Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL

Bad
Hombres
and
Borders:
Illegal
Migration
and
the
Mexican-‐American
Relationship

POLS846

Prof.
Beesan
Sarrouh

John
Gallant
10025373

December
13th

2016

Gallant
10025373

2

Table
of
Contents

Introduction

3

Literature
Review

4

Methodology

7

Theoretical
Framework

9

Historical
Context

10

Mexican-‐American
Illegal
Migration
in
the
Millennium

13

Analysis

15

Conclusion

19

List
of
Figures

22

Notes

24

Bibliography

27

Gallant
10025373

3

In
the
American
discourse
of
immigration,
how
has
the
concept
of
smuggling
illegal

migrants
been
securitized?
Recent
evidence
from
the
2016
presidential
elections
would
suggest

there
is
a
shift
towards
illegal
migration
and
smuggling
from
Mexico
being
treated
as
a
threat
to

national
identity
according
to
bi-‐partisan
and
public
opinion.
This
is
the
product
of
a
turbulent

historical
relationship
between
Mexico
and
the
United
States,
extrapolated
upon
by
post-‐9/11

understandings
of
terrorism
as
an
existential
threat
to
the
country.
The
change
has
been

informed
by
among
other
things
legislation
geared
towards
border
enforcement
in
lieu
of

migrant
accommodation
coupled
with
a
degree
of
‘conceptual
creep’
between
smuggling
and

human
trafficking.
The
movement
towards
a
more
security-‐focused
approach
to
regulating

immigration
into
the
US
means
smuggling
has
become
readily
associated
with
more
serious

criminal
phenomenon,
and
therefore
is
treated
as
something
considerably
more
threatening

than
the
original
act.
Arguably
what
has
ensued
is
conflation
of
illegal
migrants
into
the
USA

from
Mexico
with
more
serious
criminal
phenomena
such
as
terrorism
and
human
trafficking,

and
therefore
is
reflective
of
how
migrants
in
the
USA
are
then
treated.
This
conflation
is
often

informed
by
the
measurement
of
immigrant
integration
into
society
via
a
binary
of
good
and

bad.
For
migrants
from
Mexico
and
other
regions
there
is
a
distinction
between
‘bad’

immigrants
and
‘good
immigrants’,
which
is
problematic
in
that
it
presupposes
that

immigrants
–
especially
illegal
ones
are
a
menace
to
society.
Scholarship
on
the
subject
would

indicate
that
securitization
of
illegal
migration
in
the
US
in
effect
reinforces
illegal
border

activities
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
alternate
avenues
of
transport
are
sought
to
circumvent
the

security
measures
introduced.
What
ensues
is
a
positive
correlation
between
security
measures

taken
by
the
host
country
and
the
number
of
methods
taken
to
surmount
them.
However,
the

Gallant
10025373

4

body
of
literature
on
the
subject
of
smuggling
between
Mexico
and
the
US
largely
addresses

mainstream
approaches
of
the
topic
and
the
need
for
it’s
re-‐evaluation,
without
critically

assessing
how
these
frameworks
surrounding
migration
have
been
created
and
maintained.

Therefore,
this
paper
will
endeavor
to
explain
the
phenomenon
of
securitizing
illegal
migration

in
the
United
States
of
America
in
order
to
better
understand
the
necessity
for
a
re-‐negotiated

approach
towards
treatment
of
illegal
migration.

Literature
Review

To
begin,
Van
Liempt
and
Doomernik’s
2006
study
Migrant’s
Agency
in
the
Smuggling

Process:
The
Perspectives
of
Smuggled
Migrants
in
the
Netherlands
provides
a
useful
conceptual

basis
for
analysis.
This
work
addresses
issues
of
agency
associated
with
smuggling
agents
and

migrants
smuggled
into
the
Netherlands
from
Iraq,
the
Horn
of
Africa
and
the
former
USSR.1

Drawing
on
the
example
of
the
New
Alien
Act
in
the
Netherlands
the
study
evaluates
the

relationship
between
smuggler
and
migrant
in
terms
of
the
decisions
made
influencing
the

process
and
volatility
of
illegal
migration
itself.
Van
Liempt
and
Doomernik’s
study
is
relevant

for
this
analysis
in
it’s
addressing
of
insufficiencies
in
the
discourse
of
smuggling
and
it’s

relationship
to
mainstream
conceptions
of
immigration.2

However,
it
does
not
address
these

issues
on
a
broad
enough
level,
something
this
analysis
will
attempt
to
achieve
through
a

different
context.
Comparatively
then
Kyle
and
Koslowski’s
Global
Human
Smuggling
adopts
a

similar
approach
but
does
so
across
a
broad
range
of
national
contexts3
.
Their
work

problematizes
mainstream
perspectives
on
smuggling,
addressing
them
as
a
reductionist

project
that
focuses
on
the
criminal
aspect
in
lieu
of
broader
networks
of
benefiting
actors.4

Further,
this
study
distinguishes
between
migrant-‐exporting
schemes
and
slave-‐importing

Gallant
10025373

5

operations
where
the
latter
is
intrinsically
illicit
while
the
former
is
not.5

Additionally,
their

analysis
addresses
the
relationship
between
law
enforcement
and
illegal
migration,
specifically

the
notion
that
the
relationship
is
decidedly
‘symbiotic’.6

This
conclusion
will
inform
the

analysis
of
this
paper
however
in
a
more
specific
context.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
Kyle
and

Koslowski
reach
this
conclusion
through
a
historical
context,
compared
to
this
paper’s
analysis

that
will
adopt
a
defined
analytical
framework
to
address
contemporary
examples.
To
wit,
this

paper
will
engage
with
the
type
of
framing
used
to
reach
this
conclusion
beyond
identifying

agents
in
smuggling
and
migration
while
being
critical
of
mainstream
approaches
to
the
topic.

More
specifically
then,
Tiano
et.
al’s
2012
overview
of
the
Mexican-‐American
context
Borderline

Slavery:
Mexico,
United
States
and
the
Human
Trade
outlines
the
subject
matter
in
a
focused

approach.7

Tiano
et.
al
provide
a
detailed
account
of
human
trafficking
and
sex
trafficking

between
the
two
countries,
and
adopt
the
valuable
distinction
between
smuggling
and

trafficking
persons
according
to
UN
criteria.8

This
study
is
concerned
with
the
ramifications
of

human
trafficking
in
the
context
of
human
rights,
specifically
in
terms
of
the
intersectionality
of

actors
involved
as
gendered
subjects.9

On
an
institutional
level
Tiano
et
al.’s
analysis
outlines

the
bilateral
responses
to
human
trafficking
through
law
enforcement
with
the
provision
of

special
visas
to
trafficking
victims
and
the
challenges
concerned
as
a
result.10

This
work
is
useful

in
the
provision
of
an
overview
regarding
human
trafficking
and
smuggling
in
it’s
employment

of
a
distinction
between
the
two
concepts.
However,
this
book
is
more
concerned
with

addressing
human
trafficking
as
a
criminal
phenomenon
and
outlining
efforts
to
address
it

bilaterally.
This
is
to
say
it
is
not
directly
concerned
with
what
informs
understandings
of
human

trafficking
beyond
international
norms
and
where
criminal
explanations
may
be
insufficient.

