Perhaps the two biggest concerns over the years at our borders have been illegal immigration and drug trafficking into the United States. With migrants being unwittingly snared by the dangerous game of smuggling drugs, the problem demands urgent attention and decisive action.

Increased troops and greater surveillance have undoubtedly been the reason for higher success in preventing illegal immigration but it has not taken into account the fate of those who are sent back from our doors.

Intent on fleeing toward a better future, migrants are now trying more dangerous and more desperate measures to get into the United States and many have to pay with their life. But with most Central American economies in a shambles, and volatility rife in Mexico, they seem to have no other option.

George Grayson, professor at William and Mary points to the problems. “In El Salvador the government encourages its citizens to head to the United States so that they send money back home,” he said. “It’s a well-known secret.”

But now with drug cartel members and corrupt police in Mexico preying on these migrants, the human disaster is hard to ignore. Some groups are advocating for alternative solutions, having seen traditional methods fail.

One school of thought that has found some level of acceptance is considering the legalization of drugs. A border patrol agent was fired for airing similar views. But more and more people are willing the government to think about it.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is one such group that is making a case for such a move. They say, “Legalized regulation will effectively cripple the violent cartels and street dealers who control the current illegal market.”

But there really is no evidence to suggest that it would be a cure for all that ails our society. And it is definitely hard to believe that Mexico can wish away its cartel problems with such a move. Looking at the pace at which various cartels have been diversifying into different lines of criminal activity, the solution must lie elsewhere.

It is necessary for America to consider ways to address the economic issues that plague the other countries around us. Not one burdened by the need to help private American corporations get a large footprint in these countries but a move that can address problems starting from the grassroots.

Until then, America’s borders will have to be protected the same way high-security prisons are protected in other parts of the world.

But it is the guns walking out of America and into Mexico that has the pushed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on the back foot—especially with new reports linking American guns, part of a contentious ATF program, to the attack on a Mexican government helicopter.

ATF launched a program to track drug cartels by allowing guns and ammunition to walk across the border, which would allow for bureau officials to track its movements.

But what was supposed to be a clandestine operation became a major headache for the bureau after an agent, who was in on the plan objected to the method employed and leaked the story to the media.

According to several reports based on ATF documents, some of the guns that have been sold from within the United States, have been found at crime sites on the Mexican site of the border.  The arms have also been linked to the weapons used to kill an American border patrol agent inside Mexico last December.

The operation is being probed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which includes Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Grassley is focusing on the misleading statements that have been given to him by the Department of Justice. Grassley said, “Praise the lord for whistleblowers in this government because we don’t where the skeletons are buried.”

According to the LA Times, the ATF lost track of hundreds of guns it had let go into the hands of dealers in the hopes of tracing it to the drug cartels.

Sylvia Longmire, a former special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, says this was supposed to be like any other sting operation used by law-enforcement agencies for decades.  “The difference is, most sting operations involve illegal drugs,” Longmire says.

Typically an officer sells illegal drugs to a buyer and then tracks the movement of the drug to the eventual buyer. The same plans were laid out for the guns. But Longmire points out a major difference that was highlighted by one of her followers on Twitter.

“With illegal drugs, the person using them is doing so voluntarily,” she says. “With guns, the victim of their misuse doesn’t want to die and is killed involuntarily.”

While the tracking of some guns did lead to arrests, it is not known how many were used in crimes.

“Maybe they thought that a classic sting operation was the only way to catch the big fish,” Longmire says. “Tragically, it didn’t work out that way.”

Joe Arpaio (by Gage Skidmore )

In 2008 The New York Times called him the worst sheriff in the country. Others call him the toughest sheriff. When you are talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, you are always dealing in extremes.

Over the years Arpaio has courted controversy on many counts — from accusations of providing unconstitutional jail conditions to financial irregularities and even abuse of power. On Thursday he settled a lawsuit with the federal government. Charges of civil rights violations have been a constant companion through his near 20-year reign as sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona.

