Mexico's Drug War

"US State Department Renews - And Extends - Mexico Travel Warning."

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

"The last travel warning the US State Department issued for Mexico in April, 2011 sounded dire enough. It advised Americans to defer all non-essential travel to several parts of the country and detailed various violent events in different places throughout the nation. But the renewed travel warning issued Feb.8 added four more states to the ten that were identified in the previous warning, and it strengthened the cautionary language for seven of them. The warning first covers general country conditions and uses the Mexican government’s drug war death toll figure of 47,515. Several Mexican media outlets and many drug war observers believe this is a conservative estimate, placing the number closer to 53,000 drug war-related deaths. The travel advisory then points out, somewhat surprisingly, that an increasing number of innocent people are being targeted by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), something that Mexican President Felipe Calderón generally doesn’t like to acknowledge or discuss. The number of Americans killed in Mexico has gone up, according to the State Department: “US citizens reported to the Department of State as murdered in Mexico increased from 35 in 2007 to 120 in 2011.” Those figures look somewhat alarming, however, the warning doesn’t provide any context or explanation for the steep rise in American murders during those four years." 

To read the full article at HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

UPDATED: "The Myth that No Place in Mexico is Safe"

[I originally published this article on MexiData.info in December 2009. Earlier today, I received an email from an expat reader who lives near Cabo San Lucas, and he urgently asked me to update and repost this article. His wife works in tourism promotion for Baja California Sur, and he feels terrible that Mexico is losing so many potential tourists due to misconceptions about the security situation in Mexico. So in light of his request, I've decided to update my article and re-post it here on my blog.]

Thanks to the bloody drug battles being waged on a daily basis in so many Mexican cities and towns, the country has acquired a terrible reputation as a travel destination in the last few years. While some areas in Mexico definitely need to be avoided by tourists, there are several areas where this reputation is completely undeserved.

But before we get into the discussion of specific areas in Mexico and their relative safety, it’s important to understand why certain areas are so dangerous, and the factors that need to be taken into account when contemplating travel to Mexico.

As most people know, Mexico is in the middle of a drug war. The unprecedented bloodshed is a result of turf battles between drug cartels, as well as rivalries within cartels. The turf in question is usually one of two places: a highly valued drug trafficking corridor into the United States, also known as a plaza, and cities or towns where drugs are brought into Mexico from outside the country.

Control of these key locations is crucial for the success of a cartel’s business operation. In order to maintain control of these locations, cartels are willing to conduct assassinations of public officials, commit mass murders and dismemberment, and kidnap and torture those who wrong them.

Some of the most notorious plazas at the moment include Ciudad Juárez in Chihuahua state, Acapulco in Guerrero state, Monterrey in Nuevo León state, and Reynosa and Matamoros in Tamaulipas state.

The U.S. State Department has made clear in recurring travel alerts that non-essential travel by American citizens to certain areas should be deferred. More specifically: “Recent violent attacks and persistent security concerns have prompted the U.S. Embassy to urge U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to Michoacán and Tamaulipas, to parts of Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Durango, and Coahuila, and to advise U.S. citizens residing or traveling in those areas to exercise extreme caution.”

Unfortunately, when Americans and other foreigners hear about all these travel warnings — and are unfamiliar with the nuances of the security situation in Mexico — they sometimes tend to get the impression that all of Mexico is a war zone. This is certainly not the case, as there are numerous places in Mexico that have been untouched by the drug war.

Mexico is well known as an affordable travel destination and for its all-inclusive beach resorts. Fortunately, the majority of these tourist locales remain safe for American and other foreign travelers. In fact, Baja California Sur — the home of the famous Cabo San Lucas and the other Los Cabos — is one of the safest places in Mexico, as it isn’t considered a strategic location for any of the drug cartels. Part of the safety factor is that many of the resorts in the Cabos are all-inclusive, meaning that guests never have the leave the resort grounds for food or entertainment.

