The Troubling, Deadly History Of Bipartisan Efforts To Militarize The Mexico-US Border

Though the border wall is emblematic of Trump’s presidency and political persona, it has long been a bipartisan effort that long precedes Trump’s rise to power.
By | Follow on Facebook | |
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Reddit
    • Google+

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has taken its first concrete step toward constructing “the wall” — the much-touted physical barrier which Donald Trump has long promised to erect along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    The new administration, in just its second month in office, is soliciting fence prototypes from contractors. The lucrative contracts are slated to be awarded by mid-April, marking an aggressive timeline for a government project. On Friday, Trump alluded to the administration’s push to “secure the border” when he told those gathered at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the construction of the wall “is going to start soon. Way ahead of schedule, way ahead of schedule.

    The border wall was a hallmark of Trump’s campaign, and now it will an emblematic piece of his presidency. While the project enjoys broad support from Trump’s largely Republican base, those who oppose Trump have generally viewed the wall as symbolic of the president’s “xenophobic” tendencies. These same divisions can be seen among Trump’s other controversial policies such as the travel ban targeting people from seven Muslim-majority nations and a crackdown on undocumented immigrants living within the United States.


    However, despite Trump’s strong association with the border wall, the proposed project’s history dates back decades, long before Trump arrived on the political scene. Since the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans alike have been responsible for militarizing the country’s southern border in a bipartisan effort that has seen billions spent and thousands of lives lost while failing to make the southern border any less porous.

    However, Democrats are eager to cast themselves as innocent in the decades-long border wall saga, capitalizing on Trump’s blatant pro-wall stance as an opportunity to rebrand the party as more progressive and free from racism targeting Latinos. Trump’s pledge to build the border wall is only the latest iteration of U.S. politicians attempting to criminalize the very mass migration they helped create more than 25 years ago.


    Operation Gatekeeper: The deadly consequences of border militarization

    Immigration was a major political issue in the early 1990s, particularly during the congressional and gubernatorial elections of 1994. This was especially evident in California, where Republican gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson was able to dramatically boost his popular support by promising to combat undocumented immigration via a series of targeted ad campaigns. That same year, Californians voted in favor of Proposition 187, which denied most public benefits to the state’s undocumented residents. However, these sentiments were not just limited to California — 60 percent of Americans viewed levels of immigration at the time as decidedly negative in 1993.

    Eager to make inroads with this significant portion of the electorate, the Clinton administration decided to crack down on the influx of undocumented immigrants. “We must not — we will not — surrender our borders to those who wish to exploit our history of compassion and justice,” President Bill Clinton told Congress prior to announcing a $172.5 million proposal intended to secure the southern border, a measure that would soon become known as “Operation Gatekeeper.”

    The timing of Operation Gatekeeper was by no means accidental. Though it conveniently capitalized on the popular anti-immigrant sentiments felt by many U.S. citizens at the time, the most obvious reason for the initiative was the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement that same year. NAFTA, a massive giveaway to corporate profiteering, would soon have disastrous economic consequences for Mexico as well as the United States.

    The agricultural sector of the Mexican economy was rocked by NAFTA’s passage. U.S. “Big Ag” flooded Mexico with cheap food, with agricultural imports jumping from $4.6 to $9.8 billion annually. Corn, the keystone of Mexican agriculture, poured in from the United States, with imports rising from 2 million tons to 10 million tons from 1992 to 2008.

    The pain was also felt among meat producers. Alejandro Ramírez, general director of the Confederation of Mexican Pork Producers, told journalist David Bacon: “We lost 4,000 pigs farms. Each 100 animals produce 5 jobs, so we lost 20,000 farm jobs directly from imports. Counting the 5 indirect jobs dependent on each direct job, we lost over 120,000 jobs total.”

    Rufino Domínguez, the former coordinator of the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, who now heads the Oaxacan Institute for Attention to Migrants, told Bacon that NAFTA had drastically reduced employment opportunities in Mexico’s agricultural industries. He said:

    “There are no jobs, and NAFTA forced the price of corn so low that it’s not economically possible to plant a crop anymore. We come to the U.S. to work because we can’t get a price for our product at home. There’s no alternative.”