But undeterred by critics, Arpaio launched Operation Desert Sky at the start of April —another tool to crack down on illegal immigration.

Desert Sky involved a private air force that conducted aerial surveillance over Maricopa County to check illegal immigration and combat drug trafficking.

The air marshals were all members of civil society who volunteered to help Arpaio in his mission. They were part of the Sheriff’s posse that has seen great expansion under Arpaio and now has 3000 volunteers who perform duties for the Sheriff’s office.

Arpaio refutes any charge of having gone one step too far with his latest move. “I have crossed no line,” he says, with authority and anger.

And nor does he accept any suggestion that it was just another publicity stunt.

“We have arrested over 2500 smugglers and are responsible for the immobilization of 45,000 illegal aliens,” he says. “If you want to call that publicity, okay, I think it’s pretty good publicity.”

There is no doubting the fact that the county faces its fair share of problems. Sylvia Longmire can second that. She worked for eight years as a Special Agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and has co-authored a book on the Mexican drug cartels.

She says, “Many parts of Arizona are being destroyed by the effects of thousands of drug smugglers and illegal immigrants who trek across private and public land with little regard for leaving it in the shape in which they found it.”

Sheriffs feel the responsibility to take matter into their own hands because of lack of federal support Longmire says.

It’s a belief that certainly resonates with Arpaio.

“The problem with the new administration,” he says, “is they don’t seem to want to accept the cooperation and the results of this sheriff because of political reasons.

“But the feds need all the help they can get.”

Longmire points out other Sheriffs like Paul Babeu (Pinal, AZ) and Larry Dever (Cochise, AZ) are no different when it comes to taking extreme measures.

“Having extended camera time is to their benefit,” she says. “All three sheriffs are politically very visible, and have aspirations to higher office.”

Arpaio, who will turn 80 next year, doesn’t shy away from that fact. “There is a possibility I will run for U.S. senate,” he says. “If not I will definitely run for my sixth term as Sheriff. I don’t step down, I keep fighting these critics and keep doing my job.”

Arpaio promises to continue his aggressive methods to eliminate illegal immigration. “Desert Sky ]was] just a major thrust,” he says, “but everyday we are out there raiding private businesses and arresting illegal immigrants.”

There is no lack of conviction in his tone and certainly no middle path that he will toe.

With no Republican candidate emerging as a strong contender, Obama may well have to guard himself from the critics on his side of the party divide. Prominent among them is Illinois congressman Luis Gutierrez.

Gutierrez denounced the President’s immigration stand in Miami last week, which was part of a multi-city tour to attract attention to those families whose members are being deported.

Despite a sense of relief in immigrant communities when Obama was elected president, numbers negate that sense of optimism. Under Obama’s administration, the country has seen the maximum number of deportations ever.

In his first year as president, nearly 400,000 people were deported, a figure higher than even those achieved by the Bush administration.

While the current administration cut back on in-your-face enforcement measures such as on-site roundups which were popular under the previous president, there has been no letup on other fronts. Activists allege many non-criminal illegal immigrants are being deported by Obama.

Earlier this year the Illinois Council of Immigrant and Refugee Rights released a report that showed a majority of people being rounded up by the Secure Communities Act were non-criminals.

Obama finds himself in a unique position, with people on both sides of the immigration debate miffed with the president.

Those against immigration accuse him of not having done enough while pro-immigration activists feel a sense of betrayal as they look at government numbers.

Gutierrez believes the president has been “inconsistent” on the issue.Recently Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano offered fodder for attack to her detractors as she said that students who met the criteria in the DREAM Act, will not be a “priority” for her department even though the legislation failed last year.

The problem with someone like Napolitano offering such a statement is it sends out a terribly mixed signal and that is why there is an urgent need for the Obama administration to crystallize its immigration policy before it becomes an issue of great embarrassment come 2012.

