one to tell you that when the cost of doing business goes up - whether that cost comes from more taxes, more expensive supplies, rising travel costs, etc. - those costs almost always get passed on to the customer. In this case, the customers paying the cost of our federal government's little spending spree over the last several years are the roughly 640,000 people crossing our land borders every day. I imagine DHS took one look at those numbers and started doing the math if each of those daily border crossers equaled a dollar bill of income.

The first obvious negative impact that comes to mind is a new fee's effect on cross-border trade. Tens of thousands of people (if not more) cross the border into Mexico and Canada and the other way around to go to work every day, and even more so just to go shopping. Then there are the tens of thousands of trucks that enter the US every day to deliver things like fresh food, flowers, electronic components, trees, clothes...you name it. The fees add up quickly for DHS, but that can mean an expense of several hundred dollars per year for just one person, and thousands of dollars for a company whose employees conduct cross-border business on a regular basis.

I imagine the study will examine things like how much DHS can expect to reasonably charge a border crosser without too much protest, and the practical logistics of taking payment - sensors and stickers (like for toll roads), cash, monthly payment discounts, etc. The main security concern would be if individuals who are super-strapped for cash might look to avoid paying the fee by crossing the border illegally, but I don't really envision that happening en masse, and especially not from people who have to cross on a regular basis. I also can't imagine that DHS would charge more than a few dollars, but DHS never fails to astound in its frequent short-sightedness and lack of common sense.

I'll be curious to see the results of the study in nine months' time, but I have a feeling the negative backlash from the Canadian and Mexican governments will outweigh DHS' need to make a quick buck to help it survive sequestration cuts.

"Mexican TCOs Literally Leaving Their Mark On American Media."

Here's an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's "Correspondents Watch":

"Not too long ago, organized crime groups in Mexico—commonly (and inaccurately) known as cartels, were referred to as drug trafficking organizations, or DTOs. In the last couple of years, US government agencies have stopped using this moniker and switched to using transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) to refer to the narcos because their portfolio of illegal activities has significantly expanded in scope and geographic area. It’s widely accepted that Mexican TCOs make most of their vast sums of money from the drug trade. But is that really the case anymore?  Some drug war observers believe it may not be. Edgardo Buscaglia, a renowned expert on organized crime in Mexico, believes as little as half of the TCOs’ profits are currently derived from drug trafficking. In the past several years, as enforcement and interdiction efforts have improved, many major TCOs have seen a drop in drug income. To cover their losses, they’ve expanded into kidnapping for ransom, human smuggling, extortion and media piracy. Bloodthirsty and heartless killers are selling bootleg copies of “Toy Story 3” on the street to make money? Believe it."

To read the rest of my article on the HSToday website, please CLICK HERE!

"Wealthy Mexicans Are Increasingly Investing in the U.S. to Escape Cartel Violence."

Here is an excerpt from Teke Wiggin's article on FoxNews.com:

"Members of the Mexican elite are filing for EB-5 visas, which can grant the well-heeled financiers and their families green cards in exchange for investments in projects demonstrated to create or sustain 10 U.S. jobs... [There is] a rapidly increasing number of wealthy Mexicans to who are attempting to escape the violence by investing $500,000 or more in American business projects - thereby earning legal and permanent residency status in the U.S. The majority of the investments are arranged through so-called “regional centers,” designated public or private economic units, which according to law accept a minimum of $500,000 for economic growth projects in rural or high unemployment areas, or a minimum of $1 million for projects outside such areas. Mexicans last year made up a small fraction of EB-5 applicants -- who are approved around 75 percent of the time -- with just 34 filings, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. By contrast, more than 1,200 Chinese applied for the visa. But Marco Ramirez, director of USA Now, a Texas regional center that markets itself exclusively to Central and South Americans and operates in the Texas counties of Webb, Zapata, Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, Kenedy and Cameron, says his organization has raised $90 million from 160 Mexican investors since June 2010, and expects to have about 280 commitments by the year’s end... The process, they argue, ensures all EB-5 holders who receive permanent residency rights have done so to the benefit of U.S. communities. But some critics see things differently, asking whether rich Mexicans should be able to effectively buy residency in the U.S." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I found this to be a fascinating article because I didn't know anything about the EB-5 visa - or its requirements and privileges - before finding this article through a group I follow on Twitter. Of course, my biggest question - both to myself, my readers, and our government - is, is this fair? Essentially, we're selling permanent residency to foreigners with deep pockets. So is the EB-5 visa ethical?

This particular visa category was created by the Immigration Act of 1990, so it's been around for a couple of decades. It's also available to all foreigners, not just Mexican nationals, and the money goes towards US projects that generally benefit communities in dire need. The investor doesn't have to have any say in the project itself, although if he or she wants a more hands-on role in how the money is used, then the minimum shoots up to $1 million.

I did find it interesting that only 34 Mexican applications came in last year, compared to over 1,200 Chinese applicants. Of course, the population of China is considerably higher than that of Mexico, and there are probably more Chinese millionaires than Mexican millionaires. However, it's not like the drug war violence just started yesterday; I'm curious why the number of anticipated applicants, if Marco Ramirez's projections turn out to be accurate, is only shooting up now.

It's tough for me to say if the EB-5 visa is a bad thing, a good thing, or somewhere in a gray area. It's probably the latter. After all, the money is doing a lot of good in communities that are in need of capital investment. Our economy is hurting, so the boost in the injection of dollars from the outside is a huge help. However, Mexico's economy is hurting even worse than ours, and that's money leaving their country that could be invested in Mexican projects. Of course, given the situation with corruption in Mexico, it's hard to say how much of those investment dollars would actually go towards a worthy project, and how many would go towards greasing palms and lining pockets.

As for the granting of instant permanent residency, that's the part that makes me uncomfortable. I've seen how hard "regular" immigrants work for that status, and it's not right that someone can just get it because they have money. Mind you, I'm not being naïve; there are a lot of things more critical in life than residency being bought and sold between people and governments. But this has been a legal option for more than twenty years, and I'm frankly surprised that there hasn't been more public debate about it.

One of the reasons I felt inclined to comment on this story - or at least vent my ambivalence about it - is that I'm getting more requests to testify in asylum cases than ever before, and I'm seeing a lot of stories of Mexicans whose lives would be in great danger if deported back to Mexico. That doesn't excuse the fact that most arrived in the US illegally, or are in blatant violation of federal immigration laws. However, the granting of asylum to these people - no matter how blatant the threat to their lives is - is close to impossible, and they barely have the money to pay me as an expert, let alone half a million dollars to be able to stay in the US.

