Militarization of the Border Is Taking the Wrong Turn

In these times determined by connectivity, Mexico and the United States are about to share the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The decision to reinforce security in what is already one of the most patrolled areas in the world shows the tensions within a society divided by the double standard that determines the debate on immigration in the United States. They need the workforce coming from the South, they use it, but they do not accept it.

The United States Congress moves forward with passing an immigration system reform package including an unprecedented plan to increase security on the 3,000 km border with Mexico. This iron curtain paradoxically serves to isolate those inside rather than keep away the ones outside.

The plan, set forth by members of the Republican Party and approved by the Senate, contemplates building a 1,200 kilometer wall, with 42,000 well-armed men, unmanned aerial vehicles and additional funds for programs that criminalize illegal immigration, among other projects.

Militarization is the price agreed upon by the conservative parties in return for taking the next step in legalizing 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the United States; the Latino community seems to be willing to pay the price. They want an immigration reform that includes citizenship, no matter the cost.

Some describe this exchange as an act of political pragmatism; they add that the best reform is the one that gets passed. I beg to differ. Forty thousand well-armed guards are not going to seal the border — they will suffocate it.

The legitimate efforts to establish a secure border cannot be based on political rhetoric, nor on the simplistic assertion that more kilometers of wall equal more security. History proves otherwise.

In the last 10 years, the United States government has spent $90 billion to secure the border without a good outcome. It is true that illegal immigration has decreased to its lowest number in decades, but this reduction has more to do with the economic problems faced by America, mainly unemployment, than with the actions that were taken to strengthen the line.

The amount of people who die in the attempt to cross the border increased exponentially, as did the smuggling of goods and immigrants, both controlled by the Mexican drug cartels.

Instead of understanding border security as part of a comprehensive strategy, securing the strip has become the only strategy to try to solve illegal immigration into the United States — a failed experiment with serious consequences for the human rights of immigrants and the lives of 14 million souls from border communities.

In the last three years alone, 18 people have died in the hands of border patrol agents, including six minors and five United States citizens. Some cases, like the one of the young Mexican man called Sergio Hernández, stand out. He was shot seven times in the back for allegedly throwing stones at the American agents from the Mexican side of the border.

During the last few years, the border patrol has turned into the biggest security agency in the United States. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, it operates with alarming levels of obscurity and impunity.

Moreover, this “new” plan for border security will cost $40 billion. The end of the war in Iraq and the return of the troops from Afghanistan will shift the attention of American defense contractors to the Mexican border.

The New York Times reports that at least half a dozen of these companies state they are ready to take part in million dollar offers prepared by the government to buy the equipment for the border.

More security also means more arrests and more occupied beds in the private detention facilities where most of the immigrants arrive after being detained crossing the border — a multi-million dollar industry that in the last few weeks has increased its lobby in Congress.

Immigration is a complex phenomenon that bears no simple solutions. The lack of creativity and, above all, political will to generate solutions that attend to the specific needs of border communities in the long run has an effect on local interests on both sides of the border.

The best way to limit the room for illegality is by strengthening the room for legality: More visas, more temporary job opportunities and fewer walls.

Militarization is taking the wrong turn. This solution speaks of enemies, not of two countries sharing the same path and destination.