in the number of deaths of undocumented Mexican mi- .... that between 2001 and 2008, almost 3000 Mexicans alone died as ...... Accessed 29 September 2009.
Springer 2009
Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 88:365–376 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0283-x
Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert: The Culpability of Migrants, Humanitarian Workers, Governments, and Businesses
ABSTRACT. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a rise in the number of deaths of undocumented Mexican migrants crossing the U.S./Mexican border. Who is responsible for these deaths? This article examines the culpability of (1) migrants, (2) humanitarian volunteers, (3) the Mexican government, (4) the U.S. government, and (5) U.S. businesses. A significant portion of the blame is assigned to U.S. free trade policies and U.S. businesses employing undocumented immigrants. KEY WORDS: border, human rights, humanitarian groups, immigration, Mexico, illegal migration, ethical theory, sociology
Mexican immigration to the United States: legal and illegal Mexico and the U.S. share a border approximately 2000 miles long. The border region has long been an important and active site of commerce and migration of people. It has also been a place of extreme tension, as control over the terms of entry – from the Mexican to the U.S. side – are increasingly contested. Rising emigration pressures from Latin America, increased security concerns following the attacks of 9–11, and mounting anti-immigration sentiment in the U.S. have led to the fortification of key border entry points. Julie Whitaker is an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Department of Social Science at Edgewood College. She specializes in the sociology of gender and community-based research. In 2006 and 2007, Professor Whitaker lived in east-central Mexico, where she taught community-based research at the University of Veracruz. Her current research focuses on Mexican migration to the U.S.
Julie Whitaker
As with other waves of migration to the U.S., Mexican migration has been largely driven by labor needs. Around the turn of the twentieth century, Mexican men were recruited to build railroads and labor in cotton fields and mines. About 200,000 Mexicans were admitted between 1910 and 1920 as economic refugees after the Mexican Revolution, working as ‘‘temporary’’ laborers in the U.S. during World War I. During the Great Depression 2 million Mexicans, including U.S. citizens, were deported because of high unemployment and immigration restrictionist pressures. Later, between 1942 and 1964, with the start of World War II and the improvement of the U.S. economy, about 5 million Mexicans were again recruited as temporary laborers, mostly to work in agricultural sectors, under the Bracero Program. Mexicans admitted under this program were called ‘‘Braceros,’’ which literally translates to ‘‘arms.’’ The legal temporary entry of millions of Mexicans under the Bracero Program was also accompanied by the entry of equal numbers of undocumented Mexicans, whose illegal employment, primarily in agriculture, was largely ignored by the U.S. government (Hing, 2004). More so than in the past, recent Mexican immigration is largely unauthorized. Although during the 1980s the majority of Mexicans entered the U.S. legally, the 1990s saw a dramatic shift toward illegal crossings and overstays of tourist and temporary work visas. During the 1990s and early 2000s, about 80–85% of the half million Mexicans entering the U.S. each year were undocumented. Of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. presently, the vast majority are from Latin America, with 57% originating from Mexico (Passel, 2005). Most Mexicans and other immigrants who
366
Julie Whitaker
have obtained legal status did so through the petitioning of a family member with permanent residency in the U.S. For those with no such family member, or with no high-demand professional skill, there are few routes to legal, permanent residency. Thus, the trend since the mid-1990s has been toward large numbers of undocumented entry of Mexicans with comparatively lower levels of education and few work opportunities in their own country, seeking entry level jobs in the U.S.
Deaths in the Arizona desert In order to prevent the growing number of illegal border crossings, the U.S./Mexican border has been more heavily fortified. The number of border agents stationed at or near the border doubled between 2001 and 2008, reaching about 18,000. Prior to 2005, there were 135 miles of fencing along the border. Between 2005 and 2008, another 370 miles were added through the Secure Border Initiative (Department of Homeland Security, 2008). Increased fencing and enforcement resulted in a channeling of illegal crossings through more remote regions, especially in the Tucson region of Arizona. With the traditional urban crossing points more heavily secured, Mexican migrants attempt to cross in the inhospitable remote environment of southwestern U.S. – where the seemingly boundless terrain is treacherous and the temperatures can be extreme. According to the most recent Government Accounting Office report, the number of deaths doubled from the late-1990s through 2003. Between 1998 and 2005, approximately 300 people died on average each year. The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates higher numbers of deaths, since they count those that occur from attempted crossings on both sides of the border. The agency reported that between 2001 and 2008, almost 3000 Mexicans alone died as they attempted to cross the border, primarily from dehydration (Frontera NorteSur, 2008). The year 2005, with its particularly hot summer, was the deadliest one on record; at least 472 migrants were found dead on the U.S. side. The same year, when the Secure Border Initiative was implemented, hundreds of miles of additional fencing were erected (Government Accounting Office, 2006).