Yet one could also argue that the wealthy in Mexico are under threat for the simple fact that they have money. Every day, they're moving targets for kidnapping and extortion. Because wealthy Mexicans are a rare breed, DTO members usually know who they are in every city and community, so they can't escape the drug lords' scrutiny. If they have the means to protect themselves and their spouses and children, why shouldn't they? The EB-5 visa program has strict requirements for proving the money the invest comes from legitimate sources, and the results of their investments are examined over the course of two years.

So if you can't tell by my back-and-forth on this, I'm still not sure what to think of the EB-5 visa program. As always, I'm very interested to hear my readers' own thoughts.

"The Perilous Intersection of Mexico’s Drug War & Pemex."

Here is an excerpt from this article, which I co-wrote with Jeremy Martin of the Institute of the Americas for the Journal of Energy Security:

"The stillness of early Sunday morning December 19, 2010 was shattered by a thunderous explosion. Residents across San Martin Texmelucan, a small town about 60 miles from Mexico City, were awakened to the latest, and one of the most deadly incidents, involving possible fuel theft at Pemex, Mexico’s national oil company. Many were more than just jolted awake: Over 100 homes were damaged or completely destroyed; 30 people perished and more than 50 were injured. It was a national calamity for a nation and state oil firm that sorely did not need it.

"Explosions, shootouts, deaths and violence have been increasingly seared into the collective minds of citizens in Mexico and the United States as the drug war persists. The battles between the government and competing cartels have been well-documented and the topic has coursed through the agenda of a series of high-level bilateral meetings between the two nations, most recently during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Mexico.

"But what has also percolated just below the surface is an alarming intersection between the drug violence and Mexico’s energy sector. For Mexico and Pemex, the increased intensity of the drug war and its damage is but the latest in a string of challenges, and a twist that has seemingly linked two previously unconnected drags on the nation. "

To read the full article, please CLICK HERE.

"Program to help truckers attracts drug smugglers."

Here is an excerpt from Christopher Sherman's Associated Press article:

"A U.S. program that offers trusted trucking companies speedy passage across American borders has begun attracting just the sort of customers who place a premium on avoiding inspections:   Mexican drug smugglers. Most trucks enrolled in the program pause at the border for just 20 seconds before entering the United States. And nine out of 10 of them do so without anyone looking at their cargo. But among the small fraction of trucks that are inspected, authorities have found multiple loads of contraband, including eight tons of marijuana seized during one week in April. Some experts now question whether the program makes sense in an environment where drug traffickers are willing to do almost anything to smuggle their shipments into the U.S." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I wrote a post on the US-Mexico trucking program some time ago, trying to detail the deeply two-sided nature of this debate. It seems like that debate is still ongoing, and both sides still have very strong opinions about the program.

The group that sides against the program is comprised mostly of some law enforcement, safety-conscious US citizens, and unionized US truckers. The agencies that deal with cross-border trucks are mostly border agencies like CBP, as well as the DEA and highway patrol. I can't speak for CBP and the DEA, but I imagine they might feel that allowing vehicles with LOTS of space for contraband into the country with little scrutiny at the actual time of crossing poses a vulnerability. Highway patrol officers may come across these trucks well after they've entered the US, and while many are trained to spot safety violations and detect the presence of contraband, many are not. Some US citizens who are not well-versed on the program have an image in their heads of Mexican trucks on US highways and conclude that they must be rattling 18-wheelers that are ready to fall apart and kill a dozen motorists in the process. Finally, unionized US truckers are worried that the program will take jobs away from them.

The group in favor of the program includes Mexican trucking companies, US truckers who live and work in Mexico as part of the program, and businesses on both sides of the border who benefit from reduced shipping costs and transit times as a result of the program. I know an American trucker who works in Mexico, and he's pretty upset by the bad rap the program has gotten over the years. I asked him what he thought of this article, and he pointed out several things worth mentioning here. 

First, he said that 71 "compromised" loads out of roughly 7 million that cross the border every year is a tiny fraction. Of course, those 71 loads are the ones that were detected. We have no way of knowing how many loads of contraband successfully made it into the US in program-registered trucks. Second, he talked about the plata o plombo situation. I agree that program-affiliated companies make themselves vulnerable to smugglers by advertising their participation. I also agree with my associate in that truckers have little choice but to accept bribes if they value their lives. That's just the way things work in Mexico. Finally, he said it's a long and expensive process for trucking companies to get certified through the C-TPAT. They understand the risk, but feel it's worth the financial benefits they derive from being part of the program.

So, bottom line, this is just another form of the classic debate over security versus convenience, or in this case, commerce. I understand the merits of both arguments, and it's tough for me to say which side has the better one. Mexican trucks aren't the only ones crossing the border, and drugs make their way into the US inside all sorts of vehicles through dozens of ports of entry every day. But is it smart to allow trucks coming from Mexico on the fast track into the US with minimal - if any - physical scrutiny? If we can reduce the number of conveyances for drugs into the US, shouldn't we try? Sounds simple enough, but we have trains crossing the border (sometimes carrying drugs) and hundreds of Mexico-origin ships and boats that enter US waters without scrutiny every day. Are we going to try and limit that, too?

It's a tough call, and for now, we can only hope that our law enforcement agencies and the improved technology they're using can detect and deter the entry of contraband into the US by trucks originating in Mexico.

"Mexican Southbound Screening Snarling San Ysidro Traffic."

Here is an excerpt from Amy Isackson's article on KPBS.org:

"Mexico's screening of cars headed south across the U.S. Mexico border into Tijuana is snarling traffic on San Ysidro streets and on freeways in the South Bay. It can take an hour and a half to  cross into Tijuana during peak hours. Long waits are nearly synonymous with crossing the border north from Tijuana to San Diego. Waiting twenty minutes or more to cross south into Tijuana is also becoming customary... Ben Hueso, who represents San Ysidro on the San Diego City Council, said Mexico has the right to screen cars for national security, but its causing economic and environmental problems. 'Our freeways weren't designed to have vehicles backed up two miles from the border,' he said. 'Traffic gridlock on the neighborhood streets of San Ysidro have been bad for the economy and it has effected our ability to respond to fires in high traffic situations.' Mexico has delayed fully launching southbound screening at the San Ysidro crossing. Customs agents stop all cars for a few seconds but inspect a small percentage." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Welcome to a full-blown case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for syndrome. For months, both the Mexican and US governments have been spouting about how they're finally going to do something to curb the southbound flow of weapons and cash from the US into Mexico. Mexican authorities were due to start inspecting around 10 percent of southbound vehicles, and CBP was going to start random inspections of southbound vehicles.

