Buzzoni 1

Teresa Buzzoni

HNR 360 Borders Seminar

Lori Brown

Monday, May 17, 2021

Final Paper:

Understanding Legality Regarding Migrants in the United States through political,

representational and legal terminology

 Buzzoni 2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3
Historical Context 5
Presidential Policies, Comparison and Change 6
Visualizing the Processes of Migration 10

a. La bestia (Trains)

b. United States-Mexico Border Wall

c. Detention Centers

d. Immigration Courts vs US Courts of Law

Immigration Courts versus Courts of Law 21

Location, Location, Location 25
Hundred Miles of Illegal 28
Conclusions and Discussion 34
 Buzzoni 3

Introduction

During this course of study, the main research goal was to understand several factors

contributing to the plight of migrants, specifically those looking to enter the United States from

the Mexican border. This research paper will delve into topics including the historical context of

migration within the United States; Presidential continuity and change regarding immigration

policy; Visualization of the border crisis; Impact of location on detention; the Hundred Mile

Zone and the overall question of the legality of illegal migration into the United States.

Understanding the perception and critical narratives of migration in context with the

numbers allows Americans to become better involved in solving some of the American crisis

related to the increased violence and lack of opportunity abroad. Part of the information crisis

depends on the media narratives involving migration, which have become highly polarized and

politicized. Part of this paper will help unpack perception using images sourced from different

news sources to create a composite and realistic image of migrants and what their journeys look

like. Visualizing the different parts of migration, including La Bestia, the border wall, detention

centers and immigration courts will help realize the journey and allow for critical observation of

migration.

When looking at the removal proceedings and legality behind the migrant journey will

look to the future of a new Democratic president. Understanding whether or not the policies can

change with a long term impact, or whether they are at the mercy of the President in office.

These factors, involving the research outlined will develop a critical narrative of the migrant

journey and the legal precedents that are often stacked against illegal aliens.
 Buzzoni 4

Historical Context

Colonialism during the early 1600s gave way to a broad history of great migrations to the

United States. Following the advent of slavery that sparked a triange trade between Africa,

Europe and the Americas, many explorers set out in search of economic advantages in the form

of new lands of opportunity. In the following years, small numbers of immigrants travelled to the

Americas in search of wealth and freedoms. From the 1830s to 50s, British, Irish and Germans

immigrated during the advent of the Industrial Revolution where developing technologies

surrounded migration. During the 1880s, America became known as the “melting pot”, because

of the blending of cultures and populations that began intermingling in the new nation.

At the end of the first world war, Congress developed the National Origins Formula,

which became the first of an American system of immigration quotas from 1921 to 1965, which

gave way to restricting populations on the basis of populations proportionate to the number of

immigrants (National Origins Formula). This resulted in low quotas, or high restrictions to

certain populations looking to enter the Americas. The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as

the Johnson-Reed Act, provided immigration visas to two percent of immigrants of each

nationality (Office of The Historian). It completely excluded immigrants from Asia. A similar

quota, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 worked to the opposite effect, ending Asian

exclusion, and focusing on family reunification. When Operation Wetback occurred, Joseph

Swing, Director of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service coordinated the mass

deportation of thousands of immigrants, sending them to unfamiliar lands outside of the United

States (Office of the Historian).

Following the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, also known as the Immigration and Nationality

Act, the quota system was reestablished. The 1980 law, known as the Immigration Reform and
 Buzzoni 5

Control Act further amended the system, making it illegal to hire illegal immigrants and created

penalties for the companies who did in fact hire them. By the 1990s, the Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigration Responsibility Acts further strengthened legislation that cracked down

on illegal immigrants residing within the United States, and emphasized the power of legal

migration (Office of the Historian). Today, the importance of residency and citizenship papers

remains a highly contested area of policy, with many illegal immigrants living under fear of

expulsion.

Presidential Policies, Comparison and Change

In the past twenty years, the United States has laid witness to two Republican and two

Democratic presidents, in addition to a special case in which a former Vice President has become

the acting President. Comparing the policies and length of impact between each of the Presidents

represents some of the limits to lasting political policy for migrants into the United States. With

constantly changing rules and quotas for legal and illegal immigration, it becomes difficult to

maintain a single policy that is helpful to everyone. What is important to remember, however, is

the context of global politics as an outside stressor to American politics in reference to

immigration. The climate and context often calls upon different challenges for presidents, which

must be identified before laying blanket claims upon a president’s action, regardless of party or

political affiliation.

The Republican party often represents a hard line stance on immigration. For President

George W. Bush, the Guest Worker Program, which developed paths to citizenship for Mexican

laborers developed a level of selectivity regarding who is or is not granted access to the United

States. The immigration quotas were often highly beneficial to America, especially in the case of

the cheap labor that can be secured by selectively allowing in temporary migrants from Central
 Buzzoni 6

America into the United States. George W. Bush also ended the “catch and release” program,

which effectively began migrant detention in its modern form in the United States. Similarly,

when Donald J. Trump became the president in 2017, he developed more legislation to curb

immigration to the United States by slowing legal naturalization and attempting to block the

naturalization of non-citizen U.S. soldiers. His claim to fame, however, was to call for a border

wall that Mexico would be responsible for paying for. This hard line stance on immigration set a

large opportunity for anti-immigration sentiment within the American public to ordain to.

