Mexico's Drug War

Six Americans Follow in the Footsteps of Dead Migrants in ‘Borderland’

It’s very rare for a television show to come along that makes me think, This could really change everything. In a political time in our country when we are deeply divided over the best way to achieve immigration reform and how best to secure our borders, it’s more important than ever to more fully understand the underlying cause for mass illegal immigration into the United States. It’s also critical to realize that as we endlessly debate the issue, hundreds, if not thousands, of migrants will continue to die each year—migrants who are real people, and who will continue to risk their lives to come here no matter what we try to do to stop them.

But why do hundreds of thousands of them try to make this deadly journey knowing the dangers that await them? Why would they risk the lives of even their children to come here? And why don’t the governments of Mexico and countries in Central America try harder to prevent this outpouring of their citizens?

As I write this, I’ve been living in Tucson, Arizona for nine months. I’ve been researching and writing about the border for years, but from a distance. I have also visited different parts of Arizona several times, but nothing prepared me for the surreal experience that is actually living so close to our border with Mexico—the drugs, the illegal immigration…and the death. Nowhere else in the country north of the border can you just be driving down the road and reasonably expect to encounter a group of ragged and dehydrated migrants or armed drug smugglers hauling 60-pound bales of dope.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of migrants from Mexico and all points south embark on a deadly journey north to the Promised Land that is the United States. But what used to be simply a test of endurance has now become a struggle for survival. Cartels now control human smuggling operations all along the border, and are increasingly targeting—and killing—innocent migrants, holding them hostage for exorbitant ransom amounts or forcing them at gunpoint to work as drug mules. Can any of us really imagine what the experience of traveling hundreds, if not thousands, of miles through triple-digit heat or sub-freezing cold behind a guide who might abandon you at any moment is truly like?

This is what Al Jazeera America is trying to do with its new series called Borderland. It’s a reality show/documentary that takes six participants and has them follow the path of migrants whose journeys—and lives—ended in the Arizona desert on their way to different parts of the United States. The participants’ views on illegal immigration vary from “there are no borders” to “wall off the border.” There is a street photographer, a farmer, a Republican state Senate aide, a community organizer, a fashion blogger, and a retired Marine; three women and three men, black, white, and Latino, Republican and Democrat. And they’re in for a real shock to their systems.

Before they even start on their journey, their guide takes them to a building with a purpose unknown to them at first. It’s the Pima County morgue in southern Arizona, and they’re faced right away with the bodies of more than 150 dead immigrants. The sight and smell is overwhelming, and immediately you see strong reactions. First comes the sadness, and they all lament the passing of these anonymous corpses. But the reactions soon change to reveal each participant’s view on what put these immigrants in this dismal place. Is US immigration policy to blame for forcing these people onto a deadly path? Or is it the immigrants’ fault for consciously making a choice to break our laws and embark on a trip they knew could be fatal?

The group’s next stop is at the US side of the border, spending time with Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels and several border ranchers. They hear the harrowing accounts of drug smugglers running their trucks and ATVs loaded with illegal drugs through private lands, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage to fences and livestock. Ranchers have been assaulted and burglarized by both armed drug traffickers and desperate migrants looking for food and water. They travel armed, never knowing when they’ll come across border crossers more interested in protecting their drug loads than avoiding an armed confrontation. The participants see where the pedestrian fence ends and a small barbed wire-and-post fence begins, allowing anyone on foot unfettered access to private land on US soil.

I asked Sheriff Dannels, whom I interviewed for my book Border Insecurity, what his impression was of the participants. “The group as a whole seemed to be very surprised that their international border was at such great risk for intrusion and how our border citizens were directly vulnerable to this,” he said. “Additionally, the group got to experience and see the dedicated men and women of the federal government and our local law enforcement officers/deputies who are doing what they can and giving it their best under a federal plan that needs immediate attention.  Overall, the trip brought a factual look at our border to those group members that normally get their facts from our media.”

Only after that border visit do the participants learn their real mission: to team up in pairs and follow in the exact footsteps of three immigrants whose lives ended in the Arizona desert. Their mission will take one pair to Mexico, the second to Guatemala, and the third to El Salvador. They’ll meet the families and friends of two women and a 14 year-old boy, and try to discern their life stories. They’ll talk to people in villages who also long to live in the US, and learn of their pain and suffering at the hands of violent street gangs, hunger, and poverty. They’ll try to understand what drives hundreds of thousands of people every year to risk their lives—and sometimes the lives of their children—to leave the hell that is their lifelong home for the hope they’ll make it to their vision of an American heaven.

What follows is one more version of hell for the six participants. In tracking the footsteps of their assigned migrants, they have to ride the fearsome freight train knows as La Bestia, or The Beast, with hundreds of migrants, many of whom will die or be raped before the train stops at its terminus hundreds of miles to the northwest. They’ll travel into the heart of cartel territory in Sinaloa to observe the Mexican army raid a marijuana plantation, then visit the very “cradle of drug trafficking” by way of a stop in the violent city of Culiacán.

Soon afterwards, their real struggle begins in the bustling border crosser staging area of Altar, Mexico. This is where migrants—including the three whose journeys they’re following—stock up on supplies, like backpacks, socks, and water. For women, that includes contraceptives, since roughly eight of ten female migrants will be raped during the trek north. Knowing that so many people have died on this exact route, the participants are scared. The only reason they and the TV crew are even allowed to do this is because a local priest has greased the skids with the Sinaloa cartel, which controls the town. That fact just adds to the jitters over the jarring experience to follow: brutal terrain, a 50-degree temperature drop overnight, dehydration, and emotional and physical exhaustion.

No matter what your views are on illegal immigration, those views are initially represented by one of these six participants. While your views may not completely change after watching Borderland, depending on where those views started, you will be affected. It will humanize immigrants in a way you’ve never seen before, transforming them from just statistics to real people—people who fear the lands they’re leaving more than they fear the dangers that await them. As you’ll see from the stories of Claudeth, Maira, and Omar, the dead in the desert had parents, siblings, and children. They had dreams of a better life, which to them meant just the chance to wash dishes or pick tomatoes for a few dollars an hour, or in Omar’s case, to simply be reunited with his mother.

This series doesn’t provide or even suggest specific answers to the problem of illegal immigration. It doesn’t push a political agenda, and it voices in equal measure the different viewpoints of all the participants without editorializing. What it does do is present the raw reality that is life for millions of people in Mexico and Central America—like the fact that young kids are being recruited by gangs before they even turn ten years old, upon penalty of death or harm to their families. If the US was like this, what lengths would you go to in order to provide a better life for your children—or merely stay alive—in Canada, for example? If staying in the US meant being forced to join a gang, or die in poverty, or watch your children suffer, is there anything that would stop you from crossing our northern border?

Each of us has a different answer to those questions, and Borderland—a show I think most Americans could benefit from watching—won’t try to put those answers in your head. But it will definitely foster a grand discussion on what needs to change. We can mostly agree that our immigration system is broken. We can’t agree, however, on the best way to fix it. While we argue, people continue to come, and people continue to die, no matter what we try to do to stop them. The need to reunite with family, the need to provide, and the need to survive will always trump any consequences our government—or the Sonoran desert—can impose on illegal immigrants. Always. Borderland makes that very clear, and poses the challenge not just to us, but to every government along this long northbound route: what can we do to keep more people from dying to reach America?

Borderland premieres on Al Jazeera America on April 13^th at 9pm ET/6pm PT.

"Militias in Arizona thrive despite lack of authorizing law."

Here is an excerpt from Tim Steller's article in The Arizona Daily Star:

"Lawmakers killed a bill that would have created a state-sanctioned border militia, but that didn't squelch the Minuteman impulse in Arizona... People in the cause remain committed to patrolling spots near the Arizona-Mexico border to stop what they see as an invasion by smugglers or illegal immigrants, said participants, their supporters and their critics. Some may be even more motivated now that their plan for state organization was ended by a legislative maneuver... A longtime Arizona border-militia leader, Jack Foote, worked for a period with the group that wrote the bill and said its demise is motivating sympathizers of the border-militia movement... The bill would have set up a 300-member volunteer force to patrol the border at the governor's request. The group would have been armed but also vetted in an effort to weed out the violent extremists who have been attracted to the Minuteman movement. But critics of that movement, such as Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League, said the border-militia idea is extremist in its nature, not just at its outer edges... If the border-militia movement is regenerating, that goes against a trend documented earlier this year by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks groups it considers right-wing extremist. The center reported that the number of border-militia groups had significantly declined, in part because members' passions were being channeled into state legislatures. Now, in Arizona, they've been stymied.But the potential expansion of border-militia activity doesn't necessarily mean violence, members and others said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I have to admit, I was pretty surprised at first glance that this bill never even made it to a floor vote in the Arizona legislature, considering it's probably the most hard-core border security state in the southwest. Then I thought about it a bit, and started looking at some of the public image hits Arizona has been taking lately, mostly over SB 1070. Even if the bill passed and a private-citizen border force was created that behaved impeccably, the national perception might be that a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys were wandering around the desert, looking for Mex-ee-cans to shoot.