It all looks great on paper, but welcome to the reality.

Don't get me wrong; we all knew this was going to happen, as it's the price to be paid for laying similar attention on the southbound as we do the northbound. Also realize that someone is ALWAYS going to complain, and there will always be a problem when new security measures are implemented.

But the question is, should we be doing it?

There are two schools of thought on this. The first is no, we shouldn't because it should be Mexico's responsibility to screen vehicles and people entering their country from the US. We know they don't really do that, but then the complaints abound about US-origin guns coming into the country illegally. Sec Clinton and Sec Napolitano have already assumed some responsibility for this issue, so leaving entirely up to the Mexican government isn't really an option.

That leads into the second school of thought, which is we should shoulder some of the responsibility (or blame, depending on whom you ask) for inspections since the guns and cash in question originate in the US. That's all well and good in diplomatic circles, but then you have US citizens complaining that their own government is causing long backups at border crossings and negatively impacting US businesses.

Here's what I think is the main takeaway from this story. First, someone is always going to be unhappy with efforts to clamp down on cross-border trafficking and border violence. In this instance, it's cross-border commuters, and probably more than a few inspectors on both sides of the border. Second, someone has to do SOMETHING about the southbound flow of guns and cash, and since it looks like a lot of that is going to fall on our government, we need to learn to live with it and cut those CBP guys and gals at the checkpoints some slack. 

"US seeks crackdown on drug smuggling aboard trains."

Here is an excerpt from Christopher Sherman's Associated Press article, published in The Brownsville Herald:

"When rail cars idle on side tracks in Mexico to be loaded with legitimate cargo and shipped to  the United States, drug smugglers scan for places to hide their own loot — and if no good  place is apparent, they make one. arijuana and cocaine can be concealed above rail car axles or behind false undercarriages made of plywood. Bolder smugglers sometimes weld a false wall into a car or sabotage trains to stop them and quickly stow their contraband on board before the train moves on. Cars are then tagged with graffiti or other markings so the dealer in the U.S. can spot his delivery... Thousands of pounds of drugs arrive in the U.S. by freight train every year. Now the federal government says it's time American rail companies cracked down on their Mexican business partners to keep the drugs from reaching the border... Because American rail companies have an ownership stake in the two largest Mexican railroads, U.S. law enforcement is pressuring rail companies to crack down on smuggling." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Those of you who have been following this blog for a while may remember I commented on this issue back in late March. It appears that not much has changed. Union Pacific still refuses to pay fines for drug found in its railcars, and the US government still thinks it should take full responsibility for the security of those railcars on both sides of the border. I can't say that my stance on the issue has changed much either.

To reiterate, I can understand both sides of the argument. Other transportation companies, like container ship owners and commercial airlines, have to pay fines if drugs are found on their ships or planes; rail companies and their trains should be held to the same standard, right? If only it were that easy. Inspecting planes and ships at their point of departure, and once again at the point of arrival in the US, is easier in many ways than inspecting a train. Once a ship or a plane leaves, it's either at sea or in the air without any stops before it reaches the US. Due to current agreements between the US and Mexico, trains do not stop at the border for inspection before reaching their US destination, but they do slow down and can stop in any of a number of places enroute to the US. Drug smugglers are usually very good at what they do, and can place a load in a railcar at the train's origin or somewhere along the route after the cars have been inspected. By then, it's too late for Ferromex or Union Pacific to do anything about it.

Experts say that part of the problem is corruption and negligence or fear among rail employees. This comes as no surprise, and it's an endemic problem that can't be solved overnight, either by Ferromex or Union Pacific. No matter how many security measures are enacted by Mexican authorities or how much pressure is placed on them by Union Pacific, there's no good way to get around an inside job.

"Mexican drug cartels 'hide in plain sight' in U.S."

Here is an excerpt from Ben Conery's article in The Washington Times:

"Angel Haro-Perez, the Atlanta head of the Gulf Cartel, is typical of cartel members and associates working in the U.S.: They keep a low profile, avoid violence and work quietly to traffic tons of drugs — cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine — into the U.S. while smuggling billions of dollars back across the border. And they do it while remaining virtually invisible to the community and general public... Just northeast of Atlanta, Gwinnett County,  where Mr. Haro-Perez was arrested, has become a ground zero of sorts for Mexican drug cartels, according to authorities. The county's population has more than doubled since 1990, and authorities say the Hispanic, particularly Mexican, population has exploded with a mixture of both legal and illegal immigrants. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics made up less than 2.5 percent of Gwinnett County's population in 1990, a number that increased to 11 percent in 2000 and was up to 16 percent by 2007. 'We emphasize that the vast majority of those people have nothing to do with drug dealing, but what they do is they allow the Mexican cartels, almost all of whose operatives are Mexican, to hide in plain sight,' [U.S. Attorney David] Nahmias said. Fifteen years ago, he said, four young Hispanic men coming in and out of a house at all hours of the night might make neighbors suspicious. Now they could be painters or construction workers, and there could be 10 other households like theirs on a street." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Although this article focuses on Atlanta - and rightfully so, as it's a major drug distribution hub - the same concerns can be applied to dozens, if not hundreds, of metropolitan areas AND small towns across the US. Migration patterns can't be disputed, and it is creating environments in more and more places where DTO members and their associates - namely, Hispanic gang members - can blend in easily. The key to their success has been the avoidance of trappings which DTO members in Mexico usually enjoy: tricked-out and armored vehicles, jewelry, bodyguards, expensive clothes, etc. DTO members in the US appear to be all business and no play, and that mindset has benefitted them greatly.