    With work in the domestic agricultural sector quickly shrinking, agricultural workers in Mexico were left with little choice but to venture elsewhere in search of gainful employment.

    Noted philosopher and social critic Noam Chomsky echoed Dominguez’s analysis in a 2009 lecture:

    The timing of Operation Gatekeeper was surely not accidental. It was anticipated by rational analysts that opening Mexico to a flood of highly-subsidized US agribusiness exports would sooner or later undermine Mexican farming, and that Mexican businesses would not be able to withstand competition from huge state-supported corporations that must be allowed to operate freely in Mexico under the treaty. One likely consequence would be flight to the United States, joined by those fleeing the countries of Central America, ravaged by Reaganite terror. Militarization of the border was a natural remedy.”

    Indeed, what followed the implementation of Operation Gatekeeper was one of the most pivotal points in the militarization of the United States’ southern border. The underlying strategy of the measure — “control through deterrence” — led to the construction of fences, a doubling of the budget for border law enforcement, and the deployment of high-tech deterrents such as night vision scopes and seismic sensors. Such measures were focused primarily along the San Diego-Tijuana border — the busiest land crossing in the world prior to the launch of Operation Gatekeeper.

    Instead of decreasing the number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States, the measure pushed those intent on migrating to seek alternative routes through treacherous terrain. Bill Ong Hing, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco, wrote in 2015: “The number of entries and apprehensions did not decrease, and the number of deaths due to dehydration and sunstroke in the summer or freezing in the winter surged dramatically.”

    Hing noted that fewer than 30 people died along the border in 1994. That number jumped to 263 by 1998 and reached even greater heights by 2005, with 492 deaths recorded for that year. Overall, 5,600 people are estimated to have died while attempting to cross the border since Operation Gatekeeper launched over 20 years ago.


    Repeating the Failures of the Past: The Secure Fence Act of 2006

    Despite millions spent on “securing” the border under Operation Gatekeeper, it ultimately proved remarkably ineffective at halting the influx of undocumented immigration into the United States. Migrant resourcefulness has been a major factor, with everything from ladders and tunnels to drones and catapults being used to launch illicit substances and people over the border. However, according to the DEA, “the bulk” of drug-cartel shipments pass through the border via legitimate entry points.

    In addition, Operation Gatekeeper was accused of being a massive fraud. Two years after the measure was enacted, the congressional testimony of border patrol agents along with the testimony of officials of the union representing border patrol agents alleged that supervisors had falsified arrest reports in order to make the program look like a success. Specifically, these supervisors stood accused forcing border patrol agents to under-report the number of undocumented immigrants apprehended to create the appearance that Operation Gatekeeper had lessened the number of illegal border crossings.

    However, the clear proof of the ineffectiveness of border militarization realized by Operation Gatekeeper did little to deter future bipartisan efforts to build more physical barriers and increase the use of deterrents along the border. In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed with broad bipartisan support. The bill set to further extend the border militarization first initiated by Operation Gatekeeper by authorizing the construction of additional fencing as well as the expansion of advanced technology to police the border, including drones, cameras, and satellites.

    Many key Democrats in the Senate — including several who now publicly oppose Trump’s efforts — voted in favor of the measure, including Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. On the floor of the Senate prior to voting, then-Sen. Obama remarked, “The bill before us will certainly do some good.” He added that the act, if passed, would provide “better fences and better security along our borders” and help to “stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

    The resulting fence cost more than $15 million per mile in some places, at a total cost of around $6 billion just for the fence’s construction. When accounting for fence maintenance, the total cost balloons to $50 billion over a 25-year period.

    Ironically, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was cited in the first paragraph of Trump’s recent executive order as rationale for his executive authority to order the wall’s construction. Essentially, Clinton, Obama, and other key Democrats enabled Trump’s wall they know oppose to become reality.


    Evaluating the validity of current border control efforts

    The United States’ political efforts and subsequent failures to secure the southern border by militaristic means begs the question: Can the southern border ever actually be “secured” in the conventional sense? In his 2002 book “Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the ‘Illegal Alien’ and the Remaking of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary,” Joseph Nevins argues that any law-enforcement-based approach regarding undocumented immigration along the southern border is doomed to fail. To support his theory, he cites the strength of U.S.-Mexico ties, the resourcefulness and creativity of migrants, and American resistance to new policing measures.

