The Treatment of Immigrants at the US Border is a Violation of Basic Human Rights

Kaylene Chavez

SPS 206 HP

Dr. O’Dell

11 December 2019
Chavez 2

As news channels and newspapers across the United States have so clearly broadcasted

over the past few months, the crisis at the borders of our country has become an international

topic of concern and fear. “Dozens of lawmakers have flocked to the southwestern border to see

with their own eyes how migrants are being treated” (Cochrane 14). As expected, the interest of

these lawmakers is often to expose the flaws of the United States legal system in hopes of

bringing about a change in government. What most of these men and women aren’t considering,

however, is that the nature of this crisis is much more concerning when we consider this situation

in light of what it really is: a violation of basic human rights. The question is: how can we

adequately enforce our own national law while still respecting the human rights of other

countries’ citizens?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “recognition of the inherent

dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the

foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Ishay 493). The United Nations is an

organization that sets out to ensure all countries are protecting the human rights of their citizens

by organizing a global network of countries who agree to speak up if they see injustice. This

organization has also been extremely influential in organizing documents, most famously the

UDHR, that outline these rights and are accessible to all people around the world (Lecture Notes

2019). However, this international “checks and balances” system was not always in place; the

“roots of this conception of human dignity and human rights do not go back much beyond two

hundred years before the Universal Declaration” (Donnelly 91). Since the UDHR went into

effect in 1948, many other treaties have been published by the United Nations in an attempt to

specifically target human rights injustices as they continue to occur. For example, the

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Chavez 3

entered into force in June of 1987 and states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Office of the High Commissioner of Human

Rights). The United Nations has been prompted to put into effect these treaties that target

specific human rights issues because violations of them have frequently occurred as time has

gone on. “Rights are actually put to use, and thus important enough to talk about, only when they

are at issue, when their enjoyment is questioned, threatened, or denied” (Donnelly 9). The basic

rights of immigrants at the border have been questioned and often denied over the past few

months, which is why this situation has become such an undeniably controversial topic.

The subject of border control and detainment of illegal immigrants is no new issue for

our country, but rather stems from an ongoing “war on drugs” that has been happening for

decades. Because of the stigma surrounding the southwest border, “Hispanics and noncitizens are

the fastest growing group of federal prisoners” (Hartley and Armendariz 44). With the election

of a new Republican president who so clearly outlined his opinion on border control with an

entire campaign for building a wall to keep immigrants out, tensions have worsened and the

crisis has progressed. No longer does the argument stem from a fear of drugs and crime, but

rather “the government’s failure to adapt to an influx of asylum seekers” (Escobar 23). A large

majority of the immigrants attempting to enter the United States at the border are seeking

protection and safety for themselves and their children. Democratic lawmakers have often

flocked to these scenes in the past few months to hear the stories of these immigrants, fighting

“for space in the cramped room in the border processing center, straining to hear over the sounds

of crinkling mylar blankets” (Cochrane 14). There has also been much emphasis on which

countries immigrants are coming from in an attempt to determine if they are being treated

differently based on their race or ethnicity. Prior to the year 2000, the differences between black
Chavez 4

and white races were solely being explored. More recently, ethnicity has become a factor in the

growing problem. Research has indicated that Hispanics are often treated more harshly than

whites or blacks (Hartley and Armendariz 45). Situations dealing with Hispanic immigrants have

been in newspaper articles and on news channels all throughout the country but are especially

popular in the states bordering Mexico. For example, a former border patrol agent named

Matthew Bowen hit a Guatemalan immigrant with his truck as the person was running from him

back in 2017. The agent was just sentenced (in Arizona) this August to 3 years of probation after

pleading guilty to deprivation of rights under color of law. Not only did the misdemeanor charge

come up in court, but also Matthew’s references to immigrants just weeks before the incident as

“subhuman” and “mindless murdering savages” were addressed (Burkhart and Zaveri). Stories

like these constantly contribute to the worsening crisis at the border and further create tensions

on national and international levels for the United States government. So how can we begin to

think about this situation solely in terms of human rights?

The complexity of the arguments for and against border control arise from the

controversial nature of the situation. This crisis absolutely involves governmental and political

standpoints, but more importantly, emphasizes the importance of the effects of not respecting

natural human rights that we all share, regardless of where we are from or where we intend to go.

Human rights are intended to be “claims that a human being can make against a governing entity

that ensure them protection, provision, and non-discrimination because they are humans”

(Lecture Notes 2019). However, in the United States, there has been a recent ignorance of this

simple fact and a growing digression from this way of thinking in situations at the border.