Gallant
10025373

6

Addressing
securitization
could
provide
another
dimension
of
analysis
to
properly
justify
why

specific
approaches
to
human
trafficking
have
been
taken.
With
relation
to
Tiano
et.
al’s

overview,
David
Spener’s
Clandestine
Crossings:
Migrants
and
Coyotes
on
the
Texas-‐Mexico

Border
adopts
a
similar
approach
in
addressing
the
complexities
of
illegal
migration
between

the
countries.11

Spener’s
ethnography
analyzes
the
relationship
between
smuggling
and

smuggler
agents
in
the
journey
between
Mexico
and
the
USA.
In
particular,
his
work
is

concerned
with
the
social
processes
in
place
within
Mexican
culture
that
permit
and
facilitate

smuggling
into
the
USA.
Spener
supplies
an
interpretive
framework
as
an
alternative
to

mainstream
perspectives
on
the
topic
informed
by
‘everyday
resistance,
social
capital,
and

funds
of
knowledge’.12

Contrary
to
other
works
Spener
argues
against
the
presence
of
a

symbiotic
relationship
between
smuggling
agents
and
border
enforcement
services
as
it

presupposes
these
actors
reinforce
a
repressive
structure
against
migrants.13

Instead
Spener

proposes
that
the
relationship
between
smuggling
agent
and
migrant
is
a
strategic
albeit

conflicted
alliance
in
the
social
field.14

This
is
similar
to
the
work
of
Van
Leimpt
and
Doomernik

in
the
provision
of
a
critical
perspective
of
the
smuggling
agent-‐migrant
relationship,
moving

beyond
simplistic
definitions
of
the
two.
Lastly
Chuang’s
2014
study
Exploitation
Creep
and
the

Unmaking
of
Human
Trafficking
Law
outlines
related
issues
to
previous
literature
on
the

topic.15

This
work
argues
that
contemporary
approaches
to
human
trafficking
prevention
in
the

USA
are
a
product
of
‘exploitation
creep’.
Specifically,
this
study
argues
that
the
Obama

administration’s
efforts
to
promote
a
broader
definition
of
the
trafficking
has
enabled
a

recasting
of
forced
labor
as
trafficking,
and
therefore
branding
it
as
slavery.16

Chuang
argues

that
this
recasting
of
trafficking
towards
labor
shifts
the
concern
towards
issues
of
labor
policy,

Gallant
10025373

7

and
specifically
a
need
to
strengthen
labor
protections
to
reduce
vulnerability
to
trafficking.17

This
is
relevant
to
the
analysis
insofar
as
it
is
concerned
with
the
reframing
of
human
trafficking

by
the
US
government
to
justify
alternate
approaches
to
addressing
it,
however
the
analysis
will

argue
that
this
reframing
has
from
at
the
cost
of
a
non-‐securitized
definition
of
smuggling
in
the

case
of
Mexican-‐American
relations.

The
literature
on
the
subject
of
smuggling
and
illegal
migration
within
USA-‐Mexican

relations
is
significant
in
breadth.
Approaches
to
this
topic
challenge
conventional
assumptions

of
the
smuggling
process,
and
in
particular
the
relationship
between
smuggling
agent
and

migrant.
Conversely
other
perspectives
in
the
literature
engage
with
smuggling
as
a

phenomenon
closely
related
to
human
trafficking
and
therefore
approaches
it
as
a
criminal

activity
irrespective
of
the
relationships
between
the
actors
involved.
This
analysis
will
attempt

to
understand
the
use
of
framing
informing
mainstream
approaches
to
smuggling
and
how
this

in
turn
relates
to
aspects
of
immigration
in
the
future
of
the
Mexico-‐USA
relationship.

Methodology

For
the
purpose
of
this
paper,
definitions
will
be
offered
regarding
the
terms
used
to

describe
the
smuggling
process.
In
particular,
this
will
address
the
agents
involved
and
the

labels
given
by
the
state
and
international
community
in
the
process
of
illegal
migration.

Terms:
Smuggling
agent,
migrant,
smuggling,
human
trafficking

Smuggling
Agent-‐
For
this
analysis
smuggling
agents
will
be
understood
as
those
“hired
by

autonomous
migrants
to
help
(migrants)
cross
the
border
and
reach
their
U.S.
destinations”
.18

Gallant
10025373

8

This
term
will
be
used
interchangeably
with
coyote
-‐
the
Spanish
term
offered
in
Spener’s

analysis
to
colloquially
refer
to
smuggling
agents
of
non-‐regional
significance
in
Mexico.19

Migrant-‐
The
principal
agent
participating
in
the
process
of
migration
from
one
country
to

another
for
reasons
economic,
social,
criminal,
or
political.
This
is
not
to
be
confused
with

refugees-‐
those
who
migrate
from
one
country
to
another
forcibly
due
to
conflict
involving
one

or
more
states
in
the
first
country.
It
is
worth
mentioning
for
this
analysis
that
migrants
will
also

refer
to
agents
who
may
be
passing
through
a
transitional
country
to
reach
a
destination

different
from
the
starting
country.

Smuggling-‐
Smuggling
in
this
analysis
will
refer
to
the
procurement,
negotiation,
and
usage
of
a

smuggling
agent
by
a
migrant
to
clandestinely
transport
the
migrant
across
the
political
borders

of
a
given
country.
This
definition
uses
the
destination
of
a
migrant
in
a
broader
sense
due
to

the
fact
that
negotiation
between
migrant
and
smuggling
agent
is
one
that
often
results
varying

outcomes
of
destination.
It
will
be
assumed
for
this
analysis
that
smuggling
is
a
common
activity

concerned
with
the
process
of
illegal
migration
from
Mexico
into
Canada.

Human
Trafficking-‐
This
analysis
will
use
the
terminology
created
by
the
Trafficking
Victims

Protection
Act
(TVPA)
passed
by
the
US
Government
in
2000:
“the
recruitment,
harboring,

transportation,
provision,
or
obtaining
of
a
person
for
services,
through
the
use
of
force,
fraud,

or
coercion
for
the
purpose
of
involuntary
servitude”.20

Theoretical
Framework

This
analysis
will
use
Buzan
et.
al’s
1998
work
Security:
A
New
Framework
for
Analysis
as

Gallant
10025373

9

the
theoretical
framework
for
discussion,
in
particular
the
notion
of
securitization.
Buzan
et.
al’s

work
defines
this
as
“the
intersubjective
establishment
of
an
existential
threat
with
a
saliency

sufficient
to
have
substantial
policy
effects”.21

This
approach
is
concerned
with
the
study
of

discourse
and
political
constellations,
specifically
whether
or
not
these
spheres
can
enable
an

audience
to
tolerate
certain
actions
taken
by
principal
actors
that
would
not
otherwise
be

permitted.22

As
a
result,
this
theory
is
concerned
with
the
presence
of
an
existential
threat,
or

the
intersubjective
creation
of
one
in
order
to
allow
extraordinary
political
actions
to
be
taken.