    Many residents, local police, and border patrol agents working and living along the U.S.-Mexico border agree with Nevins’ assessment that the border wall is destined to fail. Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio told Vice News that the wall is “a waste of money, period. […] It’s not going to work. I don’t care what [Trump] is saying.” Patricia Taylor, whose property is criss-crossed by the existing border fence, also told Vice that if “Trump is talking about building a bigger wall […] Then we’re going to have bigger ladders,” referring to common accounts of undocumented immigrants scaling the fences already in place regardless of its height or width.

    In addition, others point to geopolitics and historical factors as major contributors to the southern border’s porous nature, noting that it is more of a cultural zone than a line that can be demarcated by a fence. Indeed, what is now the southern border resides upon land taken entirely from Mexico. Since the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, large swaths of what is now the American Southwest have been defined by the rich, long-standing interchange of people and goods, as the lands seized by the United States after the war left nearly 75,000 Mexicans living in the newly-conquered territory.

    This area, as journalist Oliver Ortega noted on Feb. 17, has long been defined by a thriving transborder culture that cannot be easily divided by a physical barrier.

    Underlying the evidence that the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border is both ineffective and costly is the fact that it is largely used a symbolic tactic on the part of the U.S. political establishment — part of a ploy to take responsibility for the economic havoc wrought by NAFTA and other policies by criminalizing those most adversely affected. As philosopher Costica Bradatan noted in a 2011 piece for The New York Times, “What a wall satisfies is not so much a material need as a mental one. Walls protect people not from barbarians, but from anxieties and fears which can often be more terrible than the worst vandals.”

    Douglas Massey, a professor of Sociology at Princeton University, has made similar observations, writing in 2013:

    “The Mexico-US border has become an outsized symbolic barrier separating Americans from all manners of external threats. Indeed, calling for more border enforcement has become the principal trope deployed by politicians to reassure nervous white citizens whenever a new threat appears in the media.”

    Indeed, this has been a common, recurring theme in right-wing American politics for some time. In the 1980s, amid a push for a $100 million aid package for the guerrillas fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan warned Americans that “terrorists and subversives [are] just two days driving time from Harlingen, Texas” and that communist agents were eager “to feed on the anger and frustration of recent Central and South American immigrants who will not realize their own version of the American dream.”

    More recently, Republican candidates in the 2014 gubernatorial and congressional elections espoused much of the same. That year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry told the public that “individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be” using the porous U.S.-Mexico border to their advantage. “I think it’s a very real possibility that they may have already used [the border for entry],” Perry added. In October of that year, Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis stated that his opponent, Sen. Kay Hagan, “has failed the people of North Carolina and the nation by not securing our border.”

    He continued: “Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve got an Ebola outbreak, we have bad actors that can come across the border. We need to seal the border and secure it.” Tillis went on to win the Senate seat.

    As Massey asks, how many more people have to die and how much more money must be wasted before the political theater of border enforcement ends its run on the national stage?

    Be Sociable, Share!


      Print This Story Print This Story
      You Might Also Like  
      This entry was posted in Front Page: Inside Stories, Front Page: National, Inside Stories, Investigations, National, Top Stories and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
      • Pingback: #NoWar Articles – All About Being Human (award-free zone)()

      • James Wherry

        “Top Democrats Voted For The Border Wall Trump Is Building”

        Read more:

        “President Donald Trump will be able to order the construction of a wall on the Mexico border Wednesday with the stroke of a pen, because of a 2006 law passed with the help of Democrats including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

        “The 2006 law authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, as well as additional lights, cameras and sensors to enhance security. Although former President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, the Democrat-controlled Congress that took over a few months later ensured it would never be completed by means of an amendment to a 2008 spending bill.