Despite their subtlety in business matters on US soil, Mexican DTOs have brought some of the violence of their work deeper into US territory than most people suspect. As the article mentions, DTO-related murders and kidnappings have occurred in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, and even small towns in Alabama. A raid on a gang in Omaha, Nebraska recently uncovered their plan to sell high-powered military-grade guns to Mexican DTOs. The article also mentions that violence levels associated with DTO activity in the US remains low, and DTO members seem to be content to just conduct their business quietly. That's all well and good, but I felt not enough focus was placed on the challenges being placed on state and local law enforcement by the presence of these distributors in their cities. There is some mention of wiretaps and surveillance being conducted, but not much more regarding to effort to detect these networks and dismantle them. If I were a reader living in a city with a sizeable Hispanic population (which I happen to be), I'd wonder what my Sheriff and local cops were doing to find out if this sort of thing was happening in my area, and how to prevent it from getting here (or getting worse).

"Gun dealers rarely charged in trafficking plots," and "Obama's other surge."

Here is an excerpt from the first article by Dane Schiller in The Houston Chronicle:

"One guy was an unemployed machinist who lived with his parents, but spent $24,800 in a year at Houston gun stores, snapping up military-style weapons for a Mexican drug cartel. His accused gun-running associate dropped $42,700 in a year, as did another who spent $27,700 in two months. Each often shopped at the same stores, according to court records. Ten alleged buyers were indicted and arrested last week, part of an investigation of as many as 23 people who spent $366,400 during a 15-month period that ended in 2007. Two of them, including the machinist, have pleaded guilty. But the dealers who sold the guns, are not accused of wrongdoing. The law says they did nothing wrong, even if they wondered, for example, why a customer in one pop would pay cash for five civilian variants of the M-16 assault rifle used by the military. 'Technically, they don’t have to do anything unless they suspect something is wrong,' Franceska Perot, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Houston division said. 'Unless they knew where the guns were going, it is not a crime on the part of the dealer.' Less than 1 percent of dealers nationwide are ever charged with a crime, according to the ATF. Most gun dealers are law abiding, authorities said. Proving they knowingly engaged in a criminal plot is especially tough." Link to Full Article

Here is an excerpt from the second article by Todd Bensman on GlobalPost.com:

"As open warfare between rival drug cartels filled the streets of Nuevo Laredo with bodies, Armando and Diana Villarreal, owners of Mando’s, prospered from a sharp sudden spike in demand for AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifles... Federal agents, though, eventually traced more than 50 AK-47s recovered after battles in Nuevo Laredo to Mando’s. In October 2006, Villarreal died of cancer just before federal prosecutors could make an example of him as perhaps the first federally licensed firearms dealer to be indicted for crossing the legal line into weapons trafficking, U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives officials confirm. There have been no publicly known successful gun-smuggling prosecutions of licenced retail gun dealers since... America's gun retailers will continue to enjoy some measure of insulation because of scant legal requirements on sales, as well as a high burden of proof that a retailer actually knows ahead of time where the guns are headed." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Both of these articles accomplish more or less the same thing, and that's to point out three major issues when it comes to southbound weapons trafficking: the straw-purchase system the Mexican DTOs have going is a pretty darn good system - for them, anyway; proving complicity by a US gun dealer in weapons trafficking is very difficult; the large majority of US gun dealers are honest, cooperative, and concerned about the potential for their guns to be used in crimes south of the border.

So how much responsibility (or blame) should be placed on US gun dealers to prevent the sale of guns to straw buyers? How many AK-47s sold to the same individual(s) should be considered suspicious? Where should the line be drawn between making a profit and losing business over possibly baseless suspicions? Gun sellers are not cops or investigators. However, taking the initiative these days to be more alert to suspicious buying behavior is probably in the best interest of gun sellers; not because it's become any easier to implicate them in criminal activity, but because it's always possible they may have less guns they can legally sell if the southbound weapons flow doesn't slow down soon.

I firmly believe the focus of law enforcement efforts with regards to this issue needs to be on the straw buyers, and to maintain that cooperation with gun dealers. Both the articles state and my ATF contacts confirm that the number of gun dealers knowingly and actively involved in illegal sales to Mexican DTO associates is extremely small. In the law enforcement world, when you have limited resources and personnel, you go with the numbers - tackle your larger problems first, and deal with the smaller ones later. The larger problem in this case is dirty buyers, not dirty sellers. 

"Doing Business in the Time of Mexican Drug Chaos."

Here is an excerpt from Joel Millman's article in The Wall Street Journal:

"U.S. Customs agents got a surprise on April 9, when they checked a trailer of an 18-wheel truck crossing into El Paso, Texas, from Mexico and found more than 9,000 pounds of marijuana hidden among auto parts bound for U.S. factories. A startling aspect of the bust: The pot was  packed into a shipment belonging to auto parts giant Delphi Corp... The bust highlights one of border control's endless conundrums: how to deter clever criminals from manipulating security systems for their own benefit. In an era of open trade, Customs officials encourage exporters to beef up internal security measures to earn the privilege of fast transit through border checkpoints. Thousands of manufacturers, shippers and cargo expediters have been certified under a number of U.S. government programs that designate compliance. The unintended result of that compliance: Those same exporters are increasingly likely to be targeted by smugglers, who look to piggyback their contraband on legal cargo that makes low-friction border crossings, according to law enforcement officials... So far this year, there have been at least 80 attacks on moving cargo in Mexico." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is a really good article that explains in a decent amount of detail yet another major crime in which DTOs and their enforcers are engaging - truck hijackings. There are so many negative effects that the threat of these hijackings have on both American and Mexican businesses, and the situation is oddly reminiscent of the attacks on convoys in Iraq. Who would ever have thought that trucks carrying flat-screen televisions in Mexico would need to travel in a caravan with a GPS locator and a panic switch? Now, there are two different problems occurring here; one is the targeting of cargo trucks by DTOs and their affiliates for the cargo they're carrying. The other is the use by DTOs of cleared cargo trucks to move drugs into the US; in most cases, it appears both the drivers and the cargo owners are oblivious to the extra product being transported in those trucks. 

Although the article addresses both issues, it really focuses on the former. There's not much more I can add to what the author has already explained, except to say how disturbing it is that this is the operating environment that both major corporations and trucking companies have to deal with in Mexico. The panic switches and GPS locators are a nice touch, but they can't prevent all hijackings, especially with the speed and precision with which groups like Los Zetas execute them. Fortunately, it sounds like it's just the cargo that's being targeted and not the drivers, so the odds of a driver living through a Mexican hijacking incident is pretty good, although it will definitely leave a few marks. It's also bad for both businesses and consumers, who will eventually pay for the cost of additional transport security.