On the other side of the spectrum, Democratic presidents Barack Obama, and his former

Vice President, Joe Biden developed stances on immigration that were extremely friendly to

migrants. Barack Obama developed the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program known as

DACA, which prevented deportation of some individuals with unlawful presence to receive a

two year renewable period of deferred action on deportation as they sought work permits to

remain legally in the United States. Obama, however, was known for record high deportation

levels, which cast shadows on his support for migrants living in the United States. President Joe

Biden has developed a citizenship roadmap that includes ending family separation and works to

address the root causes of immigration as they are seen from outside of the United States.

Looking to end the causes before the impact of illegal immigration is one tactic assumed by the

Biden Administration.

Context is essential to understanding the cause and impact of immigration in the United

States. During the Obama presidency, the administration set a new high for removals of illegal

immigrants living within the United States. Unlike the other presidents, such as Donald J.

Trump, who were seemingly more aggressive in their programs, yet had extremely low levels of

removals per year and overall.

 Buzzoni 7

Source: Alex Nowrasteh

When looking more closely into the specific programs established by each of the

presidents regarding immigration. Like the immigration quotas of the 1940s, the United States

accepts different numbers of immigrants, which can be impacted by the politics and actions

occurring outside of the United States.

Source: Alex Nowrasteh

These, in comparison to the populations accepted during each presidential term represent

different challenges and opportunities for American enterprises to capitalize upon. For Bush, the
 Buzzoni 8

high Mexican immigrant numbers presented opportunities to support American labor. For

Obama, the Central African immigrants were sparked by conflict within the region that made

leaving their home nation one of the only choices for survival. Conflating immigration as a

southern border issue loses the complexity of the nations of origin, and defeats the purpose of the

mutually beneficial relationships formed through migration of any kind.

Causes of migration aside, comparison between the president illuminates many of the

challenges with immigration today. When George W. Bush began migrant detention within the

United States, the lasting legacy was continued by Barack Obama as a way of managing illegal

immigration to the United States. The similarity between the programs represents an example of

how differently the same action can be viewed depending on the political leaning of the

president. In another breath, President Obama had the highest rates of deportation, yet was still

publicly supporting the immigrants working and residing in the United States with programs like

DACA. This represents how both tremendous support and struggle can come from

administrations regardless of political affiliation.

One major administrative difference is the question of naturalization. Specifically

comparing Presidents Trump and Biden, the idea of naturalization was a common subject of

debate. Trump developed a revised naturalization civics exam, which added layers of complexity

to the test by increasing the topics covered, and adding additional questions (“Biden

Administration Scraps Trump’s Revised US Citizenship Test”). In this manner, Trump worked to

slow the naturalization process and decrease the level of citizenship of foreign born individuals.

With this and other ways, President Trump reduced immigration to the United States by 49%,

including his Zero Tolerance Policy, which allowed the Department of Justice to criminally

prosecute illegal border-crossers for the crime of unlawful entry (Anderson). This began the
 Buzzoni 9

family separations for parents and adults accompanying minors after being charged with

unlawful crossing of the border (“Q&A: Trump Administration's ‘Zero Tolderance’ Immigration

Policy”).

All migration depends on the context of the political climate within which the political

systems are operating. In order to establish a baselines, the push and pull of people will

ultimately determine what becomes the fate of the migrants and ultimately the precedent of

migration in the country.

Visualizing the Processes of Migration

Perception remains one of the greatest challenges of the migrant journey. For the public

who vote upon political issues, the crisis remains out of sight and out of mind for most of the

time, despite migrants intermingling in most walks of life around the country. However, walking

through the journey of migrants and their families can never be fully imagined unless

experienced first hand. However, the closest documentation of the journey comes from the

photography and second hand accounts of migration from the mouths of migrants and the

cameras of journalists. In this section, we will explore the trains, border walls, detention centers

and courtrooms that define the journey in the public eye.

TRAINS

Rather than attempting to cross the perilous desert on foot, many migrants attempt to use

the massive freight trains travelling North to enter into the United States. Apart from the

directional challenge of finding and mounting the train that is moving in the correct direction, the

journey by trains demonstrate a perilous attempt at reaching freedom, and exemplifies one of the
 Buzzoni 10

problems with migration as a whole. The people who are riding the trains often are nameless

migrants in charge of themselves and their own destiny only. The hundreds who are killed

attempting to catch the train, or fall from the heights once boarded represent only several of the

anonymous ways in which migrants fall prey to the journey to the United States.

Riding the trains to the North presents new challenges as migrants are forced to cling to

the smooth roofs and surfaces of the trains. With no ability to secure themselves, those who try to

ride the trains have fallen, lost limbs, or died during the perilous nights (Rouhandeh). Those who

fall from the heights of the trains are often picked up by the gang members who travel

throughout Mexico and the central cities looking for targets of their criminal organizations.