Current research indicates that we are beginning to witness delocalization of immigrants at our

borders to distract from the crisis that is ongoing. “If policing and control functions were
Chavez 5

previously concentrated in this special place, it is argued that currently there is a disaggregation

of border functions away from the border” (Walters 193). Rather than dealing with the border

crisis and accepting what an atrocity it has become, we have begun attempting to prevent

immigrants from entering our country long before they reach the border to disperse the violations

of human rights to different areas. By using this method, the United States is attempting to

prevent the detection of this inhuman treatment and distract news reporters and writers with other

current problems. From attempting to mask these masses of immigrants trying to enter the

United States, we are sending the world a message that one of the most powerful and influential

countries does not care about respecting the human rights of other countries’ citizens. This is

where we have begun a very dangerous game on an international level.

As a Venezuelan woman held her crying baby, “she told of the weeks she would have to

spend in Mexico before her next asylum hearing, at which she would try to explain the violence

she had faced at home that had forced her to leave” (Cochrane 14). This situation, publicly

broadcasted by Democratic Representative Tom Malinowski, is a very different interpretation of

the situation at the border than President Donald Trump seems to have. The immigrants already

at the border are not well-treated and healthy humans ready to attack the United States, and “nor

are those arriving at the border the threatening mass of humanity Mr. Trump imagines” (Escobar

23). It is evident that Republicans seem to have a different perspective on what these border

processing centers look like. As Republican Representative Duncan Hunter took to Twitter to

express, he feels that “it’s incredible how well we’re treating people who are here illegally, how

well we’re taking care of them” (Cochrane 14). The video that he posts, which is clearly an

inaccurate depiction of the living conditions of these immigrants, does not mention the brutalities

of the situation. Along the same border in El Paso, Texas, witnesses observed the devastating
Chavez 6

death of an 8-year-old Guatemalan, Felipe Gomez Alonzo, who could no longer fight for his life

on the limited resources he was provided with while attempting to enter the United States. His

father, who was apprehended along with his son prior to his death, may continue to wait in this

facility as he attempts to seek asylum in our country (Escobar 23). It is apparent from these

examples that there is a problem not only with the treatment of these immigrants, but also with

the way the United States is viewing people of other ethnicities, especially those of Hispanic

descent.

If we’re going to change the way we think about Hispanic immigrants (and immigrants as

a whole), we have to begin to examine how we can improve our legal system to end

discrimination against them. “Recent reports from the USSC reveal that noncitizen offenders

receive lengthier sentences than US citizens and that these differences have increased” (Hartley

and Armendariz 47). If we are to continue discrimination against races and ethnicities in our

court systems, it is very likely that we will continue to be a country of citizens who have become

desensitized to a critical human rights violation, such as the treatment of immigrants at the

borders of our country. “Having your own legislation declared to be unlawful… is unlikely to be

considered a mark of success for any government” (Marston 301). As I have previously argued

that the situation at the border must be considered a human rights violation before its

unlawfulness in the government is considered, it is essential that the two topics are interlinked

because if we fail to respect the former then there is no chance of the latter changing. “No right

can be reliably realized through legislation alone. Unless legislation is backed by enforcement,

the right is likely to be legally and politically insecure” (Donnelly 41). If we do not begin to

change our thinking about how we are treating other humans who may be different than us, how

can we expect to deem ourselves as a “land of the free?”

Chavez 7

There is truly only one reason that our national border crisis (a war between Republican

and Democrat legislators) has turned into an international discussion, and it has nothing to do

with our political decisions or the election of a president. It is the lack of “universal respect for,

and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms” that is so clearly outlined by the

United Nations that has people everywhere in an uproar over this debate (Office of the High

Commissioner of Human Rights). By broadcasting these messages of imprisonment and neglect

in border processing centers, we are directly sending a message to immigrants that is causing

them to alter their paths in some instances. More migrants have begun to attempt to enter the US

from a different angle because of the publicity of their fellow citizens “being unfairly rejected at

official border crossings or being forced to languish in Mexico while their applications are being

considered at a deliberately slow pace” (Escobar 23). Not only does this violate the Sixth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it also diminishes the idea “that human rights

should be protected by the rule of law” (Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights).

The method by which we purposely prolong the determinations of whether these immigrants are

allowed to seek asylum in our country is purely circumstantial in this case; if these immigrants

were citizens of the United States, their trials would be conducted in a quicker manner and

therefore their conflicts resolved in an adequate amount of time so as to not let the border

facilities get overcrowded.