The fact is, these types of patrol groups - call them militias, Minutemen, civil patrols, whatever - have been around for some time, and not just in Arizona. The Texas Minutemen are probably the most well-known, and they've had their own conflicts to deal with. Most members of these groups either just walk or drive the border, or sit next to a camper with binoculars or a camera, making phone calls to the nearest US Border Patrol station if they see something suspicious. A lot of civil border patrollers are former or retired law enforcement or military members, and feel their federal or state government isn't doing enough to prevent illegal immigrants or violent drug smugglers from crossing the border and/or trespassing on their property.

But then there are the bad apples. Border-militia leader and neo-Nazi J.T. Ready killed four people and apparently killed himself May 2 in Gilbert. Per the article, "Ready's rampage - in which he killed his girlfriend, her daughter, the daughter's boyfriend and their baby - was "a domestic violence tragedy" unrelated to his political and border activities, said James Turgal, the FBI special agent in charge who oversees Arizona. The FBI was investigating Ready at the time he died. For years he participated in heavily armed border patrols, and most recently he led a group called U.S. Border Guard, made up in part of members of the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group."

Maybe people like Ready and others like him are the reason Governor Jan Brewer opposed the bill, which is an uncharacteristic move for the border security hardliner. She's repeatedly called for more National Guard troops on the AZ-Mexico border, and will use any opportunity to take potshots at Janet Napolitano, DHS, and the White House for doing little to nothing to improve her definition of border security (everyone has a different one). This article didn't explain why Brewer didn't want the bill, but the head of the AZ National Guard said he was worried that the group would be armed - and that the bill creators didn't consult with him first.

I can understand that people involved in these groups would be ticked off at a perceived lack of support from an Arizona legislature they assumed (with good reason) would be supportive of their efforts. But I can also see why there might be some concern among legislators, Guardsmen, and other AZ citizens. People can already arm themselves to protect their property and family members from smugglers and immigrants (who are rarely armed, if they're just crossing with a coyote and not smuggling drugs). I trust that most gun owners who follow the law are responsible gun owners, and would prefer to pick up the phone and call Border Patrol if they're not in a life-threatening situation.

But it just takes one J.T. Ready incident to not only give a civilan border patrol movement a black eye; it would be a public relations nightmare for the state government that not only endorsed it, but helped fund it. At least with private movements, if something bad happens, the state and local governments can distance themselves from it by saying they don't condone vigilante behavior. Officially supporting such a group would be a step too far for the Arizona government in a time when they're still trying to clean up their image from the SB 1070 fiasco.

This is definitely a hot topic, so I'm curious what your thoughts are. Are armed citizen groups like this more dangerous than helpful? Or do we need more groups like them along the southwest border? Should the states going about formalizing civil patrol groups, like deputizing certain people, or keep them at arm's length?

"Texans on wrong side of border fence grow anxious."

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

"Max Pons is already anticipating the anxiety he'll feel when the heavy steel gate shuts behind him, leaving his home isolated on a strip of land between America's border fence and the violence raging across the Rio Grande in Mexico. For the past year, the manager of a sprawling preserve on the southern tip of Texas has been comforted by a gap in the rust-colored fence that gave him a quick escape route north in case of emergency. Now the U.S. government is installing the first gates to fill in this part of the fence along the Southwest border, and Pons admits he's pondering drastic scenarios... In this lush area, the Rio Grande's wide floodplain precluded building the fence right on the border so it was set back more than a mile in places, running behind the levees. The result is a no-man's-land of hundreds of properties, and the people who work on them, on the wrong side of the divide. The arrival of the gates will reveal whether the government's solution for this border fence problem will work. Can sliding panels in the fence controlled by passcodes allow isolated workers to cross when they need to while keeping intruders out?" Link to Full Article

Analysis: I knew before I traveled to south Texas for the tail end of my October book tour that the border fence didn't follow the riverbank, and was off set by a bit. I made arrangements with the McAllen Border Patrol station to take a tour of the sector, and finally saw it for myself. For some reason, I was under the impression that the areas between the fence and the riverbank were empty; just grassy areas and sugarcane. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw entire farms and homes!

I can completely understand Max Pons' apprehension about his living situation. Anyone who's seen the National Geographic Channel's "Border Wars" episodes filmed in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) knows this is one of the border's busiest - and most dangerous - sectors. It's a non-stop flow of immigrants and dope smugglers who bring their people and product across the river into this no man's land, then find a way over, through, or around the fence. But as the article's author asks, can the remote-control fence gate idea actually work?

I'm not an advocate of a 2,000 mile-long fence that extends the entire border; I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to place such an expensive barrier in areas where not even animals are crossing due to the heat and desolation. But I do believe in the effectiveness of the fence to act as a deterrent along certain stretches. I say deterrent because the border fence was never designed to stop anyone. But it does allow the US Border Patrol more time to respond to border incursions, which is the ultimate point. 

But the situation in south Texas is a bit different. I can verify that Border Patrol agents to rove in vehicles on both sides of the fence, and I have seen the gates in action. They're not super-fast. I've also seen parts of the fence where smugglers in vehicles have rammed the fence and dislodged parts of it enough to get people through. The thing that concerns me is, when Border Patrol rushes to respond to a border incursion at the fenceline at other parts of the fence, generally US citizens are not in immediate danger; if smugglers or immigrants manage to evade escape, then it's mostly a really frustrating moment for the agents, who hope that state or local law enforcement can pick them up somewhere later on. But in the case of Max Pons and his neighbors, if their homes are being burglarized or, as he worries about, if they're held hostage in exchange for the fence code, can the Border Patrol respond fast enough?

Honestly, it's tough to imagine an ideal solution. I have to acknowledge that south Texas is one part of the border where a fence is needed due to the inordinately high volume of drug and human smuggling. However, because of the logistical impossibility of building the fence along the riverbank, Americans and their properties lie extremely exposed to the dangers inherent to living in such an area. I'm curious as to other people's thoughts on this situation, and would love to hear from you...especially if you live in south Texas and know anyone whose property lies south of the fence.

"Arizona can now build border fence [through private donations]."

Here is an excerpt from Alia Beard Rau's article in The Arizona Republic:

"Supporters of increased border enforcement now can help Arizona build its own fence along the Mexico border. new law went into effect today that allows the state to build the fence, as long as it can raise enough private donations and persuade public and private landowners to let it be done on their property. A new website for the effort, www.buildtheborderfence.com, was set to go online at midnight... State lawmakers who supported the law have said they want a consistent fence along the entire border that is solid, has multiple layers and is tall enough to keep out pedestrians... The Sierra Club opposes the law. It says Arizona already has more border walls than any other state and that the walls have caused flooding in some areas and have blocked wildlife in other areas." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is one of the more interesting ideas I've seen regarding border security in a while, although I'm sure it won't be without controversy. I have mixed feelings about the concept of a border fence, and have generally agreed with DHS Secretary Napolitano's statement, "Show me a 50-foot fence and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder." Or something to that effect.

On my recent trip to San Diego, I saw the newest iteration of border fence in the San Ysidro area separating the US from Tijuana, and it certainly looked high-tech. It definitely dwarfed the primary fence, which was a ten-foot rusted-out relic that could serve only as a five-minute deterrent. The new fence, bathed in stadium lighting and topped with razor wire, looked at first sight as impossibly tall and quite imposing. Then I saw the dozens of holes that had been patched up, and it no longer looked so impenetrable.

But in southwest California, like in Arizona, the secondary fence isn't consistent in size or construction. The have another type of fence that consists of tall, tightly-spaced metal columns with a top that angles out over the Mexican side to discourage climbers. Yes, it does allow for free water flow and the passage of small critters back and forth. However, any migratory animal bigger than a cocker spaniel would have a hard time getting back and forth. Still, for the purpose of preventing "pedestrian and vehicle traffic," the polite way of referring to drug and human smugglers, it looked very effective.