While train jumping is not a new phenomenon for Mexicans or migrants from any origin, the

international policies have only seemed to make the rides worse. Josiah Heyman, director of the

Center for Inter-American and Border studies at the University of Texas, El Paso, describes Title

42, a policy introduced by the Trump Administration in March of 2020, which calls for the

"immediate expulsion of single adults and some families—[which] has a perverse effect of

encouraging people to enter, be apprehended, be expelled, and try again until they succeed in

entering. So ironically, it is increasing this sort of thing” (Rouhandeh). When introducing this

legislation to the public, Trump dubbed the policy a protection against the “serious danger to the

introduction of such disease into the United States”, which directly targeted migrants and their

entry (Newsweek). And with rhetoric such as a narrative of national safety, the ride on La Bestia

and the other trains became even more dangerous for migrants hoping to enter the United States.

BORDER WALL
 Buzzoni 11

The border spanning the divide between Mexico and the United States represents one of

the largest divides in modern history, geographically and politically. The total border spans 1,

933 miles across Mexico and the southern states. Only 700 of those miles actually have this type

of fencing in place, which motivated Trump’s plans for a large border wall paid for by Mexico.

Fences, however, look extremely different from walls to migrants looking for a hole to slip

through into the United States.

On the coast of San Diego, the divider between Tijuana, Mexico and the United States

only extends briefly into the Pacific Ocean. The image below was taken from May 2017, yet in

the past four years since its capture, the border has seen few changes. The migrants who have

tried to cross around the end of the wall are quickly captured by Border Patrol agents who await

them. However, the end of the border simply goes to represent the subjectivity of the border. In

areas where the wall exists, it represents an obstacle, but the locations where it doesn’t, represent

a boundary, which once crossed creates a brand new series of dangers that act as a deterrent to
 Buzzoni 12

passage into the United States that cannot best the dreams of prosperity in America.

Border Fence separating San Diego from Tijuana Mexico in May 2017. Source: “This is What

the US-Mexico Border Looks Like” (CNN)

Moving East, the wall appears lived in, as it travels through many populated centers where

residents and migrants intermingle. Artwork and public showers can be seen on both sides of the

wall, as populations frequently cross from one side to the other, populating schools and shopping

on either side. Immigration and migration from one side to another are often blurred by the

proximity of life on both sides. Attempts to make the border into a beautiful part of life has

become a standard practice by many living on the edge of the United States. As can be seen,

murals and public utilities built onto the sides provide a human element of life to the seemingly

divisive and obtrusive structure. For those living on the border, it is living just like the people
 Buzzoni 13

who attempt to cross it. Yet, the divide remains a visible representation of the privileges that

divide Mexico and the United States.

Source: “This Is What the US-Mexico Border Looks Like”

Other parts of the wall represent snapshots of history intermingled with the future. Parts

of the fence spanning Jacumba Hot Springs, California was created using “The landing mats are

corrugated metal of, in fact, surplus material from the Vietnam War, which originally were

intended to be used as landing mats for helicopters in Vietnam and was later repurposed as

US-Mexico border fencing. … The landing-mat fencing is shorter in height and you can't see

through it, which causes difficulties for Border Patrol agents because they can't physically see

what's on the other side” (“This Is What the US-Mexico Border Looks Like” ). The historical

intermingling between present crises and the violence of the past creates an eerie history that is
 Buzzoni 14

continuing to be perpetuated by aggressive, anti-foreigner policy by the United States

government.

In other places, the border is highly technologized. Known as the “floating fence”, areas

of the border near the Imperial Sand Dunes by Felicity, California show impenetrable broders.

They demonstrate some of the security advancements that create both the impenetrable aesthetic

of architecture on the United States side. Highly militarized and on the offensive, areas of the

border such as these demonstrate extremely hard line approaches to immigration.

Source: “This Is What the US-Mexico Border Looks Like”

Whereas in other parts of the world, the border is barely symbolic. The following images

represent the Mexican Border town, Matamoros across the border from Brownsville, Texas. With

simply the geographic divider separating the two countries, it represents a location for prosperity

intermingling between the United States and Mexico. The other image can be traced back to a
 Buzzoni 15

remote area of the Sonoran Desert in Arizona. Hundreds of miles of bar fences are actually used

to prevent vehicular crossings into the United states. From Cargo carriers to migrants not on foot,

it represents another component to border security. Migrans, however, are rarely deterred by the

physical border. It demonstrates the clarger concerns faced by the United States and the questions

of what the border intends to keep out.

Source: “This Is What the US-Mexico Border Looks Like”

 Buzzoni 16

Source: “This Is What the US-Mexico Border Looks Like”

DETENTION CENTERS

A highly contested story in the United States is that of the migrant detention center at the

border. Represented in television as jails with reporters and activists alike fighting for migrants

wrapped in foil sheets in highly crowded cells represents only one side of the story. ICE

detention centers at the border involve high populations of migrants being detained in what has

been described as cages and given minimal supplies with which to keep themselves clean and

healthy (López). Many of the migrants have filed suits against the correctional officers citing
 Buzzoni 17

sexual harassment or rape, which often remain uncontested.