This
involvement
of
an
existential
threat
is
often
directly
concerned
with
certain
facilitating

conditions
that
enable
the
process
to
take
place.
Further,
these
facilitating
conditions
can
be

present
on
a
variety
of
levels
from
local
to
global.23

Although
how
these
conditions
are
handled

is
largely
dependent
on
the
actors.
Securitization
is
concerned
with
three
specific
facets:

referent
objects
that
are
seen
to
be
existentially
threatened
and
that
have
a
legitimate
claim
to

survival,
securitizing
actors
who
declare
a
referent
object
to
be
existentially
threatened,
and

lastly
functional
actors
who
affect
the
dynamics
of
a
sector.24

Without
being
a
referent
object

or
actor
calling
for
security
on
behalf
of
the
referent
object,
this
is
an
actor
who
significantly

influences
decisions
in
the
field
of
security.25

The
relationship
worth
highlighting
in
the

framework
of
securitization
will
be
between
the
securitizing
actor
and
referent
object
in

question
as
it
greatly
influences
the
outcome
of
the
process.
The
ability
of
the
securitizing
actor

to
successfully
legitimize
the
claim
of
the
referent
object
facing
existential
threat
is
crucial
to

securitization
of
a
subject,
in
this
case
illegal
migrants
from
Mexico.

This
analysis
will
use
the

three
facets
of
securitization
proposed
by
Buzan
et.
al
to
evaluate
the
treatment
of
smuggling

by
the
US
government
over
the
course
of
the
Obama
administration
and
into
the
leadership
of

Gallant
10025373

10

President-‐elect
Trump.
Specifically,
this
study
will
be
concerned
with
this
policy
as
it
relates
to

illegal
migration
into
the
USA
from
Mexico.
The
objects
of
analysis
here
will
be
speech
acts
of

the
US
government,
legislation
and
initiatives
created
pertaining
to
smuggling
and
human

trafficking.

Historical
context

Mexico’s
relationship
with
the
USA
has
been
one
often
defined
by
imperial
interest.
Early

instances
of
the
Mexico-‐US
relationship
are
found
in
the
enactment
of
the
1823
Monroe
Doctrine,

which
sought
to
enforce
American
values
abroad
away
from
Euro-‐colonial
influence.26

Post-‐
revolution
Mexico
saw
the
leadership
of
José
de
la
Cruz
Porfirio
Díaz
Mori
over
a
thirty-‐five-‐year

period
that
further
entertained
the
US
as
a
foreign
investor
above
all
else.
This
was
defined
through

modernization
of
the
Mexican
economic
infrastructure,
drawing
considerable
American
investment

while
at
the
cost
of
rural
land
ownership.27

However,
the
colonial
implications
of
this
relationship

were
reinforced
by
the
humiliation
of
Mexicans
and
national
elite
in
their
loss
of
the
Mexican-‐
American
War
of
1846-‐48.28

This
loss
was
understood
by
the
US
as
owed
to
deficiencies
in
the

Mexican
character,
bolstering
national
narratives
of
racial
superiority.
Legacies
of
colonialism

between
the
US
and
Mexico
maintained
throughout
the
remainder
of
the
1800s,
however
into
the

20th

century
Mexico
became
an
increasing
source
of
labor
in
the
USA

as
the
country
moved
into

World
War
1
and
2.
Following
World
War
1
the
US
entered
a
period
of
economic
depression

however,
resulting
in
the
expulsion
of
thousands
of
Mexican
immigrants
who
had
previously

worked
in
the
US
under
privately
contracted
railroad
and
agricultural
organizations,
sanctioned
by

the
US
Department
of
Labor.29

Once
the
US
had
recovered
from
postwar
economic
downturn,
the

demand
for
Mexican
migrant
labor
in
the
country
had
taken
on
a
new
fervor,
to
compensate
for

Gallant
10025373

11

legislation
in
the
1920s
that
prevented
the
use
of
immigrant
workers
from
Europe.30

Past
the
1920s

and
into
the
2nd

World
War
the
relationship
between
the
US
and
Mexico
continued
to
be
defined
by

the
requirement
of
Mexican
labor
to
make
up
for
deficits
suffered
by
the
US
in
their
entry
into
the

conflict.
A
landmark
of
the
relationship
in
this
period
was
the
creation
of
the
Bracero
Program,

which
involved
issuing
contracts
for
Mexican
men
to
work
in
the
United
States.31

While
this

program
occurred
over
a
twenty-‐three-‐year
period,
certain
exceptions
were
made
regarding
which

states
adopted
it.
Specifically,
Texas
was
treated
as
exempt
from
the
implementation
of
the
Bracero

Program
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
historical
treatment
of
Mexicans
in
the
state
by
law
enforcement

and
the
farming
communities
was
understood
to
be
negative.32

However,
in
doing
so
previous

Mexican
laborers
in
Texas
then
became
classified
as
undocumented
migrants.
As
a
result,
by
the

1940s
Texas
harbored
a
high
concentration
of
undocumented
migrants,
bolstered
by
the
use
of
the

region
as
a
transit
state
for
other
migrants
working
deeper
in
the
US.33

In
order
to
counter
historical
prejudices
however
in
Texas
and
beyond
with
relation
to
Mexico

and
other
minorities
in
the
US,
the
Roosevelt
administration
created
the
Fair
Employment
Practices

Committee
(FEPC)
on
June
25th

1941.34

Created
with
the
purpose
of
combatting
discrimination
in

the
workplace,
this
organization
provided
a
vehicle
through
which
Mexican
civil
rights
leaders
could

lobby
for
change
and
seek
federal
protection
against
discrimination.35

While
effective
as
a
federal

body,
agents
called
for
the
creation
of
more
regional
committees
specific
to
Texas
resulting
in
the

birth
of
the
Texas
Good
Neighbor
Commission
in
1943
and
the
Office
of
the
Coordinator
for
Inter-‐
American
Affairs
(OCIAA)
dedicated
solely
for
people
of
Mexican
origin.36