As I have stated, the government plays a pivotal role in facilitating these exchanges

between border patrol officers and immigrants seeking asylum into the United States. The first

step in changing the fate of America (because of the border crisis) is changing the way we think

about the rights of immigrants in our everyday lives. “A common understanding of these rights

and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization” that all humans have a right to
Chavez 8

freedom from torture and unjust imprisonment, independent from their citizenship status, race,

etc. (Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights). The borders in the United States right

now do not operate as facilitators for immigrants to seek asylum, but “more like firewalls

differentiating the good and the bad, the useful and the dangerous, the licit and the illicit;

constituting a safe, ‘high-trust’ interior secured from the wild zones outside; immobilizing and

removing the risky elements so as to speed the circulation of the rest” (Walters 197). This

provides an excellent example of my previous claim, that governmental policies will not change

unless we change the way we think about them first. We cannot expect the border crisis to

suddenly become a place of facilitation for well-treated immigrants unless we terminate the idea

that these immigrants are attempting to enter our country and expose us to nuclear warfare and

terrorism. In the states bordering Mexico, especially Arizona and Texas, where we have been

attempting to “usurp federal powers to control immigration,” it is evident that the citizens of

these states view some of the immigrants as “the most threatening, alienated, and politically

volatile group of offenders in the United States today” (Hartley and Armendariz 47-48). The

effects of this viewpoint are so clearly detrimental to our unity as a governing system, as

displayed in the media, and have negatively been affecting the relationships of citizens in our

country as a whole.

There is a reason that journalist Emily Cochrane titled her New York Times article from

September “At the Border, Lawmakers See a Broken System and Little Common Ground” (14).

The crisis at the border has not just begun but has rather just recently escalated in the past several

months since the election of Donald Trump and his broken promises to Republicans to build a

wall. The Department of Homeland Security surely has its hands full with the magnitude of

immigrants seeking asylum in the United States, and “despite receiving more money than all
Chavez 9

other federal law enforcement agencies combined, the department has not adapted to changes in

migrating populations and patterns” (Escobar 14). The idea of embracing or denying

immigration into the United States is objectively simple; it is when our personal views and

emotions enter the picture that the situation becomes vastly complicated. “In 1991, noncitizens

comprised about 23% of persons prosecuted in federal courts; by 2009, nearly 45% of those

prosecuted were noncitizens” (Hartley and Armendariz 43). As emotions and fears continue to

rise regarding immigrants and their connection to terrorism, our instincts to reject the idea of

anything that could cause harm to us or our families sets in. When we consider this, it makes

sense that states like Arizona and Texas are terribly concerned about the border crisis because

“the war on drugs has largely been waged in the southwestern border region of the United

States” (Hartley and Armendariz 43). I am not saying that these states are wrong for being

concerned about the safety of themselves and their families but simply stating the fact that

immigrants (both legal and illegal) are not the only threats to terrorism that our country faces.

Despite the negative connotation that comes with the race or ethnicity of these immigrants, it

should also be noted that the immigrants who are patiently waiting in border facilities are not the

problem; immigrants who intend to cause harm to our country and its citizens would not likely

wait for months on end in border facilities attempting to gain legal status.

It is apparent that these decisions are very difficult because of the controversial nature of

the debate, as previously discussed. However, in order to make progress towards not only a

better country for ourselves but a better world for all people, we must prioritize human rights. If

we are to forget that “member states have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the

United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and

fundamental freedoms,” we have discarded the rigorous and tireless work of the United Nations
Chavez 10

and all countries involved to create a better place for humans to live and thrive (Ishay 493). Not

only is our discrimination against people of different races and ethnicities a violation of the basic

human rights outlined in the UDHR but also a violation of many other treaties and doctrines

across the globe. Today, “the basic moral equality of all human beings is not merely accepted but

strongly endorsed by all leading comprehensive doctrines in all regions of the world” (Donnelly

59). If we begin to openly support and enforce equality and protection for those immigrants

seeking asylum in the United States, regardless of the status of their citizenship while they await

legal results, the United States can set an example of a powerful country that promotes freedom,

equality, and personal growth for all people.

Chavez 11

Works Cited
Burkhart, Ford and Zaveri, Mihir. “Border Patrol Agent Who Hit Migrant with Truck is
Sentenced to Probation.” The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2019.
Cochrane, Emily. “At the Border, Lawmakers See a Broken System and Little Common
Ground.” The New York Times, 28 Sept. 2019, p. 14.
Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. New York: Cornell University,
2013. Print.
Escobar, Veronica. “Trump Worsens the Border Crisis.” The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2019. p.
23.
Hartley, Richard D and Armendariz, Luisa F. “Border Justice? Sentencing Federal Narcotics
Offenders in Southwest Border Districts: A Focus on Citizenship Status.” Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 27, no. 1, April 2011, pp. 43-62. SAGE Journals
Online, https://journals-sagepub-
com.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/1043986211402208.
Ishay, Micheline R. The Human Rights Reader. New York, Taylor & Francis Group, 2007.
Marston, Pete. “Legislate in Haste, Repent at Leisure: The Criminal Justice Act 2003 and its
Consequences.” Probation Journal, vol. 57, no. 3, Sept. 2010, pp. 296-303. SAGE
Journals Online, https://journals-sagepub-
com.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/0264550510379884.
O’Dell, Roni K. Lecture Notes 2019. Seton Hill University.
Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. “The Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” OHCHR. 2019.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx.
Walters, William. “Border/Control.” European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 9, no. 2, 2006, pp.
187-203. SAGE Journals Online,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1368431006063332.