James Foley speaking at Medill

An emotional James Foley, a 2008 Medill journalism  graduate, recounted his 44-day ordeal in prison cells in Libya as a packed hall listened intently in Evanston on Thursday. His talk was part of the Gertrude and G.D. Crain Jr. lecture series. Tim McNulty, co-director of the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative, moderated the discussion.

Speaking just two weeks after his release, a contemplative Foley said: “Our story is a very cautionary tale.  We made a lot of mistakes.”

The 37-year-old freelancer was reporting from Libya for Boston-based Global Post as rebel groups and the Libyan armed forces were engaged in an intense battle for control of key cities. Four journalists, including Foley, were shot at by Gaddafi’s troops in the frontline town of Brega. While three of them were taken captive, the fourth — South African photographer Anton Hammerl — is believed to have been killed in the gunfire.

Foley was released along with the two others on May 18 after several groups around the world pressured Libyan authorities into releasing the detained journalists. The Gaddafi government, however, refused to confirm Hammerl’s death nor has it made any comment about his whereabouts.  

Reflecting on the lessons learned, Foley said: “Conflict zones can be covered safely. This can be done but you have to be very careful.”

“It’s not worth losing your life,” he said. “Not worth seeing your mother, father, brother or sister bawling.”

Foley, who was a teacher before he made the switch to journalism, said he was drawn into conflict reporting because of his brother,who works in the Air Force.

“You want to be a writer, you want to see the world,” he said. “Fiction didn’t work out too well, so [I told myself] let’s try the real thing.” Foley embedded with American troops both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think it is very insightful to see where our billions of dollars are going,” he said. The embed process is an American government initiative that offers a chance for journalists to be placed with troops to be able to report better on conflicts.

But there is also a flip side. “You wonder about your objectivity sometimes,” he said.  “There is always a screen separating you from the population.”

To avoid that screen, Foley said he decided not to cover the Libyan revolution from Tripoli, the capital city and government center. Instead he chose to mingle with the rebel groups as they advanced against the government forces 500 miles southeast of Tripoli.

He was shooting and editing video from the battlefront besides writing for Global Post. That’s a compulsion in today’s journalism market, Foley said. “You have got to use every multimedia platform and use it well.”

Foley was part of Medill’s Washington, D.C. program where he took the covering conflicts class, which even included a lesson on how to deal with kidnapping.  He said the critical aspect to covering conflicts is to be mentally strong.

“There is a lot of loneliness and isolation,” Foley said. “You need to talk to a lot of people about the realities of this kind of stuff.”

Another crucial aspect is to be able to learn to speak the local language. “You can’t understand the conflict unless you understand the people involved in the conflict,” he said.

Despite the time spent in Libyan prisons Foley won’t shy away from reporting on conflicts.

“I told my editor I know this is crazy but I want to go back to Libya,” he said. “But emotionally I am nowhere near ready.”

The loss of a fellow journalist has made the recovery process a lot more difficult for him. “Every day I have to deal with the fact that Anton is not going to see his three kids anymore,” he said.

Drug cartels have spawned a well-structured crime syndicate in Mexico, fuelled by the enormous demand for narcotics from America. The Mexican government is struggling to dent the rapidly growing reach of the cartels.

George Grayson, an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute says there is no magical solution to this complicated problem. “We don’t have any silver bullets,” he says. “I only see this problem getting worse.”

The enormous fangs of the Zetas gang in particular are playing a major role in Mexico hurtling toward instability.

The group initially made up of Mexican military deserters offered their services as bodyguards for the powerful Gulf cartel. But over time, they have grown out independently and established a fierce reputation.

“The Zetas have obviously assumed the role of being the No. 1,” said Ralph Reyes, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s chief for Mexico and Central America. This assessment of his was made 18 months back and since then the gang has only grown more powerful.

Zetas are suspected of being responsible for killing and beheading 27 migrant farmers in the Peten region of Guatemala earlier this month. The killers then proceeded to writing warning messages on the wall from the pool of blood of their victims.

Grayson says, “They want to burnish their reputation as the most savage group.”