But even if private donations are raised in sufficient quantities to finish the Arizona fence, is it a good idea? I will say, of all the southwest border states to implement such a law, the home of SB 1070 is the place to do it with success. There are enough angry ranchers and border residents who are tired of having their land traipsed on and their homes burglarized by smugglers to make this happen. Also, Arizona is one of the most dangerous human smuggling corridors, claiming the lives of hundreds - if not thousands - of migrants every year. Perhaps if word of a contiguous border fence in Arizona got out, migrants would be forced to use a different, and perhaps safer, route of passage.

That in and of itself, however, might pose a greater danger. There are still several stretches of unfenced border in California and Texas that are dangerous, due to both environmental factors and bandits who prey on migrants. The cost to migrants who have to pay coyotes would probably go up due to having to go around the Arizona fence. But isn't this the point? To deter illegal immigration and drug smuggling into Arizona? Admittedly, those are nice benefits, but there are human costs to be considered.

I can't deny that, after having seen it myself and listening to a Border Patrol agent tell me about it, a border fence acts as a significant deterrent. It doesn't completely stop illegal immigrants or drug smugglers, but it slows them down enough to allow USBP to respond more effectively. The agency is also receiving more funding to pave border roads and acquire all-terrain vehicles, which greatly improves their response time. This, combined with better fencing, does improve border security. Thus, another question is raised. Can USBP in Arizona take advantage of a privately funded border fence with a corresponding reduction in response time?

There are a few problems I see with that. First, the fence is going to have to sit on some private land, go through tribal reservations, federal lands, and probably go around some environmentally protected areas. What kind of hoops will the Border Patrol have to go through in order to access these areas, especially if they're between the fence and the actual US-Mexico border?

Well, let's not put the cart before the horse. First, the donations have to come in, then a fence builder has to be found, a contract written, etc., before anything can be built. Considering how these things go - and how many years it took to build the scant few hundred miles of border fence we currently have - I don't see a huge rush to have these questions addressed. Just some points to ponder.

On Being an Expert Witness When Mexicans Request Asylum

People who follow my writing generally don't know that one of the biggest parts of my consulting business is providing expert witness testimony in US asylum cases where the applicants are Mexican nationals. There has been an increase in both the number of asylum applicants from Mexico, as well as media coverage of the rare cases where they're actually granted. According to the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration
Review, in FY 2010 it received 3,231 asylum requests from Mexicans but approved only 49. Another 1,671 requests were withdrawn. So, I just wanted to take the opportunity to tell you what it's like for me, as a subject matter expert on the drug war, to be a part of these cases.

It starts when I get an email from an immigration attorney asking for my help. The first thing I do is ask to see the applicant's declaration, which is a statement (either in a typed document or a USCIS Form I-589) of why he or she fears being returned to Mexico. This helps me determine whether or not I can help in the case based on my expertise, and how strong or weak the case might be.

If I think the case is strong enough, and it involves an area of Mexico and a TCO or smaller criminal organization with which I'm familiar, then I start to put together an affidavit for the court. My affidavits include information about my professional background and experience, general country conditions for Mexico, the evolution of the drug war and the TCO(s) in question, and the specific situation of the applicant. I finish off with my opinion as to why the applicant would be harmed or killed if forcibly returned to Mexico.

There are several different categories under which one of these cases can be classified and argued by the immigration attorneys. There's withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, Convention Against Torture, affirmative cases (in which the applicant has a visa and applies for asylum prior to its expiration), and probably a couple of others I haven't come across.

One of the critical aspects of these cases for the attorneys is showing that the applicant is part of a particular social group; in essence, that everyone in that designated group is subject and vulnerable to harm and/or death in Mexico. One example would be "current or former police officers who refuse bribes and don't succumb to threats," or informants or witnesses to crimes committed by TCOs in Mexico.

Once my affidavit is done, I send it to the attorney and wait for the hearing to come up. My testimony is always telephonic, and the hearing consists of the immigration attorney, an attorney representing the US government (usually from ICE), and the judge. I've dealt with mostly really nice judges, but some have just been outright rude. I've also dealt with very professional and pleasant government attorneys, and others who think they're on the set of "Law & Order" and have the mission to rip me to shreds. After all is said and done between the attorneys and applicant's and expert's testimony, it's ultimately up to the judge to decide whether or not the applicant should be returned to Mexico.

More often than not, they're sent back, but this doesn't stop some very hard-working immigration attorneys from working their tails off to convince a judge to allow their clients to stay. Most of the cases I've come into are really tragic, including police officers being kidnapped and tortured, a mother whose children were kidnapped and held for ransom while trying to cross the border, and a DEA information who was hung out to dry after risking her life to put Mexican drug traffickers in jail. It's hard to maintain a professional distance when you know that many of these applicants will be returned to Mexico and likely harmed or killed by one of the TCOs when they get there. Once my work is done as an expert, I rarely find out what happens to the applicant, and sometimes I worry that they've become just another faceless crime statistic in Mexico.

Doing this job has given me a very interesting perspective on immigration - a subject on which I usually prefer not to comment. My own family emigrated to the US from Cuba in the 1960s, so I'm very familiar with the asylum process and the heated politics surrounding it. I have a strong feeling that we're not going to start seeing larger numbers of Mexicans being granted asylum because that would open the floodgates for applicants, and the US system is not prepared to deal with that. It's a hair-breadth distinction that separates the Cuban asylum applicant from the Mexican applicant in the eyes of US immigration law, and that's infuriating to many. 

Regardless of the debate, I've spoken with these asylum applicants and their fear of returning to Mexico is not invented or imagined. Yes, they came to the US illegally, and that's enough for some people to say "send 'em back!" But knowing the violence that awaits them specifically makes it very hard for me to adopt that attitude.

Being an expert witness is tragic and fascinating work. These true stories are more engrossing than most fiction I've read, and I wish that more Americans could be made privy to these applicants' journeys and situations. I just hope that my small contribution as an expert in these cases can make some difference, and maybe help save some lives in the process.

"Wildfires And Gunfire: Threats To Emergency Responders On The Border"

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

"Emergency responders who deal with dangerous wildfires, flash floods, mudslides and the aftermaths of earthquakes, are used to putting their lives in danger to save others. But the sorts of danger they typically don’t expect are the threats that come in the form of drug- and human-smugglers. Wildfire season is in full swing, and the entire southwest border is feeling the sting of massively destructive blazes that already have consumed hundreds of thousands of acres. More than 2,100 firefighters from across the country have been sent to various parts of Arizona to deal with the second worst fire disaster in the state’s history. Fires in Texas that started in early spring have ravaged almost two million acres - and this year’s fire season still has many more months left. It’s quite a testament to the bravery and skill of these crews that they can come together from so many different places and departments, come up with a plan, and work together effectively to execute it. And that’s what makes it so unfortunate that the latest danger for them is not the fires, but their fellow human beings hiding behind them – the armed drug and human smugglers."

To read the rest of the article on HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

"Terrorist Infiltration Of The US: Are We Looking At The Wrong Border?"

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

"In January 2005, the FBI was on the lookout for four Chinese men and two Iraqis who were thought to have access to a dirty bomb bound for the US that was being smuggled through Mexico. In November 2005, Zapata County, Texas Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez said it's not a matter of "if," but "when," a terrorist will enter the United States through Mexico with a dirty bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Around the same time, Adnan Shukrijumah – an important Al Qaeda operations member, according to US intelligence officials - was suspected of hatching a plot to smuggle a dirty bomb - or materials to manufacture one - across the US-Mexico border. Fortunately, there is no indication that Shukrijumah’s purported dirty-bomb plot ever got very far... While we know that individuals associated with terrorist groups like Hezbollah have entered the United States through Mexico, there is no evidence that any of those individuals were “operational”—meaning they came across the border with plans to blow something up. While media reports of dirty bombs potentially coming across our southwest border have died down considerably since 2005, that doesn’t mean that concern over such a scenario isn’t there anymore. But are homeland security officials looking for that threat in the wrong direction?"

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

"What Can We Learn From Trends In 'Special Interest Alien' Migration Into The US?"

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

"Immigrants have been flocking to the United States ever since we became a country, so fluctuations in migration trends are nothing new. However, immigration patterns - particularly from countries associated with terrorism - took on a whole new meaning after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. At that time homeland security officials started paying special attention to individuals arriving from what were deemed 'Special Interest Countries' (SICs). These are nations with ties in one form or another to terrorism. The individuals from these countries who enter the United States illegally are known as 'Special Interest Aliens' (SIAs).

"The number of SICs has varied only slightly in recent years, roughly between 28 and 31. They include countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Somalia. What makes things really interesting is that there are already hundreds of thousands of SIAs who have been living in the United States for decades.