        “The amendment removed an explicit requirement the wall be made of double-layer fencing, and gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to put in place less effective barriers, such as simple vehicle barriers that do not keep pedestrians out. As a result, Democrats were able to avoid a politically unpopular vote against the wall, and then turn around and quietly gut its construction. But Trump and Republicans in the new Congress now plan to use that law to ensure a proper wall is constructed.

        “Since the law was never actually repealed, the federal government is still authorized to build a substantial wall on the southern border. Congress doesn’t have to pass a new law to begin construction, and can instead package the funds necessary into a massive spending bill Democrats would have a politically hard time opposing. Trump may get a head start on the process by diverting other funds congressional leaders have indicated are available for the project, ensuring a snafu over the spending bill doesn’t hinder prompt construction of the wall.”

        “If Trump and Republicans follow through, a number of top Democrats will find they inadvertently handed Trump the border wall they now oppose. Their only option to block the construction would be to shut down the government over the matter by blocking the spending bill, a strategy they have consistently mocked and derided Republicans for using in the past.

        “In addition to then Sens. Obama, Biden and Clinton, 64 House Democrats and 23 Senate Democrats voted for the wall in 2006. Many of them are still in Congress, including newly-established Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

        “Other Democrats in the Senate who voted for the wall in 2006 are Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH — then in the House), Tom Carper (DE), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Ron Wyden (OR).

        “There are also a number of Democrat representatives still in the House who voted for the bill: Sanford Bishop (GA), Michael Capuano (MA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Peter DeFazio (OR), Steve Israel (NY), Ron Kind (WI), Daniel Lipinski (IL), Stephen Lynch (MA), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ), Collin Peterson (MN), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Tim Ryan (OH), and Adam Smith (WA).

        “Former Democrat Rep. Barney Frank and now-disgraced former Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner also voted for the bill.”

        Read more:

        • tapatio

          As always the “gay” predator and Zionist/predatory capitalism shill, James Wherry has ONLY Zionist propaganda and alt-right trash “journalism” to support his bullsh!t.

          The Great Right Hype
          Tucker Carlson and his Daily Caller

          Controversial Daily Caller Editor Admitted to Posing As Radical Animal Rights Activist
          David Martosko said in a sworn deposition that when he worked for a corporate-funded PR shop—before he was a journalist—he used fake online personas to obtain information on activists.

          • James Wherry

            Oh? Is there something inaccurate about the article I posted? Did those Democrats vote for the very wall they now fret about, or did they not? Your efforts at personal insult and personal attacks are of no value, when they attack an issue that you USED TO CLAIM you believed in – that the Democratic Party were sell outs. Your name calling is as childish as usual.

            • tapatio

              Half-truths, extreme fascist spin, questionable information and having to read something originating from predatory animals, interested only in their own benefit…………..gutter sweepings, like yourself.

        • James Wherry
      • tapatio
      • James Wherry

        Gee. Might it have had something to do with the civilians and Soldiers murdered by Pancho Villa in 1916 in Columbus, New Mexico????

        Make America SAFE again.

        • tapatio



          • James Wherry

            Sorry, Li’l Hitler: the Tejanos led an uprising against a brutal dictator and defeated Santa Ana. The Texans then gave back 2/3’s of the country to the Mexicans. No Americans involved.

            • tapatio

              Wherry, the US government placed ads in newspapers encouraging Americans to move to Tex-A$$ and claim land. Texas was PART OF MEXICO.

              Ramón Músquiz was governor of Coahuila and Texas at the time the US immigrants began to attack Mexican towns and farms. Wiki, along with many other US sources, CLEARLY state that Musquiz very actively promoted peace and friendship between Mexicans and Americans and assimilation of the US immigrants..

              So, as always, the pseudo-gay predator pig IS A LIAR

              • James Wherry

                And those that moved to Texas became Mexican citizens – and over-threw the dictator, Santa Ana.

                • tapatio


                  • James Wherry

                    Hey, you’ve got YOUR heroes – ISIL and al-Quaeda – and I’ve got mine – the Tejanos.

        • James Wherry
        • tapatio



          • James Wherry

            Wow, Li’l SPAMMER BOY: the same lies you cut-and-pasted-and-lied, below.