But the most pressing threat for America is the way they have been preying on Central American migrants making the trek across Mexico to get to the United States. They have devised a simple three-point plan to target the migrants they catch along the way, say Grayson.

The first option is to pseudo-recruit the migrants. Increasingly, the gang is picking on men trying to cross over into America as the couriers for their drug packets. But it doesn’t end there. They make sure to track down the families of their victims and use them as guarantees to ensure the drug is delivered to the intended destination.

The second option, and indicative of their diversification into new lines of criminal activities, is to simply kidnap the migrants and demand money, estimated to be anywhere between $1,000-5,000, to release them.

The last and most chilling is to kill their victims, a method they have not been shy of implementing in the recent past.

But they have taken care to avoid killing Americans. Grayson insists it is a practical decision and not based out of any benevolence. “They don’t want to see American boots in Mexico,” he says.

If that is the intention then it has worked.

While America continues to be a major source of guns for most of the gangs and its biggest market for narcotics trafficking, sending in American troops to root out the menace has not been considered a viable proposition yet.

“I don’t see what we can do besides diminishing the demand for drugs,” Grayson says. “The real solution lies with Mexico.”

Many Central American Immigrants crossing over from Guatemala rely on freight trains to make their way toward the US (Image courtesy: Irineo Mujica)

Irineo Mujica is furious, bitter and fiercely protective of the residents at his shelter.

Mujica is a photojournalist who works with the Hermanos en el Camino, a pit stop for immigrants in the town of Ixtepec in Southern Mexico, keeping constant vigil to protect the men and women in the shelter.

Rapidly expanding drug cartels, corrupt police and angry locals have made the journey through Mexico a frightening experience for immigrants from Central America headed toward the US.

“They come into the shelter with cuts and injuries because they are beaten by those involved in organized crime,” Mujica says over the phone from Ixtepec. What makes matters worse is the complicity of the police. “There is so much corruption that instead of sending them back, the Mexican police turn them over to kidnappers,” he adds.

Despite Mexico’s criticism of U.S. immigration policy, the fate of immigrants from neighboring countries like Guatemala and El Salvador negotiating the dangerous Mexican terrain has put the spotlight on that country’s handling of immigrants.

In August, a mass grave with more than 70 bodies believed to be of Central American immigrants was discovered just south of the Texas border. In the same year, during a six-month span between April and September, more than 11,000 immigrants were kidnapped, according to Mexico’s human rights commission.

To avoid a similar fate, 513 migrants, crammed in two trucks, tried to make it across the border from Guatemala, through Mexico and to America last week. But they were apprehended by officials in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. Numbers published by the government say more than 25,000 immigrants were intercepted by Mexican forces in 2010.

“It is not Mexico’s job to stop people from going to America,” Mujica says. “It is not our responsibility to do the dirty work for the United States.

“Should we keep giving the government the power to handle the migrants when they have completely proven that they cannot,” he says.

It’s not just the police and drug gangs that pose risks to the immigrants. Some Mexican locals are annoyed with immigrants who use Mexico to go toward America. In 2008, the shelter house in Ixtepec was attacked by a group of more than 50 local residents who suspected some of the immigrants in the shelter of being involved in neighborhood crimes.

“Our job is to make sure they are treated as human beings.” Mujica says. “You have not seen them with blood coming out of their eyes. It is not easy to understand from another country.”

Officials at the shelter say nearly 3000 immigrants take refuge at the shelter every month. They live there for a few days—eat, shower and rest—before continuing their trip toward America.

“This is a gamble with your life,” Mujica says. “Probably one of the most dangerous routes you will ever encounter.”

Mujica says there are immigrants who have been seen at the shelter more than once. “Some people will try again and again till they succeed,” he adds. “Not trying is not an option.”

One of them making another attempt is Rafael Martinez from El Salvador. He recalls his first trip to America in 1980.

CNN had just launched, the Cold War had intensified and the fate of the 52 U.S. citizens in the Iranian hostage crisis hung in balance. When everyone’s attention was focused elsewhere, Martinez says he jumped the Mexican-American border with his family and started a new life in San Fernando, California.