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally doesn’t like to advertise these statistics, but Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has regularly provided Homeland Security Today with spreadsheets that break down not only the numbers of SIAs who've been apprehended trying to illegally enter the US, but also apprehensions of all persons CBP categorizes as 'Other than Mexicans' (OTMs) who've been caught entering the country illegally. The statistics relied on for this report are for fiscal years 1999 through 2010."

The read the rest of my article on HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

"Is U.S.-Mexico border secure enough?"

Here is an excerpt from Elizabeth Aguilera's article in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

"Along the U.S.-Mexico border, fortification has reached an all-time peak... Given this unprecedented expansion in resources during the past decade, U.S. government officials said the southwest border is the tightest it has ever been. Skeptics and “border security first” supporters are convinced it is still not enough, while advocates for comprehensive immigration reform believe it is more than adequate and the nation should push forward on other issues... 'No one has described what a secure border looks like. We have no baseline and we have no target,' said David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. 'It’s a great example of a moving standard and for the last 20 years, that standard has been moving up with no targets in sight.'... The number of apprehensions fell 62 percent from 2005 through last year — to a total of 447,731 in 2010.... Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin said a good portion of people who try to cross the border illegally are detained. He cited a rate of 90 percent for the San Diego sector and nearly 100 percent for El Paso. But neither he nor his staff could explain how those rates are calculated... Bersin’s goal is to keep the number of illegal border crossers low enough, and to communicate that achievement to the public so border security no longer becomes fodder for political rhetoric." Link to Full Article

Analysis: What really concerns me about Commissioner Bersin's assessment of border security is that he seems to equate it to the number of illegal immigrants who are successfully apprehended and prevented from entering the US. While illegal immigration is a huge concern for many, I don't really care about immigrants who are looking or work in the US in the sense that I don't view them as a threat to national security. What I do have a problem with is the fact that not once did Bersin talk about apprehending drug traffickers or terrorists, or how DHS is doing such a great job of developing programs to separate them from the crowd of "regular" immigrants.

Granted, illegal immigrants attempting entry into the US usually have different ways of doing it than drug smugglers. The former often use coyotes and attempt to cross in rural areas between officials ports of entry, making their capture the responsibility of the Border Patrol and local law enforcement. Drug smugglers often use ports of entry and try to smuggle drugs in hidden compartments of vehicles. But more and more we're seeing drug smugglers bringing loads across the border by using tunnels, ultralight aircraft, boats and rafts, and hikers. This makes them the responsibility of CBP, Border Patrol, local law enforcement, the National Guard, and anyone else remotely involved in border security.

So which one seems to be the bigger problem, and/or the bigger concern? All those agencies have limited personnel and resources. Which problem should they be focusing on? I wholeheartedly agree with David Shirk in that no one can really clearly define what border security means, and that DHS has not established any benchmarks or targets for it. It's all well and good that we're seeing the lowest rates of illegal entry ever, but how exactly does that translate to better border security? I saw no mention of apprehension rates of drug smugglers or special interest aliens (immigrants from countries with ties to terrorism).

It's a telling sign to me that DHS says the number of illegal immigrants trying to come across the border is lower than it's ever been, yet we haven't seen a parallel decrease in drug smuggling activity. I'm not saying that we should ignore all border crossers who have nothing to do with drug smuggling, but there needs to be some sort of intelligent and focused approach to separating the two (or three, if you count potential terrorists) groups and assigning priorities. The immigration issue is highly complex and politically charged, and potential solutions extend well beyond the border, like the article says. The drug problem does too, but DHS and the federal government have chosen the strategy of interdiction as the best way to fight the drug war. If that's the way they want to keep going, then Bersin and Co. shouldn't worry so much about touting the reduced number of illegal immigrant apprehensions and focus more on how many drug smugglers and potential terrorists they're catching - or not catching.

"Barriers aren't just for the border now."

Here is an excerpt for Brady McCombs' article in the Arizona Daily Star:

"The landscape of saguaros, mesquite trees and prickly pear cactus here has a new feature - steel railroad rails welded into crisscrosses and connected by flat rails. This rusting structure is a vehicle barrier designed to stop drug and people smugglers who barrel across the desert in trucks. The barriers are common at the international line - there are more than 139 miles of them along Arizona's stretch of U.S.-Mexico border. But this isn't the border. This 1.3-mile stretch of "Normandy-style" vehicle barriers was recently erected 70 miles north of the border on the Bureau of Land Management's Sonoran Desert Monument, just south of Interstate 8 and southwest of Casa Grande. It is likely the first time border barriers have been used this far north, and the latest example of how managing public lands along the U.S.-Mexico border is now as much about dealing with trash and trails left behind by illegal border crossers as it is about monitoring endangered animals or watering holes. BLM officials put up the barrier to redirect traffic around the federally protected Table Top Wilderness Area, where cars are prohibited... The barrier is on the southern boundary of Table Top, which borders the northern edge of the Tohono O'odham Nation. Smugglers have carved a grid of illegal roads through the wilderness area as they cross the O'odham land and cut through Table Top on their way toward Phoenix, inflicting serious damage to the habitat. The recently completed barrier has already diverted vehicle smuggling around the wilderness area, and BLM crews have begun restoring the lands damaged by the roads... There are already vehicle barriers or fences up along the international border in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Forest... Federal law enforcement officers at the six border public lands visited by GAO officials this year said they spend 75 to 97 percent of their time responding to threats from illegal cross-border activity, the report found. At Organ Pipe, drug smugglers regularly use the visitor center parking lot as a staging area, says a Border Patrol threat assessment in the GAO report... The estimated 2,000 tons of trash left behind by smugglers and illegal immigrants has harmed the fragile Sonoran Desert, landing Buenos Aires, Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta on lists of most imperiled federal lands at different points this decade... Since last fall the GAO has been evaluating the relationship between federal land managers and federal law enforcement, issuing two reports in the past four months about an improving but flawed relationship. The first report concluded that federal rules governing public lands along the border cause some delays but do not prevent the Border Patrol from handling its assignment to secure the border." Link to Full Article

Analysis: There are two different and major issues brought up in this article. The first is the "please go around" policy the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had little choice but to implement, and the second is the trashing of our southwest desert and national parks by drug and human smugglers. I'm not sure which disturbs me more, but let's take a look at each one.

We all know that drug and human smuggling activity doesn't automatically stop and disappear within a certain distance from the border. So it's not entirely surprising that these barriers are being erected 70 miles inland. However, it is remarkably disturbing to me that the approach being taken is one of deflection rather than interdiction. I know the BLM and other law enforcement agencies just don't have the people or resources to stop and arrest every drug and human smuggler that wants to barrel through these areas and trample the environment. That's a secondary concern to me; I can't stand that these smugglers have to be merely redirected and aren't being outright stopped. I wouldn't be surprised to see signs erected in the next year that say "Please excuse our mess."

The next issue, speaking of messes, is the outright trashing of these parks and forests by smugglers. I ticked off a few people a few days ago when I posted a comment on Twitter along the lines of, why do environmentalists get so mad about the damage caused by the border fence and stay relatively silent when it comes to the trash left behind by smugglers? I got a couple of decent responses. One was that the level of environmental damage caused by the fence is far greater than that caused by smugglers, so it was unfair for me to compare the two. Another was that environmentalists do care, but who would they protest or complain to? Narcos and coyotes in Mexico?

I think those are good arguments. However, I have my own response to both. First, I don't think there's a threshold for a level of environmental damage before people should start to get involved. There's a government website dedicated to informing the public about the tons of trash left by smugglers, as well as the efforts by agencies and volunteers alike to clean it up. Please check it out at http://www.azbordertrash.gov so you can find out more about how this is more than just a few shirts and empty water bottles strewn about. I'm not pointing this out because I'm a tree-hugger; far from it. I just don't believe that if you fight for a cause, you should get to pick and choose what to get upset about based on level of severity. I also get upset that environmentalists don't get upset about the damage caused by illegal marijuana grows run by Mexican DTOs in US national parks and forests, but that's another blog post.

The next point: Who would said environmentalists, or just concerned citizens, complain to? Our federal and state governments, of course. No, technically they're not the ones causing the damage, unlike the border fence that they pay for. However, our government is charged with protecting our territory from damaging incursions by drug and human smugglers, and it's only our governments that are capable of providing more resources to the agencies that can stop those smugglers. Trust me, the BLM and Border Patrol don't want to spend their time picking up trash! They want to catch bad guys. Badly. But since in many cases, they don't have enough trained people to stop these folks at the border, they're left with erecting vehicle barriers that just redirect smugglers further inland to continue their illegal activities.