These
organizations

differed
from
FEPC
on
the
basis
that
they
drew
criticism
for
being
comprised
largely
of
Caucasian

representatives
in
lieu
of
Mexican
civil
rights
leaders
found
in
the
FEPC.37

Gallant
10025373

12

While
this
regional
lobbying
and
advocacy
provided
a
strong
basis
for
protection
of
Mexican-‐
American
interests
during
the
period
of
the
Bracero
Program,
illegal
immigration
became
an

increasing
public
concern
into
the
Reagan
government
of
the
1980s.
The
Reagan
government
was

punctuated
by
the
Immigration
Reform
and
Control
Act
(IRCA)
of
1986,
which
among
other
things

granted
more
resources
to
Border
Patrol
services
to
apprehend
migrants
being
smuggled
from

Mexico
through
weapons,
equipment,
and
training.38

Records
indicate
that
by
1992
the

enforcement
budget
for
Immigrant
and
Naturalization
Services
increased
to
$702
million
from

previous
funding
of
$352
million
in
1986
as
a
product
of
the
IRCA
under
Reagan.39

This
marked
a

shift
to
a
more
controlling
approach
by
the
US
towards
the
smuggling
of
migrants
into
the
country,

bolstered
by
provisions
beneath
the
IRCA
that
repealed
previous
legislation
allowing
migrants
to

work
illegally
in
the
US
during
World
War
1
and
2.40

A
particularly
relevant
landmark
in
the
historical
context
for
this
analysis
however
is
that
of

Operation
Rio
Grande.
Initiated
on
August
25th

1997
this
operation
was
created
with
the
purpose
of

capturing
the
remaining
migrants
that
eluded
Immigration
and
Naturalization
Services
(INS)

authorities
in
the
previous
Operation
Blockade
in
El
Paso,
Texas.41

This
operation
dramatically

increased
security
for
the
Rio
Grande
Valley
sector
of
the
Texas-‐
Mexico
border,
between
El
Paso

and
Nuevo
Laredo
(Figure
1.1).42

However,
as
the
operation
moved
into
the
millennium,

apprehensions
fell
sharply
into
FY2003
from
below
two
hundred
thousand
compared
to
the

operation’s
peak
of
approximately
half
a
million
in
FY1997
(Figure
1.2).43

Additionally,
following
the

launch
of
the
operation,
deaths
of
migrants
grew
significantly
in
response
to
attempting
to

circumvent
the
tighter
security
measures.
According
to
monitoring
organizations
as
well,
migrants

who
were
apprehended
by
immigration
authorities
faced
a
38%
increase
in
human
rights
abuses

Gallant
10025373

13

along
the
South
Texas
border
including
instances
of
psychological/verbal
abuse,
sexual
assault,
and

unlawful
seizure
or
destruction
of
property.44

Initiated
in
the
context
of
America’s
involvement
in

the
Middle
East
in
the
90s
and
into
the
natal
stages
of
the
‘War
on
Terror’,
Operation
Rio
Grande

marked
an
escalation
in
the
US
from
viewing
illegal
migration
as
a
general
security
concern
to
a

threat
to
national
identity.

Mexican-‐American
Illegal
Migration
in
the
Millennium

9/11
marked
a
shift
in
security
priorities
for
the
US
to
their
presence
in
the
Middle
East,
while

simultaneously
attempting
to
preserve
the
national
homeland
from
racialized
threats.
In
many

respects
this
was
reflected
in
the
Bush
and
Obama
administrations’
approaches
to
immigration
and

combatting
smuggling,
often
with
relation
to
the
US-‐Mexico
border.
In
terms
of
protecting
national

interests
the
millennium
brought
a
renewed
protection
for
the
American
national
identity

maintained
by
tactful
rhetoric
informed
by
a
narrative
of
a
world
filled
with
existential
threats

against
the
United
States.
A
key
aspect
of
this
change
was
the
creation
of
the
Department
of

Homeland
of
Security
in
2003,
charged
with
the
administration
of
border
security
and
immigration

efforts.45

This
period
saw
increased
funding
to
border
agencies
across
the
US
including
Customs
and

Border
Protection
(CBP),
and
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE),
both
entities
beneath

the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
(DHS)
whose
budget
reached
a
peak
of
approximately
$56

million
in
2011.46

Additionally,
Bush
era
immigration
saw
the
introduction
of
the
Comprehensive

Immigration
Reform
Act
of
2007.
Containing
the
DREAM
Act
beneath,
this
act
proposed
stronger

enforcement
along
the
border
with
Mexico
coupled
with
a
system
of
verifying
employment

eligibility
for
migrants.
In
terms
of
accommodating
migrants
however
it
outlines
a
proposed
guest-‐
worker
program
for
migrants
coupled
with
‘Y’
and
‘Z’
visas
as
a
means
to
a
pathway
to
citizenship

Gallant
10025373

14

for
guest
workers
and
undocumented
migrants.47

Ultimately
though
this
bill
was
not
passed
as
it

faced
bipartisan
criticism
regarding
the
concern
of
workers
‘overstaying’,
and
the
possibility
of

denying
rights
to
Mexican
immigrants
in
turn.
However,
as
the
Bush
presidency
drew
to
a
close,
the

USA’s
approach
to
immigration
arguably
did
not
change

While
still
focused
on
matters
of
terrorism
and
threats
abroad,
the
Obama
presidency
directly

associated
itself
with
Mexican
immigration
and
the
challenges
posed
albeit
in
a
Janus-‐faced

manner.
More
specifically,
the
Democrats’
approach
to
illegal
migration
under
Obama
was
equal

parts
controlling
and
liberal.
Two
pivotal
aspects
of
this
period
were
the
proposal
of
the
Deferred

Action
for
Children
After
Arrival
Act
(DACA),
and
the
Deferred
Action
for
Americans
and
Lawful

Permanent
Residents
(DAPA).
The
proposal
of
these
acts
was
important
for
Mexicans
and
illegal

migrants
as
2014
onwards
marked
a
surge
of
migrants
both
unaccompanied
and
otherwise
into
the

USA
seeking
refuge
from
cartel
violence
in
the
northern
triangle
of
Central
America.48

Established
in

2012,
DACA
was
proposed
as
a
program
that
would
allow
for
1.2
million
individuals
brought
to
the

US
as
children
to
regularize
their
status.49

Indeed,
since
the
introduction
of
this
act
the
country
of

origin
with
the
highest
number
of
DACA
beneficiaries
was
led
by
Mexico
with
78%,
followed
by
El

Salvador
with
4%,
lastly
with
Guatemala
and
Honduras
at
3%.50

It
is
worth
noting
however
that
this

bill
faced
considerable
opposition
simply
due
to
the
presence
of
a
Republican
majority
in
Congress

for
most
of
Obama’s
presidency
effectively
stifling
the
legislative
process.
Following
DACA
was
the

proposal
of
DAPA
as
a
means
to
expand
on
the
former
in
order
to
permit
an
additional
3.6
million

to
regularize
their
status.51
However,
it
is
important
to
note
the
decidedly
Janus-‐faced
nature
of
the

Obama
Democrats’
approach
to
immigration,
and
in
particular
the
treatment
of
illegal
migrants

arriving
in
the
country.
To
elaborate,
the
Obama
administration
has
deported
a
record
438,421

Gallant
10025373

15

illegal
migrants
in
FY2013,
a
marked
increase
from
the
Bush
era.52

With
regard
to
public
opinion

surveys,
the
Hispanic-‐American
community
opposes
the
measures
taken
by
ICE
and
other
border

agencies
to
increase
deportations
in
lieu
of
pathways
to
citizenship
by
a
total
of
60%
overall.53

The

presidency
however
made
border
enforcement
a
priority
in
his
immigration
platform
perhaps
due

to
the
stalling
that
occurred
of
DAPA
and
DACA
by
the
Republicans,
earning
him
the
moniker

‘deporter-‐in-‐chief’
by
some.
However,
as
we
move
into
the
leadership
of
President-‐elect
Donald

Trump,
future
migration
from
America’s
neighbor
could
very
well
be
thrown
into
jeopardy.