But a couple of run-ins with the law, the last of which was a traffic violation, led to Martinez being deported in 2001. He made another attempt to return to America from El Salvador the next year—this time around, he didn’t get far.

“I got shot in the back,” he says, describing the time when he got caught in crossfire in Southern Mexico. He was admitted into a local hospital and soon after sent back to El Salvador.

After nine years he is making another attempt to reunite with his family. His seven children, he says, were born in America and are still living here. The most important reason that kept him from trying to get back, he says, was the fear of getting shot again.

The fear is still there. “There are people kidnapping and killing on the way,” he says, referring to the dual risk from criminal syndicates and the corrupt police.

The activists at the shelter are trying to help him get an official permit to get back to his family in California. Martinez doesn’t know how far he will get but he promises not to stall his efforts midway.

“I have been away from my kids for 11 years now,” he says. “If I die trying to see them again, it doesn’t matter to me anymore.”

Corruption in the border patrol forces is increasingly becoming a major worry for law enforcement officials

A spate of recent incidents has raised the uncomfortable question of corruption at the borders once again. With no signs of the Mexican drug cartels weakening, and despite surveillance at the borders being at its highest level, nearly 100 officers have been found guilty in the last five years.

Tackling drug trafficking along with foiling illegal immigration are two of the major tasks of the border patrol officers.

The real worry, according to experts, is the infiltration in law enforcement does not even have to be widespread to be successful. “All it takes is one per shift at key plazas along the border,” says Bill Conroy, an investigative journalist who has spent a number of years covering the drugs wars along the Southern border and writes for Narcosphere.

The El Paso Bridge, Conroy says, is one such place where the presence of one corrupt official could result in tons of dope being smuggled in. Most officers who do get drawn to the other side feel they are underpaid or under-appreciated for their work according to Conroy.

And the worrying part is that smugglers don’t even have to worry about how long some of the officers stick with them. “Corrupted law enforcers are as replaceable as heroin addicts should an operation be compromised,” Conroy says.

A U.S. Senate report revealed that of those hired in the last five years, less than 15 percent have undergone a polygraph test. President Obama recently signed a bill requiring all border patrol job applicants to undergo polygraph tests.

But this isn’t a new problem. As far back as the early ‘90s, Conroy had written several investigative stories examining the trend at the border.

The fear is that greater success in interception of drug shipments means the cartels will rely more on trying to corrupt officials manning the border posts.

Sylvia Longmire, who has authored a book on Mexican drug cartels says, “It might be an issue to worry about more than we already worry about corruption within any law enforcement agency.

“The level of corruption among these agents is still pretty low,” she says, “but I am concerned that the number of cases is rising every year.”

Longmire says that the broader picture paints a frightening reality. “Our demand for illegal drugs, as a nation, fuels the drug war, and that’s not a tolerable situation,” she says.

Conroy says the solution may not necessarily lie in the practices of the border patrol officers. Polygraphing, increased vigilance and the anti-corruption drives are still unlikely to plug all the holes.

“We, as a nation, have chosen to prohibit a product that we as a nation consume in massive quantities,” Conroy says. “It sets up a situation ripe for abuse, corruption and pretense.”

He adds, “It seems to me that you can’t solve that problem without seriously considering alternatives to prohibition.”

It was this issue that was put under the microscope at a panel discussion on Saturday (4/16) exploring privacy and civil liberties in a post-9/11 era. The discussion was part of a series of events put together for “A day with Northwestern,” organized by the Northwestern Alumni Association at the Evanston campus.

Shearer

The event brought together former Department of Homeland security official Paul Rosenzweig and Craig LaMay, associate professor at Medill. The discussion was moderated by Ellen Shearer, co-director of the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative.

The government has implemented several data mining programs since the terror strikes 10 years ago (data mining involves looking for  trends, patterns and correlations in electronic databases) . Recent news reports citing government sources said passenger pre-screening information on US-bound flights had prevented nearly 350 suspected terrorists from coming to America in the last 15 months alone.