Other popular tourist destinations include Puerto Vallarta, Cancun, and Cozumel. These places have occasionally appeared in the news as sites of drug-related violent incidents. However, it’s very important to note that these violent incidents occurred several miles away from tourist areas and resorts, and in no way affected the safety of tourists staying at those resorts. News reports don’t usually provide that helpful context. Other places like Playa del Carmen and the rest of the Riviera Maya are just as safe as Los Cabos. 

In addition to the more well-known tourist destinations, there are dozens of other places in Mexico that cater to visitors who enjoy beaches, Mayan and Aztec ruins, and eco-tours. While too numerous to name individually, most of these sites remain beautiful — and safe — places to enjoy.

The most important thing any potential business visitor or tourist to Mexico can do is arm him or herself with good information about specific destinations. The U.S. State Department travel site for Mexico (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_970.html) is a great place to start. Also make sure to read the most up-to-date travel alerts and travel warnings (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_4755.html) for all the specifics on areas to avoid. One should never hesitate to contact a U.S. Consulate in Mexico if questions about the safety of a particular location arise.

Members of the military should be extremely diligent when planning any travel to Mexico, as certain locations have been officially declared off-limits by the Department of Defense, and others require command approval prior to travel.

Above all, travelers to Mexico and any other unfamiliar foreign travel destination need to exercise common sense. Try to blend in. Don’t wear things that scream “I’m American!” or “I’m an easy target!” Don’t wear flashy jewelry. Try to learn a few useful words in Spanish. While you’re not likely to be targeted in Mexico by the mere fact that you’re a tourist, you can still become the victim of common crime by not exercising common sense.

The violence in Mexico is not likely to escape our minds — or our headlines — any time soon. But that doesn’t mean that Mexico is no longer a viable option for rest and relaxation at an affordable price. It sounds almost corny, but it can’t be said enough that you need to know before you go. Arm yourself with good information about your destination, and enjoy the great things that Mexico still has to offer.

"Drug violence in Mexico: Are tourist zones the latest victims?"

Here is an excerpt from Christine Delsol's article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The first question a traveler asks these days when considering a trip to Mexico is not the time-honored "How do I avoid getting turista?" or "How many pesos will I get for my dollar?" but "Is it safe?" Until recently, the answer was easy: Yes, if you keep informed and stick with the popular tourist destinations. In the past year, that has begun to change. Highly publicized drug-cartel killings in Acapulco's tourist zone, a hand grenade in a popular Guadalajara nightclub only a block from the upscale Hotel Fiesta Americana, and muggings and shootings near Mazatlán's cruise port are signs that tourist destinations are no longer insulated from the drug-related violence wracking Mexico. Monterrey, one of Mexico's most important medical tourism destinations and an upscale city that enjoyed a quiet distance from the brunt of the conflagration in its early years, has seen a raft of shootouts and kidnappings, prompting the State Department to order all its personnel in the city to remove their children from the city. In Guadalajara, U.S. government officials are prohibited from traveling after dark.

"It's not a sudden change of heart among the drug lords, but a perhaps inevitable progression of turmoil within the country's drug-trafficking network that has been simmering for more than a decade. Contrary to one popular misconception, the cartels have never given tourists a free pass because of the money they bring in, or for any other reason — tourists simply weren't relevant to the drug business. Nor are tourists relevant now. If cartels do not have a hands-off policy, neither do they have any particular interest in going after tourists. Rival gangs are their main focus, with law enforcement authorities, government officials and journalists close behind. Visitors are not the targets of the violence, but rather we are closer to the violence in certain places, which is unnerving at best and dangerous at worst. ut if it feels like all bets are off and random violence is everywhere, that's not completely true, either. There are reasons the violence erupted when and where it did, and it's surfacing in tourist areas now for specific reasons. This context, absent from most reports about the latest killing or kidnapping, might not be much comfort, but it at least provides an informed basis for deciding whether and where to travel." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I really don't have much more to add, but I did want to let my readers know that this is one of the best explanations I've seen regarding how and why drug-related violence has moved into some tourist areas. There is more good info in the article, but it's lengthy; I highly recommend that you follow the link and read the whole thing.