As for the planted drug situation, there's not much information in the article explaining how those drugs make their way onto cleared trucks in the first place, or what companies are doing to prevent this from happening. In the Sharp Electronics case, it looks like they wouldn't have been able to do much, since the contraband was in boxes that came from a Mexican supplier. Fortunately the drugs were detected early on, but how? How many other companies have had this problem? If the narcos are surreptitiously planting this stuff on cleared trucks, does that automatically vindicate the cargo or truck owner since they didn't know what was happening, or should they be responsible for screening their shipments before they arrive in the US? I wish the author had expanded this aspect of the story a little bit because there's a similar controversy brewing in the rail sector. The US government has brought a suit against Union Pacific because drugs were discovered in their rail cars after they arrived in the US. The US government claims that Union Pacific should inspect their trains in Mexico before they enter the US, and that the company should be held accountable for any drugs that are discovered in their trains (Union Pacific disagrees, of course). I wonder what would have happened to Sharp Electronics if those drugs had been discovered in the US instead of prior to leaving the plant. 

Either way, it looks like the trucking industry has plenty to deal with. We can only hope that between CBP inspections at ports of entry, new technology being incorporated into those inspections, and self-inspections by companies operating in Mexico, it will become increasingly difficult to sneak drug shipments onto cleared commercial vehicles. We can also hope that truckers don't start installing heat-seeking missiles on their trucks or attaching .50-caliber rifles to their cabs for protection, or else the cost of your next TV will probably be out of your budget. 

"Border Inspections Impeding Traffic."

Here is an excerpt from Mike Allen's article in The San Diego Business Journal:

"Backups at the San Ysidro border crossing are a given, but a recent increase in spot inspections of southbound cars crossing into Mexico could have a devastating impact on business, two San Diego business organizations fear. In a letter sent to newly appointed border czar Alan Bersin, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and the South County Economic Development Council said that while security must be the highest priority of customs officials, “the need to ensure that commerce continues to flow is also extremely important. Outbound checks could have devastating impacts if these operations are done without regard for consequences to the business community and towns adjacent to the border,” the letter said... The increased checks result from enhanced efforts by the United States and Mexico to stop the flow of illegal drugs, guns, cash, stolen cars and fugitives into Mexico... There are times when traffic does back up for extended periods, but customs officers mitigate (the delays) as best as [they] can. Complicating the issue is a proposed vehicle checking program by Mexico announced last month. The program involves using a scale to determine whether a vehicle warrants further inspection. The process, which also involves photographing and checking license plate numbers, would increase the crossing times from 2 seconds to 7 seconds, according to a chamber official." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm sure you've heard the expression (or something similar) that when everything is a priority, nothing is. This letter states that security should be the highest priority, but the flow of commerce is also extremely important. So, which should take priority? It depends on whom you ask. I have a mixed opinion about this letter to Bersin; some of it I find whiny and exaggerated, yet many of the suggestions the Chamber makes sound reasonable. In particular, I'm curious about the complaint that the new inspection system would increase the "scan" time from two seconds to seven seconds. Of course, any small delay can initiate the domino effect and start backing up traffic, but every day, all day, on a continuous basis? I'm sure there will be traffic backups at certain times of day, but I don't know if the new inspection plan would cause the backups that the letter says are likely. 

As for the Chamber's suggestions, here they are: divert checked vehicles to secondary lanes; monitor delays and suspend operations when pre-determined impacts become clear; be more proactive in transmitting information about expected border wait times; and use new state Department of Transportation electronic signs to let drivers know about the wait times. These all sound reasonable, and this sort of traffic management system exists in plenty of metropolitan areas that have highway signs posting wait times. As for diverting checked vehicles, I don't know how easy or difficult that would be, especially if a suspicious vehicle is in the center lane of an eight-lane checkpoint. I also wonder how many of these measures are already ongoing, and if the Chamber and Council inquired about the traffic mitigation measures already in place or being planned before they wrote their letter. I'm trying not to be skeptical, but sometimes people write letters of complaint before doing their homework.

I'm also not completely ignorant of or insensitive to the needs of businesses and people who cross the border daily for business reasons. I'm just trying to put things into perspective regarding any new limitations that might be imposed by southbound inspections. I imagine that any Americans who drive into Mexico every day for work are already used to the sometimes hours-long wait to get back into the US at the end of the day, and just don't want to add an extra half hour or hour to their round-trip commute. Have there been similar letters of complaint to CBP in the past about the long wait to get INTO the US from Mexico regarding the negative impact on businesses? I'm sure there have been, but business has been pretty brisk, the recent economic downturn notwithstanding. I'm just not seeing how a possible delay in southbound traffic would make things so much worse for US businesses along the border when the (probably much longer) northbound delay has been around for so long.

Bottom line, you can't have it both ways. If you want to stop money and guns from going south, you have to check vehicles. I'm not here to argue whether the decision to do that is right or wrong or whose responsibility those checks should be. The delays worry some people, no matter who's doing the checking. But the flow of guns and money, while it probably can't be stopped, needs to be slowed. This is part of the answer right now, and I'm sure we're all curious to see if and how well it works. If the Mexican government had decided to start inbound checks at the border instead of CBP starting outbound checks, I'm curious to whom the Chamber and Council's letter would have been addressed.

"Gun show legislation is a diversion from addressing the real problem of illicit drugs."

Here is an excerpt from J. R. Labbe's column in The Star-Telegram:

"There's a practical reason the proposed law requiring private gun owners to conduct background checks on potential buyers at a gun show is unworkable. Only federally licensed firearm dealers have access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. An individual gun owner, who's paid a rental fee to set up a table at a gun show to sell from a personal collection, can't place that call, which is probably why Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein and Jack Reed think that it's a peachy idea to make it part of federal law. Lautenberg, of New Jersey, recently filed a bill that would "close the gun show loophole" by making a nonlicensed person who wants to sell a gun "use an FFL (Federal Firearms License) at the gun show to complete the transaction." Question: Who's going to force the FFL holder, who's invested a lot of time and money to meet the requirements for getting that license, to take time away from his or her business to run a check for the guy at the next booth? Even if one agrees to do it, there will no doubt be a hefty fee for the service. Say goodbye to private collectors at gun shows." Link to Full Column

Analysis: Well, yes and no. This is a very passionately written opinion column that makes some good points, but there are some items that are not completely correct and need to be clarified.