So don't go across the border and complain to a smuggler...that's no bueno. But if you care about the environment along the southwest border and beyond, or if you're simply ticked off that we can't stop these criminals and have to force them to "please go around," you can be vocal about it, and you can complain. I've been calling for more resources to be sent to the right places in order to better address border security problems, and your elected officials are always a good place to start if you want to do the same and don't have the luxury of a public "pulpit" like a blog. It's our soil, folks; let's not give it away because we didn't try hard enough to keep it.

"What's behind Mexican migrant killings still unclear."

Here is an excerpt from Tim Johnson's article in McClatchy Newspapers:

"President Felipe Calderon on Friday accused the gunmen who killed 72 illegal migrants in northern Mexico this week of "incalculable savagery" as his government attempted to depict the   major drug gang implicated in the slaughter as weakened and desperate. The discovery of the grisly massacre Tuesday night at a ranch near San Fernando, about 45 miles southwest of Brownsville, Texas, put the spotlight on Los Zetas, a crime syndicate based along the Gulf Coast of Mexico that has international tentacles. The massacre — and its murky motives — continued to shake Mexico on Friday... Calderon himself also confirmed that two state criminal investigators who'd been assigned to probe the slayings had vanished... Alejandro Poire of the National Security Council said the gunmen had captured the migrants and given them a choice: Work for Los Zetas as gunslingers and peons, or face death. When the 58 male and 14 female migrants resisted, they were killed... However, an Austin, Texas-based strategic intelligence research group, Stratfor, said in a report Friday that Los Zetas, sometimes called simply the 'Z's,' indeed are hurting... Another analyst of Mexico's security situation, Edgardo Buscaglia, cast doubt on official accounts of the massacre and criticized Calderon's handling of it... 'The president, unfortunately, looks at all of this as a media war,' Buscaglia said. The portrayal of Los Zetas as weakened 'is a marketing story' to deal with the international black eye Mexico has suffered with the massacre,' he said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: So unfortunately, it looks like there's still a lot of doubt surrounding this incident, despite the extensive media coverage over the last few days. Was it really Los Zetas who committed this heinous act? If so, are they weakened or stronger than ever? And did they kill the migrants because they needed the manpower, or simply because they couldn't pay ransom?

The reason that the Mexican government believes it was Los Zetas is because the one man who survived the mass killing told authorities that the shooters identified themselves as such. I know of several instances where Los Zetas have had no problems taking credit for things or advertising themselves, so that's not out of the ordinary. However, this also sets them up to be framed, as it were, by rivals. The area where the massacre occurred has been Gulf cartel territory for some time, but Borderland Beat reported in mid-June that gunmen belonging to Los Zetas had attacked other cities and towns under the control of the Gulf cartel in the previous two weeks, including Mier, Reynosa, Tampico and Valle Hermoso. It's likely the killers were Zetas, but keep in mind the possibility that men from the Gulf cartel could be setting up their former partners. And who better to take the bait than non-Mexican migrants who aren't as familiar with the workings of the different Mexican DTOs? I know it's a stretch, and such a plan would have been useless if that one migrant hadn't gotten away from them.

As for Los Zetas losing strength, that's also possible. They had gotten strong enough that the Sinaloa Federation, La Familia, and the Gulf cartel felt the need to (temporarily, of course) join forces in order to put Los Zetas out of business. Considering how much bad blood there is between the Federation and the CDG, that alliance speaks volumes to the capabilities Los Zetas had achieved. So does this mean that the alliance was doing its job, and the massacre was an act of desperation? I'm not so sure. Remember, Los Zetas share a special bond and have a whole truckload of special forces training. This is what makes them some of the best and most efficient killers in Mexico. Heck, they were recruiting the Guatemalan Kaibiles to help them. Why all of a sudden would they want to forcibly recruit a group of 72 non-Mexican migrants into their organization (as slaves or otherwise) who aren't trained or vetted? They probably have a line of former cops and soldiers a mile long wanting to work for them and make the money they do. They'd also be better off just subcontracting to a Mexican gang.

We know that the methods of killing have become increasingly brutal over the years because, in a way, they have to. Just like TV or video games, we become insensitive to certain things over time, so DTOs have to get creative or just do something over-the-top to get a rival's--or the government's--attention. This could be a "simple" case of an opportunity for some Zetas to extort a large group of unfortunate immigrants from other countries. Maybe they felt less sympathy for them because they weren't their countrymen. Who knows? When the migrants couldn't pay up, the killers might have seen that as a chance to teach them a lesson, earn some street cred, and send a message at the same time.

These are just a few of the possibilities that have crossed my mind, and the truth is often far stranger than anything I can come up with on my own. Considering that investigators of the killings are now starting to disappear, we may never get to the bottom of the story.

Some thoughts on border security and the illegal immigration nexus.

I have traditionally shied away from commenting on the immigration debate because it's such a polarized and emotional debate, and I try to keep my analysis as even-tempered and available to readers as possible. I don't like to alienate potential readers who want to learn more about events in Mexico by spouting my personal opinions about illegal immigration. And don't worry, I'm not going to start doing that now. It's just that with all the crazy events going on right now along the border - as well as in our nation's capital - I wanted to offer some thoughts about the confluence, as well as the divergence, of the concepts of immigration and border security.

Just the term "border security" means different things to different people. Some people believe a secure border implies NO ONE who isn't allowed into the US actually gets in. This means terrorists, illegal immigrants (from any country), and drug smugglers. Other people believe a secure border means that only people who are criminals or mean us harm are consistently caught and prevented from entering. I was reading an opinion piece in Reuters this morning, and the author explained how no border can truly be 100% secure, meaning no one gets in and out without the authorities noticing and approving. I have to agree with that. I mean, you can build an electrified fence that covers every square inch of the 2,000-mile US-Mexico border, but both good and bad people will find creative ways to get across. We've seen this in all major border lockdowns, like countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, and even Cuba.

In light of recently growing tensions over border incidents, the AZ immigration law, and illegal immigration in general, we have to place the debate over border security in some kind of perspective. That means asking the question of ourselves AND the federal government, "What does it mean to have a secure border?" You have to know that we will NEVER keep ALL criminals and illegal immigrants from entering the US through our southwest border. Knowing that's the case, we have to prioritize because our law enforcement agencies have limited financial and logistical resources. In my opinion, we need to focus first on keeping people out who mean to do us harm or engage in dangerous/violent criminal activity on US soil. This includes terrorists, drug smugglers, human smugglers, DTO members, and gang members who work for DTOs.

Again, knowing our law enforcement agencies can't stop everyone, I'm willing to acknowledge that I have to be OK with the continuation of illegal immigration to some extent. I'm NOT okay with immigrants trashing our land, or trespassing on private property, or robbing/assaulting innocent Americans who get in their way. I do know that there are many illegal immigrants who come to the US from Mexico who don't engage in criminal behavior. I'm not saying it's any less of a violation of federal laws that they're here, but when it comes to the concept of border security, we have to look at who and what is making our border INsecure.

I know many of you - and maybe most of you - have very strong opinions about immigration, drugs, and guns, and your opinions are what make civil debates in my comments sections so lively and interesting. Many of you will probably disagree with me, and I'm totally OK with that. It's a free country after all! I just felt the need to explain that a secure border doesn't necessarily imply a complete border lockdown. It means that ALL Americans, whether they live in the SW border states or elsewhere, can feel safe and secure in their homes, and free from the dangers posed by terrorists and smugglers who attempt to enter our country surreptitiously. The illegal immigration debate often crosses paths with the border security debate, but I implore my readers to try to keep this in mind: When you can't keep everyone out, a secure border means you can effectively keep the BAD people out. We're not there yet, but our law enforcement agencies trying to do that can probably benefit from a government that realizes it needs to focus on what border security really means.

"Portion of US wildlife refuge closed due to violent border activity."

The sad part about this story is that it's not actually a story, and it's not even remotely news (in the sense that it's a recent occurrence). While exchanging emails with a reader this afternoon, he emailed me a document that sent me through the roof. It's a 2006 notice from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, advising the general public that a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona had been closed to the public because it had been "adversely affected by border-related activities." Furthermore, the Department stated it felt "continued public use of the area [was] not prudent." This closure was effective as of October 2006. Click HERE to read the entire notice, but here's the essential text:

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge south of the Garcia Road to public use, under authority found in 8 RM 13.5 and 50 CFR 25.21(e) effective October 3, 2006. Garcia Road runs east/west parallel to the international boundary about one mile north of the line. This area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is paramount. The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent. Assaults on law enforcement officers and violence against migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented. Many of these activities are concentrated at, or near, the border. The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous. Closure is in effect until further notice. 