Source: López

Other migrants find themselves in seemingly worse situations. Holly Cooper, UC Davis

School of Law, Co-director of the Immigration Law Clinic described some of the differences

between the camp-style detention centers and those that are highly organized, and less visible to

the general public. They represent jails, and are often converted centers of incarceration being

used as migrant detainment centers throughout the United States, not just sitting on the border.

Cooper described her visits to several detention centers for children separated from their parents

in facilities that resemble the following image.

 Buzzoni 18

Source: “Private Inspectors Paint a Rosy Picture of U.S. Immigrant Detention Centers. Audits

Find Otherwise”

Cooper described the chill of the detention facility, not simply the outside, but the deep

set feeling of cold within the facility. The children were issued cotton uniforms, which were of

no protection against the cool cement and steel that built the walls and floors of their cells.

Children were held in stacked cells with no access to natural light. The only white light came

from fluorescent lights hanging throughout the cells, creating gray glows throughout the

building.

Cooper and the lawyers who accompanied her described the banging of the children once

they heard that lawyers had entered the building, as a plea to have their cases heard. The noise

levels in the prison were deafening as a result of the cement structure. With most flooring made

of cement, covered with no carpet, and metal doors locking each cell, the detention center echoed

sounds throughout. She described children who would lay on the ground pounding their feet to

be heard. Throughout the building ran a series of metal pipes, which were used by the children as
 Buzzoni 19

communication devices, despite the apparent language differences of Spanish, native dialects and

Mandarin. Some found that their channels led directly to the interview rooms, and frantically

described their stories between pleas for help to Cooper and her team.

The insides of the cells were uplifted portions for beds with no mattresses. She said that

each of the children was let out of their cells for five hours per day, moving through the central

dining area, public spaces and cells. The definition of “outside” time, according to Cooper, was

to allow the sun to touch the children’s skin, whether through a skylight in the building or a

window. The outside did not mean that the detainees would be allowed to travel out into the

natural environment.

Temperature, noise and space were architectural features of the detainment. The children

described the cotton uniforms that made them cold, but then continued to describe the showers

that were so hot that they would physically burn the children when attempting to clean

themselves. With only a short period of time to clean themselves, they were forced from the

extreme cold to the heat instantaneously. Without privacy to be washed, the children faced other

levels of psychological debasement as they would be publicly visible as they made themselves

vulnerable to become clean.

Paired with the physical tortures, the ideological debasement that was used in the migrant

detention center could be something reminiscent of a science fiction novel. On the walls were

murals painted of horrors of migration, depicting only children the same age as those in

detainment with extreme trauma and disturbing replications of their journeys. Surrounding the

migrant children with such imagery continue to force them to relive the horrors of their journeys,

and continue to wear them down. Coupled with the cold, the children remain constantly on edge,

never having the chance to relax. With the imagery comes food that was described as “serving a
 Buzzoni 20

drunk man’s vomit”. From carrots to bologna, most of the foods that are served to the children

are extremely foreign. The children who come from countries throughout Central America and

beyond have never been exposed to the staples of American food. Some do not even consume

meat, further limiting what they consume in the detainment.

Cooper described the communication between children through the pipes and whenever

possible. However, she continued to explain that nearly forty percent of the children are

monolingual in their indigenous languages other than Spanish. While making communication

difficult, receiving any formal education while in detainment becomes nearly impossible as the

children must surmount the language barrier to connect. All the classes, she reported, were

taught in English. Although these migrants came often in search of American opportunity, the

forced assimilation mirrors that of the boarding schools forced upon native Americans

throughout the 1860s, and the abuse that they continued.

Immigration Courts versus Courts of Law

To better visualize the difference that a physical location can have on one’s court date, the

difference between migrant tent courts and the United State Courts of Law represent a physical

representation of how much the United States is willing to invest into migrant protection. Many

migrants are tried and sentenced with courts set up within migrant camps. They are designed

with plastic or metal benches, and filled with migrants sitting next to one another awaiting

sentencing. The Border Control Agents are often involved in the proceedings, which would not

be held to the same standard as a court that looks like a courtroom.

 Buzzoni 21

Source: Brown

United States Courtrooms are often highly stylized, with American flags, and references

to the founding documents that protect all citizens living in the United States. Regardless of their

location or use, the courtrooms are highly organized with moderators and juries seated

comfortably for their deliberation. When presenting cases before the judges, lawyers often have

the time and space to make reasonable claims as to why migrants should be allowed to stay.

However, when lawyers work out of migrant camps, the conditions within which the legal

proceedings are held, are completely different from those that would be granted to citizens. Even

some of the courts held within rooms of public libraries or spaces do not represent the full

importance of these migrant’s cases.

 Buzzoni 22

Source: Highsmith, C. M., photographer. (2017)

International Precedent

The legal proceedings for migrants in the United States versus the rest of the world

remains stark in contrast. However in a comparison between the neighbors of Mexico and the

United States, understanding the perception of legal protection for migrants demonstrates some

of the abuses that migrants will face upon entry to the United States. To note, the legal statutes

translating into practice can present a gray area, as many of the laws can be selectively upheld in

regard to migrant protection.