The main point Ms. Delsol makes is that the DTOs aren't moving into places like Acapulco and Mázatlan because of the tourists, but in spite of them. And it's true when she says this is both good and bad news. It's good because it means that tourists aren't in DTO crosshairs. However, the violence is going to shift geographically based on how the supply chain adapts to business and enforcement conditions. Sometimes that's unpredictable, and kidnappings and shootouts can start erupting in once-quiet areas in a matter of days.

Bottom line, know before you go, as cheesy as that sounds. Do your homework, contact the US Consulate closest to the area where you'll be traveling, and do a Google News search for that city or town to see if there have been any incidents there related to the drug trade.

"The Myth that No Place in Mexico is Safe."

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

"Thanks to the bloody drug battles being waged on a daily basis in so many Mexican cities and towns, the country has acquired a terrible reputation as a travel destination in the last few years. While some areas in Mexico definitely need to be avoided by tourists, there are several areas where this reputation is completely undeserved.

But before we get into the discussion of specific areas in Mexico and their relative safety, it’s important to understand why certain areas are so dangerous, and the factors that need to be taken into account when contemplating travel to Mexico."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Border Inspections Impeding Traffic."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Tubac checkpoint still a flashpoint."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Bill would end cross-border trucking program."

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

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

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

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

   

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

The skinny on the much-hyped State Department travel alert

Friends and colleagues have been asking me pretty frequently lately about the State Department's recent travel alert for Mexico. Because college spring break season is upon us, the media has been reporting on this alert quite frequently, and come universities have even gone so far as to officially warn their students about the dangers of travel to Mexico in an attempt to prevent them from going there. So, is the hype about the alert and spring breakers all it's cracked up to be in the news? Well, yes and no.

First, let's examine the alert. The State Department has three levels of messages for international travelers. In order of significance from least concerning to most concerning, they are travel advisories, travel alerts, and travel warnings. State currently has travel alerts for five other countries in addition to Mexico, and defines the alert as the following: "Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information about short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens. Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, coups, anniversaries of terrorist events, election-related demonstrations or violence, and high-profile events such as international conferences or regional sports events are examples of conditions that might generate a Travel Alert." The most important thing to note about this particular alert is that IT IS NOT NEW. Travel advisories for Mexico have been out for some time, and this alert just renews the alerts that have been out for at least 18 months. The media is making a big deal out of it NOW because of spring break, NOT because it is something new the State Department has all of a sudden become worried about.

Next, let's examine the actual threat to college students. As the State Dept will tell you in its alert, there are thousands of people that visit Mexico every day without incident and have a great time. It's all in WHERE YOU GO. There are several off-limits towns and cities, and even entire states, in Mexico that State details in its alert. Probably not a good idea to hit Durango for a week of fun in the Mexican sun. However, the all-inclusive and other relatively higher-end resorts in places like Cabo San Lucas, Cozumel, and Cancun are relatively safe...as long as you stay within the "tourist" areas and don't go wandering off. There have been some DTO-related incidents a few dozen miles outside of Cancun in recent weeks, but not against American tourists. There have also been some incidents north of Acapulco, and a few years back, drug enforcers were bashing skulls in Acapulco proper. However, none of these incidents were specifically targeting US citizens or college kids.

The whole point is, be smart. If you're in college, I'd like to think you have more than two brain cells to rub together. However, if you're in college, you may be on a pretty tight budget. Mexico is NOT the place to go backpacking through the desert or the jungle on a few bucks for a week. If you go there on vacation, you need to find a place that has security, is located in a "resort area" or other place frequented by mostly tourists, and generally a location you wouldn't call seedy, run-down, or otherwise nasty. If you can't afford this option, then try Jamaica or the Bahamas on for size instead.