First, let's talk about the Federal Firearms License, or FFL. You have to apply for one by filling out an ATF Form 7 and following the ATF guidelines for applicants. You CANNOT apply for an FFL for the sole purpose of selling guns at a gun show. The FFL is issued for one location only - the location where you would ostensibly run your firearms business. The FFL will allow you to sell guns at gun shows in the same state for which your FFL was issued, but the key is that you have to have that permanent business location. Also, the license isn't as expensive or time-consuming to acquire as the author might have you believe. The license costs $200, is good for three years, and costs $90 to renew. Yes, you can still sell your weapons to people (in some states) at your home, in a parking lot, or wherever without an FFL. Yes, if a law like this passes, most private sellers will be inconvenienced by not being able to sell their guns at gun shows when they can still legally sell them elsewhere, and there is an element of silliness to that.

Now, legislative and political issues aside, let's talk about something the author doesn't mention, although it probably would have fit right in with her argument. The majority of guns that are purchased in the US by straw buyers are bought LEGALLY, from both licensed and non-licensed gun sellers. The straw buyers have clean backgrounds, fill out all the requisite forms, claim (falsely) that the guns are for personal use, then leave and pass the guns on to whoever is going to transport them south into Mexico. Passing legislation to close the "gun show loophole" and remove non-licensed sellers from gun shows isn't, in my humble opinion, going to make a dent in the weapons trafficking problem because DTO-bound guns can still be bought through existing venues. 

As I've mentioned many times before in this blog, geographical proximity is constantly working against authorities trying to deal with this problem on both sides of the border. The straw buyer methodology is a great one for the DTOs, and unless you outlaw the sale of guns in the US altogether (which will never and should never happen), it's going to keep working. Passing new laws isn't going to help when you're having trouble enforcing existing laws. The focus needs to be on better enforcement, detection, and prevention of straw purchases with the cooperation of the licensed and non-licensed gun-selling community.

"Tubac checkpoint still a flashpoint."

Here is an excerpt from Jaime Richardson's article in The Sahuarita Sun:

"The Border Patrol checkpoint north of Tubac is killing tourism, putting residents in harm’s way and costing million of dollars in home sales, according to local business owners. But it’s also responsible for the seizure of tons of illegal drugs, hundreds of arrests and an increased sense of security in the area, Border Patrol officials say. The value of the temporary checkpoint at the northbound Agua Linda Road exit has been debated for years, but it was stepped up with last week’s announcement that expansion will begin in June... Carol Cullen, executive director of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce, is concerned that smugglers looking to get around the checkpoint are driven up the Santa Cruz River, Anza Trail or along railroad tracks and gas lines, pushing them closer to homes and people... The Border Patrol is awaiting results of a Government Accountability Office report on the effectiveness of permanent checkpoints, which is expected as early as June... The permanent checkpoint would be much larger, with about 10 buildings on 25 acres, with six to eight paved lanes and a covered inspection area... Mike Scioli, a spokesman for the Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol, understands the opposition but points out that many residents are thankful for the “second layer of defense” against smugglers and other criminals." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Before I make any comments on the information in this article, I'd like to provide some geographical context first. Tubac is a REALLY small town, with a population hovering at just over 1,000 people. It serves as a draw for tourists because of its galleries, shops, and boutiques. Tubac is located approximately 22 miles north of Nogales and the Arizona-Mexico border and 48 miles south of Tucson. The town sits right off of Interstate 19, and is surrounded by generally flat, desert terrain. The USBP checkpoint in question is approximately five miles north of Tubac. There are a few interstate exits between Tubac and the Agua Linda exit; however, one has to go through the checkpoint if headed to Alamo, Tucson, or any other major population center north of Tubac.

So, there are basically two sides to this argument: the argument by the business owners and residents of Tubac that feel the checkpoint is a detriment to business and safety, and the argument by US authorities that the checkpoint is effective and its expansion will be a benefit. Each side has its merits, but the argument (as always) brings us to the sliding scale of security, with ease and convenience at one end of the scale and super-tight security at the other end. The point where most are happy lies somewhere in between, but that point moves on almost a daily basis sometimes.

I can understand that Tubac is probably losing some money due to the real or perceived inconvenience of the checkpoint. However, I'm a little skeptical about some of the claims quoted in the article. $5 million in lost home sales? Brasher Realty sells some modest homes, but also some pricey custom homes, land, and commercial property. Was it dozens of buyers that were interested in modest homes who changed their minds, or was it two wealthy buyers who signed contracts for a dozen acres and 5,000 sq ft custom homes? Hard to tell from the article. Also, is it constantly a 20-minute wait to pass through the checkpoint? I would imagine that after the expansion is completed, that wait time would be greatly reduced because of the increased number of lanes and additional systems with which to run checks.

I have to admit, I'm pretty floored with the seizure statistics: 40,000 pounds of marijuana seized at the Agua Linda Road checkpoint in the 2007-08 fiscal year; 200 pounds of cocaine; 500 arrests of Mexican and US citizens. From October 2008 through March 2009, agents at the checkpoint seized 19,000 pounds of marijuana and made more than 300 arrests; that's impressive by any standard, and one can't argue that the checkpoint isn't making a difference. But is it really giving the impression that crime is up in the area? Enhanced or increased law enforcement presence can do that, yes. But it can also give people a greater sense of security because they know cops are around. It's also possible that the Tubac view of crime is a little skewed; there's obviously plenty of criminal activity going on in the area if USBP is making that many arrests and seizing that much dope at that checkpoint. However, the impact of those incidents is probably not being directly felt in town five miles away in the form of gang violence, DTO-initiated murders or kidnappings, or drug dealing. 

Honestly, I feel bad that anyone has to lose money during these times, especially in such a small town that relies heavily on tourist dollars. However, you can't complain about border security not being tight enough, then complain again when USBP is doing their job in a place you don't like. Yes, tough enforcement often comes with a price, and it's unfortunate that many people in Tubac feel they're paying it. But this "not in my backyard" mentality is better applied to relocating Gitmo detainees than it is to the USBP doing a fine job of seizing drugs and arresting criminals like we've been begging them to do.

IN FOCUS: The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act

On December 3, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (the “Kingpin Act”). The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to US jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Kingpin Act blocks the property and interests in property, subject to US jurisdiction, of foreign persons designated by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the CIA Director, the FBI Director, the DEA Administrator, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State, who are found to be: (1) materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking. 