In Mexico, the protection of the rights of migrants is said to be equal to that of Mexican

citizens. They describe migrant problems as shared problems with every country alike, meaning

that they are equally as responsible for migrants from other countries as Nacaragua or Costa Rica

would, and in association, the United States. According to the Mexican Law and Policy outlined

by the Library of Congress, Mexican Laws of Migration uphold the following principles

regarding immigration policy:

● “absolute respect for the human rights of migrants, both nationals and foreigners;
 Buzzoni 23

● protection of the rights of foreign migrants in Mexico to the same extent that Mexico

demands protection for the rights of Mexican migrants abroad;

● shared responsibility with the governments of other countries on immigration issues;

● hospitality and solidarity with foreign individuals who need a new place to reside, either

temporarily or permanently, due to extreme circumstances in their countries of origin that

put their lives at risk;

● the facilitation of international mobility of individuals, while protecting security and

order;

● complementarity of labor markets with other countries in the region;

● acknowledgement of the acquired rights of immigrants, where foreigners have earned

rights and obligations due to their family, labor, or business relationships established in

Mexico, even if those foreigners may have lived in Mexico without immigration status,

provided that they have been otherwise law abiding individuals;

● family unity, which is recognized as an element for the integration of a productive social

fabric of Mexico’s immigrant community; and

● social and cultural integration of nationals and foreigners who reside in Mexico, with

respect for the cultures and customs of immigrants, provided they do not contravene

Mexican laws” (“A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States”).

These statues are comprehensive. They outline respect to the circumstances from which migrants

were forced to ove. They also acknowledge the rights to migrants and their families with or

without immigration status. Perhaps most importantly, they recognize the utmost importance of

keeping families together at the border. All of these rights are contingent on the participation and

lawfulness of the migrants, however, represent a framework from which to start.

 Buzzoni 24

In the United States, migrants are entitled to similar rights. International treaties have

made tremendous headway for the upholding of human rights within the countries. According to

human rights advocates, these protections include “equal protection under the law, the right to

due process, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, and the right to fair criminal

proceedings, among many others. Other U.S. laws, such as those governing immigration

proceedings, also grant rights to migrants'' (”Rights of Migrants in the United States”). Other

treaties, such as the Refugee Convention and International Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Racial Discrimination, the migrants are included int he granting of human rights to

every person in the world, regardless of citizenship. In the United States, the Fourteenth

Amendment granted protections for “any person”, not necessarily a “citizen” of the United

States. This allowed “foreign nationals'' with no legal status to have access to the rights extended

through the Fifth Amendment and equal protection clause. With such language, finding the

legality of humane treatment becomes a clearer case.

In both the cases of Mexico and the United States, both legal loopholes and lack of

enforcement present challenges to the protection of migrants. As will be later discussed, both

legal loopholes and lack of enforcement have resulted in gruesome treatment of migrants. In

addition, the lack of illegality for uncomfortable treatment allows many detention centers to

continue causing extreme mistreatment to the migrants without watchdogs to their rights.

Location, Location, Location

When looking to understand the migrant journeys, many children and adults alike are

unwilling to describe the grueling travels and nations traversed to reach the United States. Once

here, the migrants settle into different cities across the country, blending into the homogeneity of

these communities while awaiting their day in court. Many are looking to receive court dates
 Buzzoni 25

from immigration courts to grant them protections while living in the United States. This, of

course, only represents a small population that are not taken into custody, deported immediately,

or unable to survive the journey.

According to the United States Department of Justice, the locations of the offices

associated with the Executive Office for Immigration Review are spread out throughout the

United States. They are used to handle federal proceedings of immigration and the cases of the

migrants living in the United States. Attached is the listing of each of the cities within the United

States and territories, which can be used to find an immigration court nearby. Notice, however,

that only twenty nine of the fifty states are listing courts available to migrants. Not only are there

court access in every state, but many are located extremely far from the centers where migrants

often cluster and settle. In addition to the access to immigration courts, a notable feature of

finding a court date for one’s case to remain in the United States, many of the courtrooms did not

even have long term judges assigned, which means that many of the migrants are at the mercy of

the day during which they are able to have their case reviewed.

Source: “EOIR Immigration Court Listing”

Looking at a case study of New York State as an example of the geographic layout

between detention centers and immigration courts, the levels of geographic disorientation present
 Buzzoni 26

additional challenges to migrants working to become legal. As aforementioned, many of the

migrants fail to receive adequate locations for their court dates, whether being tried in a U.S.

Court of Law, or in a migrant camp. When looking at the following map, the migrant detention

centers are located hours away from the main court sites for immigration cases to be heard.

While many are located by population centers, the lack of access to a court, simply by the length

of time it takes to travel, or the lack of physical access, migrants are already disadvantaged to

their cases being heard. In New York state alone, the sheer lack of understanding between the

courts and the jails represent an infrequency of migrants having their adequate legal proceedings

carried out with due process of the law.