Analysis

Given
the
historical
context
of
migration
from
Mexico
and
Latin
America
to
the
USA,
it
is
clear

there
is
a
shift
towards
immigration
being
understood
from
the
perspective
of
national
security.
In

particular
border
efforts
have
focused
on
combatting
smuggling
and
human
trafficking,
and
in
many

respects
this
has
come
at
the
cost
of
migration
policy.
Using
Buzan
et.
al’s
theory
of
securitization

we
can
first
examine
the
presence
of
referent
objects
in
relation
to
how
illegal
immigration
is

treated
by
the
US
government.
For
this
case
the
referent
objects
in
question
are
the
nation
and

state,
and
their
preservation.
After
9/11
these
objects
became
national
security
priorities,
as

terrorism
became
perceived
as
an
existential
threat
to
the
American
national
project.
It
is
worth

mentioning
however
that
existential
threats
towards
the
USA
have
been
perceived
as
ones
directed

at
the
‘nation’
and
not
at
the
state.
Though
attacks
on
the
‘nation’
as
a
referent
object
are
often

assumed
by
securitizing
actors
to
be
attacks
on
the
state
as
well.
In
many
respects
this
has
been
the

case
with
relation
to
smuggling
and
illegal
migrants
passing
into
the
USA
from
Mexico
and
Latin

America.
For
this
analysis
then,
9/11
and
the
‘War
on
Terror’
exists
as
a
facilitating
condition
for

securitization
of
migrant
smuggling
into
the
US.
Obama’s
speech-‐acts
on
the
subject
of
illegal

Gallant
10025373

16

migration
have
been
difficult
to
depict
solely
as
decrying
smuggling,
although
the
approach
to

illegal
migration
has
been
a
firm
one
as
indicated
in
his
2014
address:

[…]
I
want
to
say
more
about
this
third
issue,
because
it
generates
the
most
passion
and

controversy.
Even
as
we
are
a
nation
of
immigrants,
we’re
also
a
nation
of
laws.
Undocumented

workers
broke
our
immigration
laws,
and
I
believe
that
they
must
be
held
accountable
-‐–
especially

those
who
may
be
dangerous.54

Here
the
aforementioned
relationship
between
securitizing
actor
and
referent
object
is
clear
in

the
legitimization
of
the
nation
as
under
threat
from
illegal
migration.
Granted
the
president
is
in
a

unique
position
in
which
securitizing
illegal
immigration
outright
will
have
serious
political

implications
both
in
the
present
and
future,
however
this
did
not
preclude
it
from
happening
on
a

lower
level.
Securitizing
actors
in
this
case
are
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE),

Customs
and
Border
Protection
(CBP),
and
to
a
lesser
extent
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services.

While
these
lower
level
organizations
have
not
securitized
illegal
migration
through
speech-‐acts,

they
have
instead
done
so
through
advertising
and
the
formation
of
anti-‐smuggling
initiatives
in
the

country.
An
example
of
this
is
the
creation
of
the
Southern
Borders
and
Approaches
Campaign
in

2014
by
Homeland
Security.
This
initiative
was
created
to
fortify
the
South
Texas
border
against

influx
of
smuggled
illegal
immigrants
and
ultimately
“reduce
the
terrorism
risk
to
the
Nation”.55

Again
the
relationship
between
securitizing
actor
and
referent
object
is
legitimized
in
this
case
by

virtue
of
the
fact
that
the
organizations
that
have
taken
part
in
this
relationship
are
representatives

of
the
state.
What
has
ensued
from
this
initiative
is
an
increased
security
presence
at
the
Mexican

border
even
as
we
enter
the
current
year.
As
of
2016
then
Texas
has
one
of
the
highest

concentrations
of
migrant
detention
centers
in
the
USA,
second
only
to
Philadelphia.56

Given
that

there
is
the
presence
of
two
preceding
factors
applicable
to
Buzan
et.
al’s
model
of
securitization,

Gallant
10025373

17

we
can
observe
the
presence
of
the
third
component
to
this
approach:
functional
actors.
In
terms

of
agents
who
directly
influence
the
security
agenda
in
this
case
we
can
first
observe
terrorism
as

having
a
key
role.
The
post-‐9/11
hysteria
with
relation
to
securing
borders
whilst
maintaining
a

clear
national
identity
provided
a
basis
for
justification
of
typically
extraordinary
policy
measures
in

order
to
protect
against
foreign
threats,
for
example
one
can
observe
legislation
such
as
the
Patriot

Act
of
2001.
On
the
side
of
Mexico
however,
actors
that
influence
the
security
agenda
are
slightly

more
splintered.
A
particularly
formidable
actor
in
this
case
influencing
the
security
agenda
is
Los

Zetas
cartel
in
Mexico,
the
only
criminal
organization
in
the
country
that
has
taken
part
in
migrant

protection
and

smuggling.57

Criminal
organizations
like
cartels
influence
smuggling
networks

through
providing
smuggling
services
as
well,
but
from
a
much
more
profit-‐driven
approach
that

often
sacrifices
safety
and
predictability.
This
actor
influences
the
securitizing
agenda
by
virtue
of

the
fact
it
can
be
readily
associated
with
smuggling
as
a
contributor.
In
other
terms
it
is
a

securitizing
actor
due
to
the
sheer
size
of
the
organization,
and
its
ability
to
function
as
a
cohesive

agent.

Another
functional
actor
on
the
Mexican
side
is
that
of
smuggling
networks,
and
their

respective
coyote
smuggling
agents.
Often
hired
through
a
lengthy
negotiation
process,
these

actors
have
the
responsibility
of
smuggling
migrants
across
borders
by
way
of
evading
bureaucratic

regulation.58

Smuggling
agents
influence
the
securitization
agenda
for
both
Mexico
and
the
USA
in

turn
but
in
a
different
way,
this
is
due
to
the
fact
smuggling
agents
are
largely
inconspicuous
and

thus
cannot
be
confronted
via
conventional
security
approaches.
Compared
to
the
sheer
size
of

cartels,
smuggling
networks
are
able
to
influence
the
security
agenda
due
to
their
ubiquity
in

Mexico
and
Latin
America.