            As to the Jews being “Chosen” by God, well, that’s what the Islamic Prophet Muhammad said. ” O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others nations (for My Message).” [Qur’an, sura 2:122] Makes sense, since virtually ALL of the Islamic prophets – were Jews, especially DAVID who you HATE. So, what Muhammad a “Zionist shill????”

            • tapatio



              • James Wherry

                Glad you’re into your Koran: the fact that God CHOSE Israel to be his people is so obviously known that even Muhammad admitted it.

                O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. [Qur’an, sura 2:40]

                Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations (for My Message). [Qur’an, sura 2:47]

                And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): “Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah.” [Qur’an, sura 2:63]

                “We [Allah] made a covenant with you [Children of Israel] and raised the Mount [Sinai] above you, saying: ‘Grasp fervently [the Torah] what We [Allah] have given you, and bear in minds its precepts, that you may guard yourselves against evil'”. [Qur’an, sura 2:65]

                And remember We [Allah] made a covenant with the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now). [Qur’an, sura 2:83]

                After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.[Qur’an, sura 2:85]

                We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! [Qur’an, sura 2:87]

                Those to whom We [Allah] have sent the Book [Torah] study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: [Qur’an, sura 2:121]

                O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others nations (for My Message).[Qur’an, sura 2:122]

                “When God made a covenant with those [the Children of Israel] to whom the Scriptures were given He said: ‘Proclaim these to mankind and do not suppress them'”. [Qur’an, sura 3:187, “The ‘Imrans”]

                “God made a covenant with the Israelites and raised among them twelve chieftains [the princes of the twelve tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel]”. [Qur’an, sura 5:12, “The Table”]

                “Bear in mind the words of Moses to his people [the Children of Israel]. He said: ‘Remember, my people, the favour which God has bestowed upon you. He [Allah] has raised up prophets among you, made you kings, and given you that [the Torah and the Land of Israel] which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my people, the holy land [of Israel] which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and thus lose all'”. [Qur’an, sura 5:20, “The Table”]

                “We [Allah] made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them”. [Qur’an, sura 5:70, “The Table”]

                “We [Allah] divided them [the Children of Israel] into twelve tribes, each a whole community”. [Qur’an, sura 7:159, “The Heights”]

                “We [Allah] sent forth Moses with Our signs, saying: ‘Lead your people [the Children of Israel] out of the darkness into the light, and remind them of God’s favours’. Surely in this there are signs for every steadfast, thankful man. Moses said to his people [the Children of Israel]: ‘Remember God’s goodness to you when He delivered you from Pharoah’s nation, who had oppressed you cruelly, slaughtering your sons and sparing only your daughters. Surely that was a grevious trial by your Lord. For He had declared: ‘If you give thanks, I will bestow abundance upon you: but if you deny My favours, My punishment is terrible indeed'”. [Qur’an, sura 14:6-7, “Abraham”]

                “But it was Our [Allah’s] will to favour those [the Children of Israel] who were oppressed in the land [of Egypt] and to make them leaders among men, to bestow on them a noble heritage and to give them power in the land [of Egypt]; and to inflict on Pharoah, Haman and their warriors the very scourge they [the Egyptians] dreaded”.[Qur’an, sura 28:3, “The Story”]

                “We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to Moses (never doubt that you will meet him) and made it a guide for the Israelites. And when they grew steadfast and firmly believed in Our revelations, We appointed leaders from among them who gave guidance at Our bidding. On the Day of Resurrection your Lord will resolve their differences for them”. [Qur’an, sura 32:22, “Adoration”]

                “We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to the Israelites and bestowed on them wisdom and prophethood. We provided them with wholesome things and exalted them above the nations”.[Qur’an, sura 45:17, “Kneeling”]

                “We sent forth Noah and Abraham and bestowed on their offspring [the Children of Israel] prophethood and the Scriptures [Torah]”. [Qur’an, sura 57:26, “Iron”]

      • James Wherry

        Gee, that’s funny: Mexico has a wall on ITS Southern border.

        And why wouldn’t we want a wall? I mean, MintPressNews doesn’t want anyone to break the law by “accident” and come into our nation without the consent of the governed, i.e. U.S. citizens, riiiigggghhhhttt??????????????