The refuge sits almost in the center of Arizona's border with Mexico. Here's a map:

I'm frustrated that many politicians and federal government officials can breezily claim that border violence spillover isn't happening, and the US side of the border is as safe as it's ever been. Yet, we hear stories like the one I posted about earlier today from the Pinal County Sheriff, who says he has no control over portions of his own county. And I read and hear countless stories from ranchers on the US side of the border who constantly deal with armed Mexican thugs on their property who like to break into innocent people's homes and rob them at gunpoint. Then I read this - which our government has obviously known about for some time - and it sends me through the roof. Why hasn't this still-in-effect closure been widely reported in the news? More importantly, why has the security situation in one of our own wildlife refuges been allowed to get so out of hand that we've ceded control to drug and human smugglers, and just outright closed it to public access?

I know this is coming across as a soapbox rant, and I have to offer my apologies. I try to keep my analysis on subjects like this as level-headed as possible, but in light of the back-to-back-to-back confrontations between violent border crossers, smugglers, US law enforcement, and average Americans, I'm starting to lose patience with people who say spillover isn't a problem. Maybe not in their neighborhood, but I've got a truckload of people and towns who would beg to differ.

"Pinal County Sheriff: Mexican drug cartels now control parts of Arizona."

Here is an excerpt from MaryEllen Resendez's article on ABC15.com:

"Two men shot earlier this week could be the result of the ongoing battle between Mexican drug cartels now spilling over deep into Arizona, officials say. Pinal County investigators say  an area  known as the smuggling corridor now stretches from Mexico's border to metro Phoenix. The area , once an area for family hiking and off road vehicles has government signs warning residents of the drug and human smugglers. Night vision cameras have photographed military armed cartel members delivering drugs to vehicles along Highway 8. 'We are three counties deep. How is it that you see pictures like these, not American with semi and fully automatic rifles. How is that okay?' asked Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu. Babeu said he no longer has control over parts of his county. 'We are outgunned, we are out manned and we don't have the resources here locally to fight this,' he said at a Friday news conference... Babeu said he doesn't believe the drug cartel problems will not be solved when SB 1070 becomes a law, or with President Obama's promise of 1,200 troops spread out among four border states. 'It will fall short. What is truly needed in 3,000 soldiers for Arizona alone,' Babeu said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I've written at length about the debate over border violence "spillover" - the confusion over what it really entails, and whether or not it's actually happening. The naysayers point to crime statistics, which in several major border cities show that the incidence of major crimes has gone down. El Paso is even considered the 2nd or 3rd safest city in the whole country. However, I don't believe you can use crime statistics alone to determine whether or not border violence spillover is occurring; there is just way too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Sometimes people point to a few sheriffs in border counties and say they're just being paranoid. However, this county is not even along the border - it's three counties in and roughly 80 miles from Arizona's border with Mexico. Even more disturbing is this image I was sent this morning of a sign posted along mile marker 150 of Interstate 8 by the US Bureau of Land Management:

If you're a tourist or any other American driving along I-8 and see this sign, what are you going to think? Personally, you can tell me a hundred times that San Diego and El Paso and other cities along the border have declining crime rates, but if I see this sign, I'm going to book it out of there as fast as I can. Worse yet, this sign comes across (to me, anyway) as an acknowledgement by a federal government agency that this activity is occurring well within US territory with their knowledge, and US law enforcement doesn't have the resources to protect everyone from the threat posed by drug and human smugglers.

Here's a local news video relative to the story:

If this situation doesn't constitute border violence spillover, then I don't know what does. 

"Somalis with terrorist links feared headed to U.S. border."

Here is an excerpt from Sara Carter's article in the Washington Examiner:

"Somalis with ties to a terrorist organization are believed to be plotting to illegally enter the United States after being mistakenly released from custody in Mexico, a confidential federal law   enforcement report said. The report, obtained by the Washington Examiner, said that 23 Somalis who entered Mexico illegally earlier in the year were caught there, then released in late January... Included in the group is Mohamed Osman Noor, 35, of Somalia, who U.S. officials suspect has strong ties to Al-Shabaab Mujahideen, an Islamist insurgency group in the ongoing war in Somalia with ties to al Qaeda. The report was written by an intelligence official with the Laredo Sector Border Intelligence Center, a joint federal task force under the Department of Homeland Security that operates on the border... According to the report, 'Five of the subjects are possibly heading towards the Reynosa, Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas areas. ... The Laredo Sector should be cognizant of the high possibility that Noor and the other subjects may attempt to enter illegally into the United States through the Laredo Sector area of responsibility.'... A former U.S. government official who worked closely with Mexican authorities on border issues said he is 'legitmately concerned of these suspected terrorists coming into the U.S. through leveraging and exploiting the many gaps along our southwest border.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: There are so many factual errors in this article that it's difficult to know where to begin. Actually, I'll begin by saying that I have a history of shredding Sara Carter's articles apart, particularly when she was writing for the Washington Times. She seems to only write sensationalist versions of border stories that quote former government officials in her bid to make it sound like terrorists are camped out in Cuidad Juárez and waiting for a sunny day to come pouring into the US. If you'd like to read two other blog posts I've written on her often outlandish claims, please click HERE and HERE.

Moving on to the story at hand, the first thing I did after reading her article was to reach out to my contacts and find out who had a copy of the "confidential federal law enforcement report." I was successful in getting a good summary of the content, and it appears that much of it was either taken out of context or purely misquoted by Ms. Carter. For example, there is no mention in the report that any of the released immigrants had ties to terrorist organizations, and certainly no mention of a Somali named Mohamed Osman Noor.

Secondly, the individuals were released in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, and Mexican authorities merely stated their assumption that they were headed towards the US in general, not any specific locations in Texas. The Mexican authorities only stated simple immigration concerns in a "situational awareness" context, and no terror alert or concern was communicated.

I can probably figure out the angle Ms. Carter was aiming for. Somalis are one of the three dozen or so nationalities that fall within the US' "special interest alien" category. This means that immigrants from these countries attempting to enter the US illegally get more scrutiny because they come from countries with ties to terrorism. When I worked in California, Somalis and Iraqis always piqued our interest because there is a huge population of both groups in San Diego. That's why I found it strange that any report would say the released Somalis were probably headed to parts of Texas, because they'd be much more likely to head for San Diego.

I was able to get some updated information on the Texas vs. California issue, and I'm being told by trusted sources that there's definitely a shift going on in where certain SIAs are attempting to cross the border. It's not known whether this is by their choice (cheaper, easier to submit asylum requests, etc.) or if it's by force (alien smuggling organizations have new arrangements with DTOs for smuggling SIAs, enforcement efforts are forcing changes, etc.).

Regardless, this is just one more shining example that you can't believe everything you read in the press about Mexico's drug war - especially when it has Ms. Carter's name attached.

"Central American Disorder — a Threat to Mexico's Security."

Here is an excerpt from my latest MexiData.info article:

"The everyday realities of Mexico’s drug war are grisly and overwhelming. On a daily basis, both Mexican media outlets and U.S. news sources report the latest mass murders that have resulted from turf wars between Mexican cartels and internal organizational discord.

"Security in Mexico is perceived as mostly an internal problem. But Mexico is not an isolated country, and the ongoing turmoil in neighboring countries is having both a direct and indirect impact on Mexico’s security situation."

To read the complete article at MexiData.info, please CLICK HERE.

"New reason for Mexican immigration to US: Drug violence."

Here is an excerpt from Julie Wolf's* article in McClatchy Newspapers (DC):

"Mexican immigration to the United States has been almost entirely an economic issue for the past few decades. Politicians have fine-tuned their positions around what to do about illegal immigrants who supposedly take jobs from Americans. Now, however, as violence on the border continues to increase, a new kind of immigrant to the United States is appearing: people seeking asylum to escape the drug-fueled brutality in Mexico... Already, there have been two celebrated cases of asylum-seekers: a journalist who fled the northern state of Chihuahua after drug cartels threatened him, and the mayor of Ciudad Juarez, a major border city opposite El Paso, Texas, who pulled out when drug traffickers threatened his family. Though both succeeded in getting into the U.S., their tactic is still relatively untested in U.S. courts... Ana Maria Salazar, a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration who's now a political commentator in Mexico City, said...'Many people fearing for their lives in border towns are moving to big cities within Mexico," said Salazar, who has Mexican and American citizenship. 'As descriptions of the violence continue to become public, there will definitely be talk about the refugee status' in the U.S., although she adds that the violence would have to be 'very high.'" Link to Full Article

*Wolf is a student at Penn State University. This story was reported from Mexico City for a class in international journalism.