Gallant
10025373

18

This
paper
would
be
remiss
to
not
acknowledge
the
advent
of
the
Trump
presidency
and
how

this
will
affect
illegal
migration
from
Mexico.
The
recent
election
has
seen
an
unprecedented

securitization
of
illegal
migration
by
Donald
Trump’s
administration,
to
the
extent
it
has
become
a

policy
priority.
With
regard
to
referent
objects,
Trump
has
made
the
security
of
the
USA
a
focal

point
for
his
leadership,
for
evidence
of
this
one
can
simply
observe
the
ubiquity
of
the
Make

America
Great
Again
slogan.
As
for
speech-‐acts
relevant
to
securitizing
illegal
migration
from

Mexico
there
have
been
numerous
occasions
into
his
election
in
which
this
has
been
demonstrated,

notably
his
infamous
speech
in
June
2015
on
the
campaign
trail:

[…]
Thank
you.
It’s
true,
and
these
are
the
best
and
the
finest.
When
Mexico

sends
its
people,
they’re
not
sending
their
best.
They’re
not
sending
you.
They’re
not
sending

you.
They’re
sending
people
that
have
lots
of
problems,
and
they’re
bringing
those
problems

with
us.
They’re
bringing
drugs.
They’re
bringing
crime.
They’re
rapists.
And
some,
I
assume,
are

good
people.
But
I
speak
to
border
guards
and
they
tell
us
what
we’re
getting.
And
it
only

makes
common
sense.
It
only
makes
common
sense.
They’re
sending
us
not
the
right
people.

It’s
coming
from
more
than
Mexico.
It’s
coming
from
all
over
South
and
Latin
America,
and
it’s

coming
probably
—
probably
—
from
the
Middle
East.
But
we
don’t
know.
Because
we
have
no

protection
and
we
have
no
competence,
we
don’t
know
what’s
happening.
And
it’s
got
to
stop

and
it’s
got
to
stop
fast.59

Indeed,
the
fact
that
Trump
was
able
to
capitalize
on
white
American
fears
about
safety

and
sovereignty
to
the
extent
that
building
a
wall
to
Mexico
became
a
national
priority
should

be
sufficient
evidence
that
illegal
migration
has
been
securitized.
Given
the
comparison
to

previous
governments
it
appears
that
there
has
not
been
a
change
in
terms
of
aforementioned

aspects
of
securitization,
rather
the
way
they
are
interpreted
has
changed.
This
is
to
say
that

the
strength
of
the
referent
object
has
changed
into
the
leadership
of
President-‐elect
Trump
to

be
decidedly
stronger,
indicated
by
the
frequency
in
which
‘nation-‐hood’
is
evoked
by
Trump
as

something
facing
existential
threat.

Gallant
10025373

19

Conclusion

Alternative
supplementary
explanations
for
the
treatment
of
illegal
migrants
in
the
US,

especially
with
relation
to
Mexico
would
suggest
this
phenomenon
is
motivated
along
racial

lines.
Evidence
of
this
is
indicated
by
the
‘whitelash’
across
the
US
during
the
2016
elections,
in

which
anti-‐immigration
and
nationalist
sentiment
reached
a
near-‐fever
pitch
among
the

electorate.
Alternate
narratives
of
this
phenomenon
however
would
do
well
to
address
the

relationship
between
securitizing
actors
and
the
referent
objects
in
this
case
as
it
would
serve

to
explain
the
division
along
racial
lines.

In
the
case
of
the
US
the
shift
toward
a
stronger

adherence
to
the
referent
object,
specifically
‘the
nation’
would
indicate
a
movement
towards

more
exclusionary
understandings
of
national
identity
demonstrated
by
the
sense
of
alienation

and
anger
motivating
supporters
of
Donald
Trump.
Racial
explanations
of
the
behavior
towards

illegal
migration
from
Mexico
are
sufficient
insofar
as
they
describe
the
phenomenon,
however

securitization
theory
extrapolates
from
this
approach
in
its
examination
of
the
roots
of
the
case

while
providing
a
normative
basis
for
further
research.
Moreover,
applying
theories
of

securitization
to
describe
this
better
demonstrate
how
racial
motivations
may
play
out
on
a

policy
level.

The
preceding
discussion
has
attempted
to
outline
how
illegal
migration,
and
more

specifically
smuggling
has
been
securitized
in
the
USA
and
what
this
could
mean
for
future

understandings
of
the
matter.
As
for
the
conclusions
of
this
analysis
however
we
can
observe

that
the
securitization
of
illegal
migration
and
smuggling
could
pose
serious
implications.
This

increased
adherence
to
the
nation
as
a
referent
object
may
be
used
as
a
justification
for
further

securitization
of
other
aspects
of
immigration
into
the
USA,
demonstrated
by
the
proposed

Gallant
10025373

20

Muslim
registry.
The
central
conundrum
in
securitizing
illegal
migration
is
whether
or
not

criminalizing
an
act
done
so
without
the
purpose
of
harming
a
national
project
can
be
justified.

This
is
complicated
insofar
as
the
evidence
presented
contradicts
classical
narratives
of
the

United
States
of
America
as
a
‘nation
of
immigrants’.

The
potential
for
definitional
overlap

between
smuggling
and
human
trafficking
that
ensues
from
evoking
a
nation
under
attack
will

result
in
migrants
from
Mexico
and
beyond
being
essentialized
into
a
category
that
is

significantly
more
criminal.
Abroad
such
problems
have
already
been
demonstrated
in

organizations
such
as
the
Mexican
Commission
for
Refugee
Assistance
(COMAR)
that
has
faced

criticism
for
interrogating
refugees
in
a
manner
that
would
suggest
criminal
prosecution,
that
is

to
say
conducting
refugee
status
negotiations
with
the
purpose
of
seeking
to
disprove
a
claim

from
the
outset.60

Given
this,
further
research
into
the
securitization
of
illegal
migration
in

Mexico
would
provide
valuable
insight
into
the
Mexican-‐American
relationship.
Indeed,

application
of
Buzan
et.
al’s
theory
of
securitization
to
Mexico
would
indicate
a
different

network
of
actors
facing
a
similar
array
of
challenges.
Comparison
between
the
two
cases
may

have
meaningful
results
for
the
future
of
this
foreign
policy
relationship.
Additionally,
solutions

may
lie
in
the
way
the
categories
of
‘migrant’
and
‘refugee’
are
understood
by
the
Global
North

and
how
these
categories
are
contingent
on
political
contexts.