Rosenzweig, left, and LaMay

“Data mining is one of the major tools the government has deployed for attempting to detect terrorists,”  said Rosenzweig, currently a Carnegie Fellow with the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative, focusing on data mining.  “The bad thing is that data has to be collected for everybody.”

With the invasion of technology in everyday life, like the mobile phone, credit cards and the internet, almost everyone has a record with a third party. According to Rosenzweig, existing privacy laws allow the government to access any individual information already present with a third party.

“Our privacy laws are out of date,” Rosenzweig said. “They do not match the technological capacity of today.”

It was a sentiment echoed by LaMay, who said, “Concerns of privacy are historically rooted in technological developments.”

LaMay served as a consultant on the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee, which was appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 to examine  the Total Information Awareness program. The TIA program granted wide-reaching powers to the government and was eventually shelved.

While accepting the need for data mining when it comes to national security, LaMay argued there are some key factors to be kept in mind.

A packed room for the discussion.

“Intelligence agencies have justified their powers on the basis of trust,” he said. “When I learned about all the data mining programs that the government operates, it became clear to me trust is not the model to go for.”

Oversight has to play a critical role to monitor government action, he said.

“Whatever surveillance power that the government has, the discussion of that has to be public,” LaMay said. “Non-transparent exercises of government power are not credible.”

“It seems to me the executive [branch] has decided that they are above the law,” LaMay said, referring to the “denial of service” attacks and cutting off the funding channels to WikiLeaks.

He added, “It sends a pretty easy signal to the Chinese and the Iranians as to what is OK in the world of surveillance and wiretap.”

For many of them, these law enforcement officials are more of a threat than a calming influence. Or at least the Department of Homeland Security thinks it is a significant enough problem to put in place a community-pleasing mechanism.
In an ambitious public relations exercise, the Customs and Border Protection field office brought together other major arms of the Department of Homeland Security in Chicago on Monday to kick off an interesting community outreach program.

The idea is to humanize the intimidating border patrol agents often seen only as those checking the luggage and posing aggressive questions—not a very inviting sight for anyone entering the country.

A diplomat from El Salvador, Patricia Maza-Pittsford, pinpoints the reason why the DHS faces an image crisis in the first place: “Because it is an offspring of violence, it has been perceived as unfriendly.”

A packed hall filled with many high ranking officials in the city’s security apparatus and many community leaders heard a series of optimistic remarks, marking a cautious inauguration of the program.

The idea is believed to be an expansion of successful interactions with Chicago Muslim groups that felt threatened by what they considered was post 9/11 racial profiling. As they took their complaints to federal officials, mediators and problem-solvers joined hands to give the community grievances a platform.
The process, though, demands a great deal of sensitivity. As an official from the Hispanic Illinois State Law Enforcement Agency said, “It has taken us 25 years to build a trust with the community. We are taking a chance by passing on some of that trust to DHS.”

DHS will set up teams made up of members from its various wings who will be available for community meetings to help create an atmosphere of understanding and root out the fear about its style of work. These teams will be called the Department of Homeland Security Community Alliance Teams or DCATS as they like to call it.

Really, DCATS?

If it is supposed to be a confidence building measure aimed at dismantling the belief that the DHS is an evil actor surely they could have come up with a less intimidating acronym than DCATS. It reeks of intelligence verbiage and surely doesn’t have a pleasing and inviting ring to it.

Despite the nomenclature fiasco, there is little doubt that this is a positive move that would serve a two-pronged goal of elevating the image of the security agency as well as helping it build a strong network in the community.

But there are plenty of challenges ahead.

Almost as soon as the packed room got ready to hear the various community leaders speak, cries rung out from one corner of the hall: “Deportations destroy families.”

The loud, piercing slogan chanting was quelled soon enough and those responsible were escorted out, but it left an unpleasant vibe in the hall—underscoring the scale of the challenge ahead.