Source: Teresa Buzzoni, using date from “EOIR Immigration Court Listings”

What can be seen from the map of New York state is a problem replicated across the

United States where immigration courts are located broad distances from the detention centers

with victims who need them. From allegations of sexual assault to the basic request for

citizenship following illegal immigration, the cases of migrantsare disconnected from the legal
 Buzzoni 27

systems responsible for seeing justice.

Another aspect of migrant detention is the lack of reform to ICE as a body. Reports of

systematic sexual assault upon detainees has become an unrecognized form of the treatment

faced by migrants in detention. In the Western District of Texas, the U.S. The Attorney's Office

stated that it receives complaints and “takes allegations of misconduct by public officials

extremely seriously” (Kriel). Like Trump, ICE also has a “zero tolerance for any form of sexual

abuse or assault against individuals in the agency’s custody.... When substantiated, appropriate

action is taken” (Kriel). In six years, 14,700 complaints of physical and sexual abuse were filed

against ICE, yet by 2018, only 374 formal cases of sexual assault were recorded (48 of which

were substantiated and 29 pending) (Kriel). What the federal incarceration system demonstrates

in this case is simply the absence of justice for many of these migrants. While awaiting court

dates, the migrants fall victim to abuses that are considered crimes against citizens of the United

States, but for migrants, justice is rarely actualized. The irony of the situation falls where the

United States often promotes narratives of migrants being criminals and violent members of

society, they are in fact falling prey to the even more brutal criminals living right beneath our

noses.

Hundred Miles of Illegal

The 100 Mile Zone represents a challenge for the legal precedents of migration in the

United States. While the media has produced many narratives of immigration at the Southern

barrier, understanding that coasts on all sides of the United States see forms of immigration and

security. The locations situated within the Hundred Mile zone, however, represent the homes of

nearly sixty-six percent of Americans according to the ACLU. This border zone includes many

of the centers of high population in cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston,
 Buzzoni 28

Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York City and Chicago.

Source: “The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone”

However, as more immigrants begin crossing through the 100 mile border zone, the legal

gray areas present areas in which migrants can be seriously harmed and taken advantage of.

Despite calls to reform border authorities, Border Control and the federal regulations give the

U.S. Customs and Border Protection special authority to practice outside of the law.

The Fourth Amendment states “the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers and effects, against the unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (“Fourth

Amendment”). However, at the borders, these constitutional principles do not fully apply. Border

crossings and ports of entry allow federal authorities to conduct “routine searches” without

suspicion of wrongdoing or a warrant. However, the authorities cannot pull over vehicles without

“reasonable suspicion’ of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than

just a ‘hunch’). Similarly Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a

warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an

 Buzzoni 29

immigration violation or crime has likely occurred)” (“The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border

Zone”). Nevertheless, Border Control agents typically find ways to breach these freedoms.

Border Patrol agents “routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the

course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people.

These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of

oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of

CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse” (“The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone”).

Overreaches of power come from poorly trained officers, or those who take advantage of the law

within this zone. Without holding these agents accountable, the border anywhere around the

United States becomes an incredibly dangerous place to be. Nevertheless, the 100-mile border

zone, and any soil located within the United States are legislated and protected by the U.S.

Constitution and the rights that it grants to all persons.

Also to be considered are the increase in agents and growth of Border Control in the

United States. When the regulations of the 100-Mile zone were established, only 1,100 agents

were working to protect the laws and entries. Today, nearly 21,000 border control agents operate

within the United States with the same regulations, which were established in 1953 by the U.S.

Department of Justice without public comment or debate (“The Constitution in the 100-Mile

Border Zone”). Another difference is the infringement on the intellectual properties of the

migrants. The spread of the government intrusion has developed new ways to gain information.

The Customs and Border Patrol Agency “claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches

of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including

international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth

of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal
 Buzzoni 30

officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent

Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.” (“The Constitution in the 100-Mile

Border Zone”). These technologies have spread through automated data base systems, which flag

members crossing the virtual borders. The tracking technologies and information collected

present challenges to the autonomy and individual information. The CBP claims that they have

the authority to conduct searches of travelers’ electronic devices without prior suspicion at ports

of entry and international entrance such as airports, however this demonstrates a massive

infringement on personal rights. The Supreme Court ruled that a “reasonable suspicion” is

necessary to conduct such searches, however. (“The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone”).

This is particularly concerning, because the security technologies, including watch lists,

identification, database systems and tracking that began to be implemented at the border become

increasingly concerning as many are not controlled by the government. The “virtual border

fence” involves drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles which are completely operated by private

corporations at the border zone, which raises concerns of breaches of individual privacy.