Significant foreign narcotics traffickers and foreign persons designated by the Secretary of the Treasury are referred to collectively as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers. Foreign persons designated under the Kingpin Act are referred to as "[SDNTK]s" on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's listing of "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons" to differentiate them from the Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers named under Executive Order 12978. US persons are prohibited from engaging in any transaction or dealing in property or interests in property of [SDNTK]s and from engaging in any transaction that evades or avoids the prohibitions of the Kingpin Act. These prohibitions affect trade transactions as well as accounts, securities, and other assets.

Since the inception of the Kingpin Act, dozens of top Mexican DTO members have been added to the SDNTK list, including the Arellano Felix brothers, Osiel Cardenas Guillen, Ismael Zambada Garcia, Joaquin Guzman Loera, and Vicente Carrillo Fuentes. In June 2004, the AFO and VCFO were added to the list as organizations. In June 2007, the Gulf cartel was added, and in May 2008, the BLO was added. Most recently, in April 2009, La Familia Michoacana, Los Zetas, and the Sinaloa Federation were added to the SDNTK list as organizations.

"America tried a war like this before."

Here is an excerpt from Mike Gray's article in The Detroit News:

"After decades of trying to stem the influx of illegal narcotics into the United States, it's clear that the drug war, like Prohibition, has led us into a gruesome blind alley. Drugs are cheaper than ever before and you can buy them anywhere. As Mexico's cash-starved government struggles to keep up the good fight, the drug barons rake in more than enough to buy political protection and military power while still maintaining profit margins beyond imagining. And what's driving this desperate struggle may be the ubiquitous weed: Southwestern lawmen say that marijuana accounts for two-thirds of the cartels' income. At last, the spectacular violence in Mexico has captured everybody's attention, and in an eerie replay of the end of alcohol prohibition, we may at last be witnessing the final act in the war on drugs." Link to Full Article

Analysis: What follows in the rest of the article is an interesting argument for the legalization of marijuana. Without getting into the whole moral or legal debate, I think the article presents a great angle comparing the organized crime problem in the US during Prohibition to the current organized crime problem in Mexico. The argument has its strengths and weaknesses, but overall, it's well-written and provides a great argument. Of course, there are always a couple of things I like to point out in an article like this.

Gray mentions that drugs are cheaper today than ever before and available anywhere. Well, that's partly true. The price of cocaine has been going down over the last several years, but is now on the rise again due to enforcement efforts. Low-grade marijuana is cheap, but the price of high-grade Mexican marijuana and Canadian marijuana from British Columbia (known as "BC bud") is high and going up. Mexico is also exporting black-tar heroin, which is increasingly popular and not always cheap. However, methamphetamine is right on the heels of marijuana as far as Mexican drug exports go, and that is relatively cheap and very easy to make.

I've read the arguments before regarding the income that would be generated by legalizing marijuana. I wonder how much of that would be offset by the need for treatment program, rehab facilities, etc. I also wonder if the use of meth, designer drugs like ecstasy, or other relatively cheap and readily available drugs would increase. Who knows? Maybe the use of harder drugs might go down because marijuana is all of a sudden really cheap and legally available anywhere. I don't know enough about patterns of illegal drug use or the psychology of drug use to speculate intelligently about the societal effects the legalization of marijuana would have. I have a feeling that many would argue we shouldn't legalize a substance like marijuana in an attempt to reduce violence in another country. But then, others would argue that too much effort by law enforcement is being wasted and too much jail space is being used for people being picked up for possessing a couple of joints. 

I agree with Gray that this won't solve the drug problem. He thinks it might save us from something worse, but it's really hard to say. Mexican DTOs have made inroads to European markets and have established relationships in Central and South America; in some cases, with unsavory characters like the terrorist group Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru. Try to think of this situation in business terms. If you sell flowers to the US because the US is your primary market and pays you a lot of money for your flowers, it's bad for your business if the US changes its attitude about flowers. Let's say the US decides it's better to grow its own flowers because it can do so for much cheaper than buying them from you. Now you have two choices: sell your flowers to someone else who's willing to pay top dollars for your flowers, or start selling something else to the US. If the bottom drops out of the illegal marijuana market, who's to say that the DTOs won't sell it to Europe, Canada, South America, or elsewhere? And who's to say they won't start pushing cocaine, methamphetamine, and black-tar heroin even harder?

Or, who's to say that it won't dramatically reduce crime rates in the US, reduce violence levels in Mexico, and free up a significant amount of time for DEA, CBP/USBP, and other law enforcement agencies that can begin to focus exclusively on the hard stuff? I firmly believe you can do a million studies, create a million computer models, and consult with a million experts on the subject, but no one will be able to say with complete accuracy the effects of marijuana legalization until it's actually put into practice. Whether or not that policy will be enacted during this Administration - or my lifetime - is just as good a mystery.

"Mexico says gang sold stolen oil to US refineries."

Here is an excerpt from this Associated Press story in The Miami Herald:

"Police in northern Mexico caught a gang that allegedly stole oil from state-owned pipelines and smuggled it across the border to sell it to U.S. refineries, authorities said Tuesday. Federal police commissioner Rodrigo Esparza says the gang made protection payments to the Gulf drug cartel and its Zeta hitmen. 'The oil was sold to several refineries in the United States and they (the gang) received payments that were triangulated through various accounts to hide the origin of the money,' Esparza said. He did not identify the U.S. refineries that bought the oil. Prosecutors say they froze 149 bank accounts and detected bank transfers of over $46 million related to the scheme, in which the oil was smuggled across the border in tanker trucks with false import documents." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Unfortunately, this story begs more questions than it answers. Let's address each aspect one at a time, starting with the theft of the oil. Crude oil theft is common in some places more than others, such as Nigeria, which loses around $1.5 billion to crude oil theft every year. However, it doesn't seem to be common at all in Mexico. The story doesn't detail how the gang removed the oil from the pipeline and transferred it to the tanker, although it's always possible there was some involvement by or assistance from oil company employees. Assuming this gang had the knowledge and expertise to acquire the crude, I'm pretty skeptical of the false import documents they supposedly used to get into the US. Anyone driving a commerical vehicle from Mexico into the US needs more than just an import documents. They need a CBP Form I-94 to record their arrival and departure, a commercial trucking license, and other documentation that is not easy to slip past CBP - especially for a tanker carrying crude oil, which is conspicuous. Finally, Esparza declined to mention which US refineries bought the oil. I'm no expert on the oil business, but I have a hard time believing a US oil refinery would purchase crude oil in this fashion as a matter of course. It appears that most US refineries obtain their crude oil through pipelines or marine transport. How a Mexican gang would infiltrate this system, which I have a feeling is tightly controlled, is beyond my understanding.