Analysis: Lately, more has been written and speculated regarding the touchy subject of Mexicans who are fleeing drug violence claiming asylum or refugee status in the US. I'm glad there are two high-profile examples in the article, and that the author mentions the tactic is relatively untested in US courts - that's very true. I'm also wholly unaware of how many asylum requests have been made by Mexican nationals fleeing drug violence in border cities or elsewhere in Mexico, and what portion of those requests have been granted. I could find out through official channels, but I probably wouldn't be able to share the information with you on this blog. So, let's stick to the stuff I can talk about and use to inform you.

The US Refugee Program and guidelines for requesting asylum might seem clear-cut when you look at the US State Department guidelines, but the interpretation of "persecution" is usually completely subjective. From the Iowa Bureau of Refugee Services: "Refugees, according to the United States Department of State, are persons of special humanitarian concern who can establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion... Each year, the President of the United States, after consulting with Congress and appropriate agencies, determines the designated nationalities and processing priorities for refugee processing for the upcoming year. The President also sets annual ceilings on the total number of refugees who may enter the U.S. from each region of the world." From the US Customs and Immigration Service: "[An] Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge will determine if you are eligible [for asylum] by evaluating whether you meet the definition of a refugee... The determination of whether you meet the definition of a refugee will be based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an Asylum Officer or at a hearing before an Immigration Judge."

So the question becomes, do Mexican nationals fleeing drug violence fear persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion? Before I answer that with my own opinion, I'd like to present an example of two large immigrant groups in South Florida who have been at odds over US asylum policy for decades: the Cubans and the Haitians. Both Cuban and Haitian immigrants make dangerous journeys through often treacherous waters in vessels that would blow your mind with their deplorable conditions. Since 1994, Cuban immigrants have been subject to the US government's wet-foot dry-foot policy. Essentially, this means that if they make it to dry land on US territory, their political asylum claims will pretty much be automatically granted under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. Although Haiti's government is complete crap, their economy has been in the toilet since the Haitian Revolution burned the country to the ground, and murders and kidnappings are a daily occurrence, Haitians usually have to emigrate like everyone else and are not automatically granted asylum for economic or security reasons. The difference between Cuba and Haiti? Cuba is still a communist country, and Haiti is not. Like it or hate it, that's the realit when it comes to current immigration law.

Based on this historical example, the prospects for granting asylum to Mexican nationals fleeing drug violence don't look good right now. You can easily throw out the race, religion, and nationality categories of persecution. You can probably throw out political opinion as well, as DTOs and their enforcers don't really care who Mexicans vote for. I think where things get into the gray area is the "membership in a particular social group." High-profile politicians, law enforcement commanders, etc. might fit into the social group of elites who are threatened - directly or just by virtue of their positions - by DTOs. That's probably how the journalist (a group of people who are routinely threatened and sometimes murdered for stories they publish) and the mayor were granted asylum. As for the average Mexican Joe (or Jose, if you will), trying to find that all-encompassing category would be difficult, especially if you have a checkered past or criminal record (all asylum seekers must submit to a background check). Just being a Mexican citizen who is afraid of being killed by narcos won't cut it, especially when historical evidence shows that truly innocent civilians aren't typically in danger of being murdered or kidnapped in Mexico - unless they're DEA informants, of course. Unless President Obama - in consult with Congress - changes the rules, Mexican nationals are going to have to follow the exisiting rules the same as Haitians and everyone else trying to get to the US.

"Schemes to cross border getting bolder."

Here is an excerpt from Moises Mendoza's article in The Houston Chronicle:

"U.S. Border Patrol agent John Lopez has seen it all: Men hiding in tiny holes in the ground, in car trunks and behind seat backs. He’s even captured an illegal immigrant hiding in a suitcase... Each year, agents see many brazen attempts to sneak people and drugs into the U.S. But as border enforcement has stepped up in the past two years, smugglers’ schemes appear to be getting more creative and bolder than ever... Smugglers could be turning to craftier tactics because it’s harder than ever to sneak people across the border. Or, as some Border Patrol officials believe, this is nothing strange at all — smugglers are innovating all the time. Between January and March of this year, the Border Patrol captured 164,733 illegal immigrants, compared to about 227,000 over the same period last year. It’s not clear whether the decrease is due to increased enforcement or an ailing economy with few jobs to draw immigrants." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This article makes two main points, both of which are well-presented and important to make note of. First is the point that smugglers have always been creative, and new and crazy ways of bringing people or drugs across the border doesn't necessarily have to be in immediate response to enforcement efforts, the loss of a plaza, etc. Successful drug smugglers know that a portion of their product will be lost to seizures, stolen loads, or lost/dropped loads. They factor this in as a percentage and thus the cost of doing business. Smugglers also know they can reduce their loss percentage by spreading their product around to different smuggling avenues, some of which will inevitably be more successful than others. Some of these methods include the use of backpackers, all-terrain vehicles, ultralights, border tunnels, go-fast boats, and drug submarines. Moving people is a bit of a different story, and allows for a little less creativity simply because people need to breathe, eat, drink water, and relieve themselves, limiting the amount of time and space a person can be cramped into an object or compartment. Ultimately, the creativity just makes good business sense, in addition to helping smugglers thwart the authorities.

The second point is that it's hard to pinpoint exactly why less people are being arrested and detained for attempting to cross the border illegally. I don't think you can point to a single factor. Yes, I believe the ailing US economy has something to do with it. However, the Mexican economy is also ailing - some would say more so than the US - and job prospects for illegals in the US are probably still better in most respects than they are in Mexico. I also think improved enforcement has something to do with it. While CBP and USBP still don't have as many people as they need to maintain control of every square inch of the US-Mexico border - which in some places is extremely rugged and inaccessible during bad weather - the technology available to them has improved significantly. But you can't rely completely on gadgets. Previous deployments of National Guard troops to the border have provided hundreds of extra eyes, which free up USBP agents to conduct apprehensions. Sensors, scopes, helicopters, improved roads, and just plain additional bodies are helping with the enforcement effort.

Bottom line, the creativity will continue, both in the drug and human smuggling arenas, and due to both business/economic reasons and enforcement efforts. Based on the stories in this article and personal anecdotes I've heard from CBP officers, I can't wait to see how crazy these smugglers can get.

"Brewer: New gun laws won't secure border."

Here is an excerpt from Howard Fischer's article in the East Valley Tribune:

"New laws to regulate gun sales in this country are not the answer to increasing violence in Mexico and along the border, Gov. Jan Brewer told federal lawmakers Monday. Brewer, testifying before a field hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, said a focus on new gun laws ignores the underlying problem: the failure of the federal government to secure the border. She said the problems of violence will go away once the government does its job... Brewer said it’s not bad enough that the federal government is not adequately guarding the border. “It is time for the federal government to address the immense fiscal burden that border states are unfairly shouldering in combatting illegal immigration,” she said. “To date, the federal government is not bearing its full responsibility to law enforcement, education, health care, human services and the corrections system directly tied to illegal immigration and human smuggling.” The governor’s testimony came three weeks after the U.S. Department of Defense essentially rebuffed her request for an additional 250 National Guard soldiers to be stationed along the border... Attorney General Terry Goddard, who also testified Monday, said he did not support Brewer’s request... Goddard echoed the comments made last week by former governor and fellow Democrat Janet Napolitano, now homeland security chief, who said putting soldiers along the border only makes sense if they have something concrete to do." Link to Full Article

Analysis: There are two main issues brought up in this article that I want to address. First is the impact of border violence on state and federal resources other than law enforcement. You don't read about this very much because we're often wrapped around the axle of physical violence that our cops have to deal with - and rightly so. But we don't think about the impact on social services, corrections, hospitals and clinics, and charities that either deal with the criminal element or deal with victims of human trafficking, kidnapping, etc. I refuse to address the illegal immigration issue because most people that follow it have VERY strong opinions about it, and I don't want to alienate any readers that might want to learn something by continuing to read my posts. Regardless, I'm happy that Governor Brewer explained how the border violence issue is more far-reaching and insidious than many of us realize.