When understanding the incidents that lead to reports of misconduct filed against Border

Security, it becomes simple to understand why migrants could be so easily harmed by these

agents. The absolute lack of investment into training for border control agents represents a long

lasting and well-documented track record of poorly trained officers taking advantage of their

powers (whether or not they actually have them according to the law). Incidents began as early

as ten years ago, where reports of a 16-year-old male child was shot in the back ten times

through the border fence, or fast forward to April 2012 when Anastasio Hernandez Rojas was

beaten and tasered to death by members of the Border Patrol (Ortega). It is hard to say how many

more people who live on either side of the border have been murdered or harmed by the Border
 Buzzoni 31

Control agents, since the Customs and Border Protection agency does not train their officers to

use all “less-than-lethal options and doesn’t provide enough training on high-risk situations

dealing with assaults by people driving vehicles or throwing rocks'' (Ortega). When Homeland

Security looked into the deaths and violence involving Customs and Border Protection, or the

Border Control agents, the “Office of Inspector General investigators also said they couldn't

figure out how many allegations of excessive force there have been in recent years, or how many

of those Customs and Border Protection investigated, because the agency doesn't directly track

such allegations or its own investigations into them” (Ortega). On sheer numbers alone, the case

against border patrol agents would be miles long, despite a lack of accountability and black tape

surrounding the history of these agents. Another element to the causes of death of these migrants

at the border is that often their identities have been wiped away by the situations of the border

crossing. Since January 2010, at least 123 people have died as a result of encounters with the

U.S. Border agents, not including the others who have been brutalized or injured (“Deaths by

Border Patrol”). The stories however fall short, as organizations such as Southern Border fail to

find any information regarding the name, age or identifying factors about the individuals killed.

However, reading through the causes of death of migrants, it becomes apparent the frequency of

extreme violence perpetrated by Border Control Agents. Had these individuals been American, it

would be interesting to speculate as to whether or not they would have been remembered by

anything more than a listing in a database, or if their lost lives would have amounted to reform to

the Border Control system. One man was shot for holding a stone; another was fatally run over

by a Border Patrol agent’s vehicle, because the officer was “unable to avoid driving over the

man, who lay in the road” (“Deaths by Border Patrol”). Hundreds more were killed in car crashes

fleeing U.S. Border patrols. Others were taken to the local hospitals only to die upon arrival. In
 Buzzoni 32

these instances, migrants are seemingly defenseless and not of a threat to the Border Control

agents. For many who have just crossed hundreds of miles across a desert, driving away from the

border patrol agents seems like the only available option after being pushed into a corner by the

immigration proceedings in the United States against illegal border crossers. Many argue that the

lives lost at the hands of border control agents could not be avoided, however, addressing the

crimes where innocent migrants were murdered or harmed is the only way to begin redressing

the misconduct cases that make Border Control such a threat.

There is light at the end of the tunnel for the 100 Mile Zone and the agents working to

protect it. Several options have been suggested to improve current conditions at the border and

protect the civil liberties and lives of those who are entering the United States legally or illegally.

Becoming even more rigorous with the screenings for border patrol agents is always a first step.

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Border Security Subcommittee, Rep. Martha

McSally described “at the current hiring rate, approximately 113 applicants go through the

process in order to hire a single officer or agent” (Isacson). The high security is said to be one of

the most restrictive, because Border Patrol agents occupy some of the law enforcement positions

that are the most vulnerable to corruption in the United States. Another option would be to

change the way that Americans think about border security. Between 1998 and 2016, Border

Patrol has discovered the remains of over 6,915 migrants on U.S. soil, all of which died from

dehydration, drowning, exposure or getting lost in the deserts and dry lands (Isacson). Promotion

of search and rescue teams could divert some of the border security funding to life-saving

migrant techniques that build a positive rapport between the citizens living on the border and the

migrants attempting to cross. Comprehensive reform on the American and immigration slides of

the issue is necessary. Understanding that in order to redress some of the problems caused by
 Buzzoni 33

Border Control, the United States must recognize the failures of the immigration system for

many people coming to the North.

Conclusions and Discussion

Without a doubt, the migrant crisis is one of the most complex and pressing challenges of

the twenty-first century. However, the physical divides that separate citizens from the migrants

entering the United States can only be breached with a level of understanding that is born from

getting everyday citizens involved in the crisis. Understanding the freedoms that migrants fail to

realize as a result if the immigration system represents a Constitutional crisis of the future. Each

of these issues can be brushed of as a partisan issue, where the President in charge is responsible

for incredible atrocities and the migrant problems, however, the truth of the matter remains that

the majority of the migration issues are coming from new problems arising, and that the systems

that are set in place by each administration only begin to tackle the problems of migration that

will exist many years beyond a four or eight year term.

When looking to understand the final step in the path for some migrants, court hearings

for removal proceedings or bond postage represent some of the final steps in the migrant journey

for some. For others, there is no other option but to return and continue trying to get across the

Border. While in immigration custody, the rule is that:

“you will be eligible for release if the immigration authorities determine that (1) you are

not a “flight-risk” (meaning that the immigration authorities believe that you would

appear when requested for future immigration appointments and hearings) and (2) you

are not a “danger to the community.” In such cases, you may be eligible for release on

your own recognizance, on a reasonable bond, or on a supervision program (which may

 Buzzoni 34

include an ankle bracelet, telephonic monitoring, and/or regular check-in appointments at

your local office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")” (Nolo).

However, in order to realize these opportunities, migrants must be aware of the rules to then ask

DHS for release. But, as expected from the aforementioned language barriers, many are unable

to capitalize on these opportunities. With new presidents and vice presidents taking office every

four years, the paradigm shifts in accessibility and treatment will make immigration a tossup

whenever a new administration comes into office. That is, unless the overarching systems that

America relies on are amended.