Understanding
the
privilege

underpinning
the
determination
of
these
categories
could
offer
an
increased
sensitivity
to
the

context
of
illegal
migrants,
and
therefore
present
an
opportunity
to
be
critical
of
mainstream

approaches
to
them.
Ultimately
with
the
evidence
presented
by
this
analysis,
additional
areas

of
research
can
be
found
in
the
relationship
between
illegal
and
legal
immigration
both
in
the

US
and
beyond.
More
broadly
there
is
a
need
to
understand
the
limitations
of
an
approach
to

Gallant
10025373

21

immigration
understood
solely
through
the
language
of
border
enforcement,
and
how
this

might
harm
perceptions
of
migrants
in
turn.

Gallant
10025373

22

List
of
Figures

Figure
1.1
A
visual
representation
of
Operation
Rio
Grande
in
terms
of
the
area
covered
on
the
Texas-‐Mexico
Border

Source:
"Perry-‐Castañeda
Map
Collection."
University
of
Texas
Libraries.
1997

Gallant
10025373

23

Figure
1.2
Homeland
Security
data
outlining
the
results
of
Operation
Rio
Grande
from
FY1993-‐FY2005

Source:
Spener,
David.
Clandestine
Crossings:
Migrants
and
Coyotes
on
the
Texas-‐Mexico

Border.
Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
2009.

Gallant
10025373

24

Notes

1

Ilse
Van
Leimpt,
and
Jeroen
Doomernik.
"Migrant's
Agency
in
the
Smuggling
Process:
The

Perspectives
of
Smuggled
Migrants
in
the
Netherlands."
International
Migration
44,
no.
4

(2006):
165-‐90.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-‐2435.2006.00383.x.

2

Ibid.

3

David
Kyle,
and
Rey
Koslowski.
Global
Human
Smuggling:
Comparative
Perspectives.
32

Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
2001.

4

Ibid.

5

Ibid
33

6

Ibid
122

7

Susan
Tiano,
Moira
Murphy-‐Aguilar,
and
Brianne
Bigej.
Borderline
Slavery:
Mexico,
United

States,
and
the
Human
Trade.
Farnham:
Ashgate,
2012.

8

Ibid
56

9

Ibid
109

10

Ibid
223

11

David
Spener.
Clandestine
Crossings:
Migrants
and
Coyotes
on
the
Texas-‐Mexico
Border.

Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
2009.

12

Ibid
11

13

Ibid
231

14

Ibid.

15

Janine
Chuang.
"Exploitation
Creep
And
The
Unmaking
Of
Human
Trafficking
Law."
The

American
Journal
of
International
Law
108,
no.
4
(2014):
609-‐49.

doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609.

16

Ibid
611

17

Ibid.

18

Clandestine
Crossings
12

19

Clandestine
Crossings
13

20

"FACT
SHEET:
HUMAN
TRAFFICKING
(English)."
FACT
SHEET:
HUMAN
TRAFFICKING
(English)
|

Office
on
Trafficking
in
Persons
|
Administration
for
Children
and
Families.
August
2,
2012.

Accessed
December
06,
2016.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/endtrafficking/resource/fact-‐sheet-‐
human-‐trafficking

21

Barry
Buzan,
Ole
Waever,
and
Jaap
H.
De.
Wilde.
Security:
A
New
Framework
for
Analysis.
25

Boulder:
Rienner,
1998.

22

Ibid.

23

Ibid
17

Gallant
10025373

25

24

Ibid
36

25

Ibid.

26

Thomas
E.
Skidmore,
Peter
H.
Smith,
and
James
Naylor
Green.
Modern
Latin
America.
434

New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2014.

27

Ibid
437

28

Ibid.

29

Mark
Reisler.
By
the
Sweat
of
Their
Brow:
Mexican
Immigrant
Labor
in
the
United
States,

1900-‐1940.
Westport,
CT:
Greenwood,
Press,
1976.

30

Lawrence
A.
Cardoso.
Mexican
Emigration
to
the
United
States,
1897-‐1931:
Socio-‐economic

Patterns.
83
Tucson:
University
of
Arizona
Press,
1980.

31

Clandestine
Crossings
40

32

Kitty
Calavita.
Inside
the
State:
The
Bracero
Program,
Immigration,
and
the
I.N.S.
New
York:

Routledge,
1992.

33

Clandestine
Crossings
40

34

Matthew
Gritter.
Mexican
Inclusion:
The
Origins
of
Anti-‐discrimination
Policy
in
Texas
and
the

Southwest.
College
Station:
Texas
A
&
M
University
Press,
2012

35

Ibid.

36

Ibid.

37

Ibid.

38

Clandestine
Crossings
43

39

Dunn,
Timothy
J.
The
Militarization
of
the
US-‐Mexico
Border:
1978-‐1992:
Low-‐intensity

Conflict
Doctrine
Comes
Home.
Austin:
Center
for
Mexican
American
Studies,
the
Univ.
of

Texas,
1996.

40

Clandestine
Crossings
43

41

Clandestine
Crossings
47

42

Map
Collection."
University
of
Texas
Libraries.
1997.
Accessed
December

06,
2016.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/mexico_rel97.jpg.

43

Clandestine
Crossings
50

44

Nate
Seltzer,
and
George
Kourous.
"Immigration
Enforcement
and
Human
Rights
Abuses."

Borderlines
6,
no.
9
(1998).
1998.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

45

Borderline
Slavery:
Mexico,
United
States,
and
the
Human
Trade
181

46

Ibid.

47

Danielle
Renwick,
and
Brianna
Lee.
"The
U.S.
Immigration
Debate."
Council
on
Foreign

Relations.
February
26,
2015.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-‐immigration-‐debate/p11149

Gallant
10025373

26

48

International
Crisis
Group.
"Easy
Prey:
Criminal
Violence
and
Central
American
Migration."

International
Crisis
Group.
July
28,
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-‐america-‐caribbean/central-‐america/easy-‐prey-‐criminal-‐
violence-‐and-‐central-‐american-‐migration

49

US
Government.
"Executive
Actions
on
Immigration."
US
Citizenship
and
Immigration

Services.
April
15,
2015.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction

50

Ibid.

51

Ibid.

52

Gonzalez-‐Barrera,
Ana,
and
Jens
Manuel
Krogstad.
"U.S.
Deportations
of
Immigrants
Reach

Record
High
in
2013."
Pew
Research
Center.
October
02,
2014.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/10/02/u-‐s-‐deportations-‐of-‐immigrants-‐reach-‐
record-‐high-‐in-‐2013/

53

Krogstad,
Jens
Manuel.
"Americans
Split
on
Deportations
as
Latinos
Press
Obama
on
Issue."

Pew
Research
Center.
March
11,
2014.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/03/11/americans-‐split-‐on-‐deportations-‐as-‐
latinos-‐press-‐obama-‐on-‐issue/

54

Obama,
Barack.
"Remarks
by
the
President
in
Address
to
the
Nation
on
Immigration."
The

White
House.
November
20,
2014.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-‐press-‐office/2014/11/20/remarks-‐president-‐address-‐nation-‐
immigration

55

US
Department
of
Homeland
Security,
Secretary.
U.S.
Department
of
Homeland
Security.