Second, I want to talk about the deployment of National Guard troops - specifically, the question of what they'd be doing if they were sent to the border. I read the comments by Frothingham, Lieberman, and Goddard, and just shook my head in disbelief. You'd think no state had ever sent National Guard troops to the border before to augment federal agencies; apparently they haven't done their homework or talked to any other legislators from California. In 2006, the California National Guard organized TASK FORCE VISTA in response to the Governor’s support to the President’s request for assistance to the US Customs and Border Patrol agency. Over 1,300 Army and Air National Guard volunteers supported that mission in eight general mission areas, to include operations, air support, ground transportation, command and control, base operations, maintenance, civil engineering, and ports of entry augmentation. This was called Operation JUMPSTART, and wrapped up in the summer of 2008 because the President denied Governor Schwarzenegger's request to extend the Guard's tour for a few months. From what I remember of this, the biggest benefit of the Guard's deployment was their assistance to the Border Patrol in the form of many extra sets of eyes. Because of posse comitatus, Guard troops can't arrest illegals - or enforce any other civilian laws - but they were able to act as spotters so Border Patrol agents could respond more quickly to illegal crossings or other incidents. Scopes and sensors are all well and good, but in many instances, nothing replaces a warm body when it comes to detecting something out of the ordinary.

I'm very disappointed that Governor Brewer's request was apparently brushed off, and concerned that legislators seem so ignorant of the potential uses of Guard troops along the border, especially when they've been sent before. I hope she keeps at it, and that Congress gets quickly educated on the past benefits of Guard deployments to assist with border security.

"Hezbollah uses Mexican drug routes into U.S."

Here is an excerpt from Sara A. Carter's exclusive article in The Washington Times:

"Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say. The Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America's tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Increasingly, however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on 'the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels,' said Michael Braun, who just retired as assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). 'They work together,' said Mr. Braun. 'They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected. They'll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are [smuggling].' His comments were confirmed by six U.S. officials, including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists. They spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm concerned about the impression this article gives the average reader, as the information - in the way it's presented - is misleading in many ways. After reading it through once, it seems like the author is trying to imply that Mexican DTOs are knowingly and actively colluding with Hizballah to move drugs and people across the border into the US. This doesn't make much sense, and I'll explain why.

First, there are a limited number of routes through which ANY organization can move contraband - whether narcotic, human, or otherwise - across the border. It's logical that several organizations would attempt to use these routes for different purposes. I italicized the word "attempt" because it's well-known that DTOs have VERY tight control over these routes.  The bloodshed going on every day along the border is a result of turf battles between DTOs over these routes. Alien smuggling organizations, or ASOs, are also well-established in specific places along the border, and many of them specialize in moving special interest aliens - individuals from countries associated with terrorism in some way - from Mexico into the US. DTOs and ASOs are VERY particular about what their routes are used for, and by whom they're used. DTOs have retaliated in grisly fashion against some individuals who have attempted to use their border tunnels or drug routes to move people. Per the US Dept of Justice, when ASOs use DTO drug routes to move people, they do it with the express knowledge and permission of the controlling DTO, and that the authorized use comes at a price. Knowing all this, one has to ask: Why would a business enterprise like a DTO who wishes to avoid the full wrath of the US Government willingly get involved with a terrorist organization like Hizballah?

Let's examine the human smuggling aspect. Yes, it's likely that members of Hizballah have entered the US illegally from Mexico (although open sources on this topic are sketchy). However, they're generally not the ones running the show, as most ASOs - especially those bringing in SIAs - are Mexican-run. Does this mean that Hizballah is using the same human smuggling routes as DTOs and ASOs? Technically yes, but it's in the semantics. Hizballah is likely just paying their fees to the smugglers to get them across the same as other SIAs. This does not mean that they're actively colluding with DTOs in an organization-to-organization or "managerial" capacity.

The drug smuggling aspect is even more incongruous in the context presented in this article. Hizballah is involved in the drug trade, but only as a relatively small part of its operations in the Americas - almost as a side gig. They earn most of the money they send back to the homeland through counterfeit goods, both in Latin America and various communities in the US. Hizballah's presence in the tri-border area and other parts of the Americas is considerable, but I haven't seen much data supporting any assertion that Hizballah has a sizeable presence in Mexico. For argument's sake, let's say they did have enough people in-country to get involved in the Mexico-to-US drug trade. Why on earth would a DTO allow Hizballah to operate in their territory? DTOs' main goals include maximizing profits and minimizing Mexican (and US) government interference in their operations. Despite increases in some US cities near the border, we have not seen the same levels of violence on the US side as the Mexican side, and there's a very good reason for that. DTOs are willing to risk a small amount of attention from US law enforcement for their actions. They are NOT willing to risk a full federal and military response, which is surely what would transpire should hard evidence emerge that a DTO was actively colluding with a terrorist organization.

All this being said, Mr. Braun's comments are plausible, meaning it's entirely possible that Hizballah and DTOs are using the same networks or the same facilitators to accomplish their goals in Latin America. This does NOT automatically mean that DTOs and Hizballah are knowingly working together, and it's likely not in the DTOs' best interests to establish such a relationship in the future.

IN FOCUS: Border Tunnels

Over the last few years, Mexican DTOs have been feeling pressure on their smuggling operations from both Mexican and US law enforcement. Human smugglers have also been feeling the same pressure, as detection and interdiction efforts have improved and viable land routes for both drugs and people have been squeezed. Both types of smugglers have had to get creative, and that's where the border tunnel comes into play.

According to press reports that cite US immigration officials, at least 75 border tunnels have been discovered along the US-Mexico border since the 1990s. Although I'm restricted from saying what the actual number is, I know it's higher than 75. Some of these tunnels are small and crudely dug, but others are absolute marvels of construction, taking into account what they're used for and the clandestine circumstances under which they're built. A few of these tunnels have wooden support beams throughout, concrete flooring, extensive lighting, and ventilation systems. Some even have rails for moving carts filled with narcotics headed north into the US - or bundles of money heading south into Mexico. 

One of the more sophisticated border tunnels (pictured right) was discovered in January 2006 in a fruit distribution center in Otay Mesa, California. The tunnel went 85 feet underground and emerged a half mile away in Tijuana, where it was used by the Arellano Felix Organization to smuggle drugs into the US.

Several tunnel detection methods are currently in use by border officials, but they all have their drawbacks. These methods include ground-penetrating radar and sonic equipment, but ICE officials will tell you that investigation and good observation methods tend to trump tunnel detection technology.

In 2003, ICE formed the San Diego Tunnel Task force - the only one of its kind, although Nogales has a more informal group with the same mission. It's a multiagency effort, including US Border Patrol, DEA, US Dept of Justice, and US Navy personnel. Typically, most tunnels are discovered when somebody tips off authorities to signs of suspicious work: digging sounds, activity at odd hours, or numerous trucks. Tunnels rarely last more than a couple of months before they are unearthed, border officials said. Once they're discovered, they're filled with concrete - often at great expense. The Otay Mesa tunnel cost $700,000 to fill. Despite the shirt-lived nature of these tunnels, drug smugglers keep digging and human smugglers keep moving people in this often dangerous manner.

"The Enemy Within: Cartel-related violence has moved well beyond American border towns."

Here is an excerpt from Eve Conant and Arian Campos-Flores' article in Newsweek:

"Surprising as it may seem, Phoenix has become America's kidnapping capital. Last year 368 abductions were reported, compared with 117 in 2000. Police say the real number is likely much higher, since many go unreported. Though in the past most of the nabbings stemmed from domestic-violence incidents, now the majority are linked to drug-trafficking and human-smuggling operations that pervade the Arizona corridor. It's still unclear to what extent the snatchings are being directly ordered by Mexican cartels, but authorities say they're undoubtedly a byproduct of the drug-fueled mayhem south of the border. "The tactics are moving north," says assistant police chief Andy Anderson. "We don't have the violence they have in Mexico yet—the killing of police officers and the beheadings—but in terms of kidnappings and home invasions, it has come." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is one of the better articles I've read lately on the anecdotal/case evidence aspect of border violence spillover (for more on this topic, click HERE). It mostly covers kidnappings in Phoenix with a great amount of detail and first-hand accounts, which makes for good reading and high impact on the reader. It also talks about the presence of DTO members or associates in other parts of the country nowhere close to the southwest border, like Alabama and North Carolina. It's disconcerting to read about kidnap victims being gagged and tortured in safehouses thousands of miles away from where we would expect that to be happening.

There are two main points I'd like to make about this excellent article. First, it makes clear to the reader that the majority of victims involved are involved in the drug trade. I particularly like the quote from a law enforcement officer who explains that many times, kidnap victims are rescued by the police, then go straight from the place they were being held to jail to await trial for the crimes they committed. Second, this article reinforces one of the points I make in my IN FOCUS segment on spillover- specifically, the point that some agencies view spillover as DTO-related criminal activity occurring within the US. This article clearly shows that the law enforcement individuals interviewed believe spillover is happening, despite any statistical evidence or "official" statements to the contrary.