Looking to the future, it is important to understand the migration process of what it it's: a

constantly shifting and changing system that is fed from sources across the world. The

politicization of migration has ruined the chances for so many looking to find opportunity. There

will always be migrants somewhere, however the ways in which we as Americans decide to treat

them and protect them will determine the future of America as we know it, with incredible

strength and diversity, and protections that make everyone feel safer. Understanding the

narratives painted by the news, and looking to get facts from the source, rather than what is

handed to us are the best tools that we have to make the world a better situation for these

migrants who have already faced perilous journeys in the face of incredible odds. Our work for

changing their situation is just beginning and it starts with calling out for reform.
 Buzzoni 35

Works Cited

Anderson, Stuart. “A Review Of Trump Immigration Policy.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 Aug.

2020,

www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/08/26/fact-check-and-review-of-trump-immig

ration-policy/?sh=6d10c8da56c0.

“Biden Administration Scraps Trump's Revised US Citizenship Test.” Boundless, 22 Feb. 2021,

www.boundless.com/blog/biden-scrap-new-citizenship-test/.

“A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: Rights of Immigrants.” Guides,

guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170926.

Brown, Marcia. “How Immigration Courts on the Border Could Become (and May Already Be)

a 'Deportation Machine'.” The American Prospect, 3 Oct. 2019,

prospect.org/justice/how-immigration-courts-on-the-border-could-become-a-deportation-

machine/.

“The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone.” American Civil Liberties Union, 21 June 2018,

www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone.

“The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone.” American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, 21

June 2018, www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone.

“Courtroom in the Historic E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse Which Houses the U.S.

District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the
 Buzzoni 36

U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Washington, D.C.” The Library of

Congress, www.loc.gov/item/2017656643/.

“Deaths by Border Patrol.” Southern Border Communities Coalition,

www.southernborder.org/deaths_by_border_patrol.

“EOIR Immigration Court Listing.” The United States Department of Justice, DOJ, 11 May

2021, www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-immigration-court-listing.

“Fourth Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School,

www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment.

Highsmith, C. M., photographer. (2017) Courtroom in the historic E. Barrett Prettyman Federal

Courthouse which houses the U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Washington, D.C. United States Washington D.C. District of Columbia Washington D.C,

2017. -01-24. [Photograph] Retrieved from the Library of Congress,

https://www.loc.gov/item/2017656643/.

Isacson, Adam, and Adam Isacson. “Eight Reasonable Border Security Proposals (That Are Not

a Wall).” WOLA, Advocacy for Human Rights In The Americas, 5 Jan. 2018,

www.wola.org/analysis/eight-border-security-proposals/.

Kriel, Lomi. “ICE Guards ‘Systematically’ Sexually Assault Detainees in an El Paso Detention

Center, Lawyers Say.” ProPublica,

www.propublica.org/article/ice-guards-systematically-sexually-assault-detainees-in-an-el

-paso-detention-center-lawyers-say.
 Buzzoni 37

López, Victoria, and Sandra Park. “ICE Detention Center Says It's Not Responsible for Staff's

Sexual Abuse of Detainees.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties

Union, 14 Mar. 2019,

www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/ice-detention-cent

er-says-its-not-responsible.

“National Origins Formula.” Definition of National Origins Formula in U.S. History.,

kolibri.teacherinabox.org.au/modules/en-boundless/www.boundless.com/definition/natio

nal-origins-formula/index.html.

Nolo. “Immigration Detention - Removal Proceedings and the Bond Process.” Www.alllaw.com,

Nolo, 6 Oct. 2014,

www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/detention-removal-proceedings-bond-proc

ess.html.

Nowrasteh, Alex. “Deportation Rates in Historical Perspective.” Cato.org, Cato Institute,

www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-perspective.

Office of the Historian. “U.S. Department of State .” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department

of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act.

Ortega, Bob. “Report Finds Training of Border Agents Is Lacking.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite

Information Network, 18 Sept. 2013,

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/18/border-patrol-training-use-of-force/28

34065/.
 Buzzoni 38

“Private Inspectors Paint a Rosy Picture of U.S. Immigrant Detention Centers. Audits Find

Otherwise.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 July 2019,

www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-25/immigration-detention-center-nakamoto.

“Q&A: Trump Administration's ‘Zero-Tolerance’ Immigration Policy.” Human Rights Watch, 28

Oct. 2020,

www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/16/qa-trump-administrations-zero-tolerance-immigration-pol

icy.

“The Rights of Migrants in the United States.” Www.theadvocatesforhumanirghts.org, The

Advocates for Human Rights,

www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/uploads/migrant_rights_fact_sheet.pdf.

Rouhandeh, Alex J. “Desperate Migrants Ride Freight Train Roofs in Perilous Attempts to Cross

Border.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 29 Apr. 2021,

www.newsweek.com/desperate-migrants-ride-freight-train-roofs-perilous-attempts-cross-

border-1587624.

“This Is What the US-Mexico Border Looks Like.” CNN, Cable News Network,

www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/12/politics/border-wall-cnnphotos/.