November
20,
2014.
Memorandum:
Southern
Border
Approaches
Campaign,
Washington
D.C.

56

US
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement.
"Detention
Facility
Locator."
US
Immigration
and

Customs
Enforcement.
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.
https://www.ice.gov/detention-‐
facilities

57

Easy
Prey-‐
International
Crisis
Group
2016

58

Clandestine
Crossings
91

59

Hanrahan,
Tim.
"Donald
Trump
Transcript:
‘Our
Country
Needs
a
Truly
Great
Leader’."
The

Wall
Street
Journal.
June
16,
2015.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/16/donald-‐trump-‐transcript-‐our-‐country-‐needs-‐a-‐
truly-‐great-‐leader/

60

Espinoza,
Gerardo,
and
Salvador
Lacruz.
"International
Crisis
Group
Interview."
Interview.

International
Crisis
Group.
July
28,
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

Gallant
10025373

27


Bibliography

Buzan,
Barry,
Ole
Waever,
and
Jaap
H.
De.
Wilde.
Security:
A
New
Framework
for
Analysis.

Boulder:
Rienner,
1998.

Calavita,
Kitty.
Inside
the
State:
The
Bracero
Program,
Immigration,
and
the
I.N.S.
New
York:

Routledge,
1992.

Cardoso,
Lawrence
A.
Mexican
Emigration
to
the
United
States,
1897-‐1931:
Socio-‐economic

Patterns.
Tucson:
University
of
Arizona
Press,
1980.

Chuang,
Janine.
"Exploitation
Creep
And
The
Unmaking
Of
Human
Trafficking
Law."
The

American
Journal
of
International
Law
108,
no.
4
(2014):
609-‐49.

doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.4.0609.

United
States
Government.
"Consideration
of
Deferred
Action
for
Childhood
Arrivals
(DACA)."

US
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services.
October
14,
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-‐deferred-‐action-‐childhood-‐arrivals-‐daca.

US
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement.
"Detention
Facility
Locator."
US
Immigration
and

Customs
Enforcement.
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.
https://www.ice.gov/detention-‐
facilities

Dunn,
Timothy
J.
The
Militarization
of
the
US-‐Mexico
Border:
1978-‐1992:
Low-‐intensity
Conflict

Doctrine
Comes
Home.
Austin:
Center
for
Mexican
American
Studies,
the
Univ.
of
Texas,
1996.

International
Crisis
Group.
"Easy
Prey:
Criminal
Violence
and
Central
American
Migration."

International
Crisis
Group.
July
28,
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.


Espinoza,
Gerardo,
and
Salvador
Lacruz.
"International
Crisis
Group
Interview."
Interview.

International
Crisis
Group.
July
28,
2016.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.


US
Government.
"Executive
Actions
on
Immigration."
US
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services.

April
15,
2015.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.
https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction

Gallant
10025373

28

"FACT
SHEET:
HUMAN
TRAFFICKING
(English)."
FACT
SHEET:
HUMAN
TRAFFICKING
(English)
|

Office
on
Trafficking
in
Persons
|
Administration
for
Children
and
Families.
August
2,
2012.

Accessed
December
06,
2016.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/endtrafficking/resource/fact-‐sheet-‐
human-‐trafficking

Gonzalez-‐Barrera,
Ana,
and
Jens
Manuel
Krogstad.
"U.S.
Deportations
of
Immigrants
Reach

Record
High
in
2013."
Pew
Research
Center.
October
02,
2014.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/10/02/u-‐s-‐deportations-‐of-‐immigrants-‐reach-‐
record-‐high-‐in-‐2013/

Gritter,
Matthew.
Mexican
Inclusion:
The
Origins
of
Anti-‐discrimination
Policy
in
Texas
and
the

Southwest.
College
Station:
Texas
A
&
M
University
Press,
2012

Hanrahan,
Tim.
"Donald
Trump
Transcript:
‘Our
Country
Needs
a
Truly
Great
Leader’."
The
Wall

Street
Journal.
June
16,
2015.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/16/donald-‐trump-‐transcript-‐our-‐country-‐needs-‐a-‐
truly-‐great-‐leader/

Krogstad,
Jens
Manuel.
"Americans
Split
on
Deportations
as
Latinos
Press
Obama
on
Issue."

Pew
Research
Center.
March
11,
2014.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2014/03/11/americans-‐split-‐on-‐deportations-‐as-‐
latinos-‐press-‐obama-‐on-‐issue/

Kyle,
David,
and
Rey
Koslowski.
Global
Human
Smuggling:
Comparative
Perspectives.
Baltimore:

Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
2001.

Liempt,
Ilse
Van,
and
Jeroen
Doomernik.
"Migrant's
Agency
in
the
Smuggling
Process:
The

Perspectives
of
Smuggled
Migrants
in
the
Netherlands."
International
Migration
44,
no.
4

(2006):
165-‐90.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-‐2435.2006.00383.x.

Obama,
Barack.
"Remarks
by
the
President
in
Address
to
the
Nation
on
Immigration."
The

White
House.
November
20,
2014.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-‐press-‐office/2014/11/20/remarks-‐president-‐address-‐nation-‐
immigration

Map
Collection."
University
of
Texas
Libraries.
1997.
Accessed
December
06,

2016.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/mexico_rel97.jpg

Reisler,
Mark.
By
the
Sweat
of
Their
Brow:
Mexican
Immigrant
Labor
in
the
United
States,
1900-‐
1940.
Westport,
CT:
Greenwood,
Press,
1976.

Renwick,
Danielle,
and
Brianna
Lee.
"The
U.S.
Immigration
Debate."
Council
on
Foreign

Relations.
February
26,
2015.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-‐immigration-‐debate/p11149

Gallant
10025373

29

Seltzer,
Nate,
and
George
Kourous.
"Immigration
Enforcement
and
Human
Rights
Abuses."

Borderlines
6,
no.
9
(1998).
1998.
Accessed
December
06,
2016.

Skidmore,
Thomas
E.,
Peter
H.
Smith,
and
James
Naylor
Green.
Modern
Latin
America.
New

York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2014.

Spener,
David.
Clandestine
Crossings:
Migrants
and
Coyotes
on
the
Texas-‐Mexico
Border.

Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
2009.

Tiano,
Susan,
Moira
Murphy-‐Aguilar,
and
Brianne
Bigej.
Borderline
Slavery:
Mexico,
United

States,
and
the
Human
Trade.
Farnham:
Ashgate,
2012.

US
Department
of
Homeland
Security,
Secretary.
U.S.
Department
of
Homeland

Security.November
20,
2014.
Memorandum:
Southern
Border
Approaches
Campaign,

Washington
D.C.

Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL

Similar to Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL (20)

Of Coyotajes and Borders FINAL