Finally, $46 million is a sizeable figure, and I'm amazed that a Mexican gang would be pulling in that kind of money from such a scheme. One of the parts of the story that does make sense is that the gang would need to pay the Gulf cartel and/or Los Zetas a nice sum in order to conduct such business, and such a lucrative-sounding one, at that. Overall, I'm skeptical about the story for a number of reasons. However, if it's true, then Mexican criminals are indeed getting more creative and taking much higher risks in order to survive.

"Feds trying to derail Mexican drugs."

Here is an excerpt from Mary Flood's article in the Houston Chronicle:

"Union Pacific is failing in its responsibility to stop Mexican drug cartels from hiding narcotics on U.S-bound trains, according to a Justice Department lawsuit that railroad officials say places unrealistic demands on their business. Trains enter the U.S. from Mexico in nine places in Texas, California and Arizona. Six of those entry points are used by North America’s largest rail carrier, the Union Pacific Railroad, which has drawn a line in the sand about who should police trains headed north from Mexico. “Union Pacific cannot send its personnel into Mexico to locate drugs, because they would not be allowed to carry arms or use K-9 teams, would have no legal authority and would be forced to turn over drugs to unreliable authorities in Mexico. Union Pacific employees would be subject to arrest in Mexico and would be unarmed in the face of vicious drug gangs,” said Donna Kush, spokeswoman for the Omaha, Neb.-based railroad. But the federal government says it’s the railroad’s responsibility to use the “highest degree of diligence” and inspect in Mexico before moving literally tons of narcotics into the U.S." Link to Full Article

So, should US railroad companies be doing more to ensure their rail cars don't bring drugs into the US, or are their hands really tied by Mexican laws and the poor security situation in Mexico? While I don't claim to be an expert on railways, I suspect the answer is a little of both. I understand Union Pacific's argument regarding their inability to conduct inspections in Mexico. I don't know the details of how those inspections would occur, but I imagine that due to many reasons (endemic corruption in Mexico being one of them), drugs would make their way onto those railcars even after an inspection. I will say that a manual inspection of a train - especially without the assistance of K9s, or drug dogs - is incredibly time consuming, and hidden compartments are called hidden for a reason. I agree that, with the amount of rail traffic crossing the border every day, it's probably impossible to inspect every railcar on every train traveling from Mexico into the US, even with US inspectors being allowed to carry weapons or bring K9 units.

As for the Justice Department's position, I can understand that as well. If companies that run other transportation modes are held responsible for their cargo, then railroad companies should be, too. Shipping companies have large volumes of containers coming into US ports from hundreds of foreign ports of call, and while it's public knowledge that only a small percentage of those containers are inspected, it appears that shipping companies are still held responsible for any drugs discovered in those containers. The volume of air traffic arriving from foreign countries in the US is dizzying, but air cargo takes less time to inspect, and there's only one place to put it, so it's easier to observe or inspect all the cargo as it's loaded. Thus, it makes sense that airlines are held responsible for any drugs discovered in their cargo. All that being said, I find it odd that only Union Pacific is being sued and not the other rail companies that have cars coming across the border.

So, what is the solution for preventing drugs from coming into the US via rail? By giving Union Pacific the benefit of the doubt and assuming their claims of not being able to inspect rail cars in Mexico are true, then prevention at the point of origin is near impossible. US-bound trains aren't stopped and inspected at the nine train border crossings, so that is a non-option. The most feasible solution is to inspect trains upon arrival at their destination, but by that time, the drugs are already in the US and, according to Union Pacific, the rail company is held responsible even if they turn in the drugs to the authorities. The only solution I can see is dialogue between Washington, DC and Mexico City about this issue, and a future agreement between the two governments that would allow US rail company employees to conduct their inspections in Mexico with all the resources they require.

"Bill would end cross-border trucking program."

Here is an excerpt from Richard Simon's article in the Los Angeles Times:

"Congress has hit the brakes on a Bush administration program to give Mexican trucks wider access to U.S. roads, putting President Obama in the middle of a politically sensitive trade dispute. A $410-billion spending bill that passed the Senate on a voice vote Tuesday would end funding for the cross-border trucking program, one of the most contentious issues to arise out of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. Critics of the cross-border program -- including the Teamsters and lawmakers from both parties -- have expressed concern about the safety of Mexican trucks. Before 2007, Mexican trucks had been limited to a narrow zone north of the border, where they transferred their cargo to American big rigs. But then the Bush administration granted about 100 Mexican trucks wider access to U.S. roads under a demonstration program." Link to Full Article

I actually wrote a short bulletin on this for my regular job some time ago, so I'm pretty familiar with this program - and all the concerns many have about it. The two main concerns among those in the trucking industry, those on the Hill, and the general public were safety on US roads and the potential for Mexican truckers to bring nasty things into US territory, like drugs, guns, or illegals. The US Department of Transportation made clear what rules and regulations Mexican truckers had to followupon entering the US, which were pretty stringent. There are three lines of defense the US had to ensure these regulations were being followed - audits and inspections performed IN MEXICO on trucks from program-selected trucking companies, inspections at US ports of entry, and inspections performed by US law enforcement on US roads and highways. Because of the training the auditors, CBP inspectors, and highway patrolmen receive on truck safety features, I felt pretty comfortable with the safety aspect of the program.

The potential for Mexican trucks to bring nasty things into the US is another story. Here is a photo from DEA's website of cocaine recovered from a secret compartment in the roof of a tractor-trailer:

   

This is just one example. And despite the increased potential for transport of illegal materiel, the desire to keep the program going for economic reasons was very strong. In March 2008, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters issued a statement urging Congress to keep the program going. She said "trucking provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)...[delivered] economic benefits to U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and consumers." Further she said, "A broad coalition of more than 69 U.S. companies and agricultural and business organizations support the project because of the benefits it provides to U.S. exporters who every year ship billions worth of products and produce into Mexico. Should Congress choose to end the project, Mexico has the right under the rules of NAFTA to impose fees and tariffs on U.S. goods that would surely result in lost business and lost jobs." As it appears the program will be ending soon despite her pleas, we'll see if those fees and tariffs come to fruition. I, for one, am happy there will be one less avenue for the smuggling of bad things into the US.