The majority of migrant deaths have occurred in Arizona, where the landscape is vast and mountainous. The Arizona desert spans over 200 miles and temperatures reach as high as 120F in the summer. Most crossers, especially those travelling from southern Mexico or Central America, are unfamiliar with the inhospitable conditions. In the desert several days, often without sufficient access to water, migrants die of heat exposure or dehydration during the summer months and hypothermia in the winter (Government Accounting Office, 2006). The deaths are the result of rising emigration pressure from Latin America, combined with increased U.S. security at historically popular crossing points. Migrants now typically spend 3 or 4 days traversing one of the most inhospitable regions of North America to cross illegally. The increased urban border patrolling and fencing does not appear to have slowed illegal migration; to the contrary, the numbers actually grew in the mid-1990s (Massey et al., 2002; Spieldoch and Lilliston, 2007). Who is responsible for the growing number of deaths in the desert? The remainder of this article considers the actions of the following groups: the migrants, the humanitarian volunteers, the Mexican Government, the U.S. Government, and U.S. businesses. Ethical theories and sociological analysis are applied to the question of overall culpability.
Culpability of migrants It is not hard for me to take the ‘I Don’t Care’ stance in terms of shipping illegal aliens back to their country of origin and not setting out provisions in the desert. I have no sympathy for criminals. (Carson, 2007)
According to some outspoken opponents of illegal immigration, such as the one quoted above, deaths that occur in the desert are solely the fault of the migrants. It is the migrants themselves who make calculated choices to cross into inhospitable terrain, they reason. Members of immigration restriction groups contend that immigration is only acceptable if it is pursued through legal channels. Crossing the border without authorization is a criminal act and no special considerations should be given to the welfare or human rights of a criminal alien, say those who are
Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert politically active in opposition to illegal immigration (Bacon, 2008). As the focus is largely on the illegality of migrants’ actions, the negative outcomes that occur during and after a migrant’s passage are viewed as the natural consequence of his or her choice to break the law. In response to concerns raised over the climate of fear in which immigrants operate, Margaret Sands Orchowski (2008, p. 146) remarks: They seem to ignore the fact that ‘fear’ is a consequence of the choice of doing something illegally or fraudulently, no matter what the reason and no matter how many times compassionate people tell the lawbreaker that it is okay and not their fault… Being honest about our mistakes and taking responsibilities for one’s choices are American values.
If a ‘‘climate of fear’’ exists in the U.S., explains Orchowski, it is not the fault of those U.S. citizens who actively cultivate that climate. Instead, it is selfimposed by the migrants who blatantly break the laws and thus, should feel fearful as a result. Deaths in the desert, by this logic, are solely the fault of the migrants.
Culpability of humanitarian volunteers Despite the illegality of the migrants’ actions, humanitarian groups in Arizona and other border states have provided border-crossers with assistance in remote areas. These organizations, located mostly in the Southwest border regions of the U.S., developed in response to the increasing number of deaths. No More Deaths, Humane Borders, and others organize teams of volunteers to search for migrants crossing in the desert and offer food, water and basic medical care. In order to prevent dehydration, the most common cause of death among migrants, they secure water stations and have left thousands of jugs of water on remote desert trails. For their assistance, many volunteers have been accused of, and charged with, criminal activities – mostly transporting migrants and littering. For example, two young people from the group No More Deaths were arrested in 2005 when they transported a man they felt was in need of medical care to a local hospital. Most recently, in 2009, Will Staton, a man planning to become a Unitarian
367
minister, was charged with littering in a wildlife refuge after leaving water jugs for migrants as part of his volunteer work for No More Deaths. For his infraction, he was temporary banned from the refuge and sentenced to 300 h of community service picking up trash (No More Deaths, 2009). Critics of humanitarian assistance for migrants argue that, given the illegality of migrants’ crossings, leaving jugs of water and transporting people to hospitals provides indirect support for criminal activity. It helps the human smuggling networks and aids and abets illegal aliens. The humanitarian groups have been accused, moreover, of promoting illegal immigration. One popular website called ‘‘Desert Invasion-US’’ (www. desertinvasion.us), for instance, publishes pictures of the humanitarian water stations with GPS coordinates. It explains, ‘‘as thousands every day cross our borders illegally in pursuit of economic gain and political promises of amnesty, organizations and church groups provide aid and thereby induce further illegal entry.’’ Sites like this one accuse volunteers of facilitating or encouraging the migrants’ passage. Other commentators offer more direct, odious references to migrants as ‘‘invaders’’ and the volunteers as law breakers. In an on-line newspaper, Dave Gibson (2009) writes ‘‘it is obvious that Humane Borders have no respect for our laws, nor [sic] for the American lives which are harmed on a daily basis by illegal aliens…By making the trip easier, this group actively encourages more people to invade this country.’’ Gibson goes onto argue that the humanitarian groups should be ‘‘jailed for sedition,’’ and encourages readers to drain the water tanks. Many of these types of writers do not concern themselves with the problem of migrant deaths in the desert. However, others who take a more sympathetic stance toward the migrants’ plight, also ultimately reason that providing food and water for them, as the humanitarian groups do, enables illegal activity (Seper, 2002). Common to all the critiques of humanitarian assistance is a central opposition to immigration without authorization and any activity that induces it. Will Staton, the volunteer for No More Deaths mentioned above, does not debate his role in promoting migration. He focuses rhetorically on the
368
Julie Whitaker
immediate needs of migrants. According to Staton, a few years ago, they would ‘‘rarely come across migrants’’ (Greer, 2009). He explained that as soon as the wall was built, it redirected people, who subsequently moved into the remote regions of the desert trails. ‘‘Literally, as soon as [the wall] was done, it funneled people into the area we actively patrol. We began seeing nearly a hundred people a week.’’ He views his organization as preventing, not causing, deaths. The humanitarian groups consistently claim that they are simply reacting to the new demands for assistance. The evidence seems to weigh against the claim that water jugs influence migration. Those in close contact with migrants on a daily basis (e.g., Mexican security agents, border educators, and Catholic migrant shelter workers) claim that the placement of water jugs or other humanitarian assistance does not influence the decision of a migrant to take one path over another, much less whether he or she will cross the border in the first place (Personal Interviews, 2009). What is more, humanitarian groups actively warn potential migrants about the risks of illegally crossing the border. For instance, Humane Borders publishes posters on the Mexican side discouraging people from crossing, including maps of the locations where deaths occurred in the desert. The National Human Rights Commission, a Mexican organization, also publishes warnings, including the distribution of a series of 20,000 cartoons graphically detailing the risks, from physical victimization and extortion by Mexican police to starvation and dehydration in the Arizona desert (Hawley and Solache, 2008). Grupo Beta, the Mexican government’s program to protect migrants, was developed to diminish the harm caused by extensive physical threats on the Mexican side of the border. It, like the humanitarians organizations, also warns against crossing the border illegally.
Culpability of the Mexican government Mexico, according to some, is a corrupt, ‘‘failed state’’ that benefits from its citizens sneaking over the border and sending remittances to family members. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) – the most outspoken and heavily cited
organization among those who oppose immigration to the U.S. – frequently criticizes the Mexican government for its complicity and even outright promotion of illegal migration (see www.fairus.org). FAIR faults the Mexican government for its failure to develop economic opportunities that would prevent out-migration. In addition, FAIR (2005) accuses the Mexican government of promoting illegal immigration through such mechanisms as a ‘‘controversial guidebook’’ that offers ‘‘tips on how best to make the crossing’’ (FAIR, 2005). To be fair, the Mexican Consulate guidebook (Guia Del Migrante Mexicano) warns potential migrants of the dangers of border crossings. Although these hints might be read as ‘‘tips on how best to make the crossing,’’ they are more accurately understood as lessons in how to stay alive and safe. These cautions are also evident throughout Sonora, Mexico – the jumping off state for the greatest number of illegal border crossings. Signs and pamphlets warning people not to migrate are published by government organizations and widely posted in small border towns on the Mexican side. On a structural level, the Mexican economy has come to rely upon as much as $24 billion U.S. dollars a year in remittances from Mexicans living legally or illegally in the U.S. who send money to family members and friends in Mexico. Remittances represent Mexico’s second largest form of currency after oil revenues (Migration News, 2008). Some argue that rather than depending on the out-migration and remittances of dejected job seekers, the Mexican government should promote and encourage their population to invest in education. Cowen (2006), for instance, claims that the U.S. can help in this regard. It could work with the Mexican government through immigration policy by allowing a greater number of educated Mexicans to migrate legally. In this way, Mexicans would be inspired to invest in schooling. Cowen’s ethical stance begins with a concern about poverty, irrespective of national borders; it also acknowledges the need to change institutional incentives in order to alleviate it. Economic incentives tied to schooling could motivate people to become more educated. However, one could argue, Mexicans, particularly those who migrate, already value education and are actively trying to acquire it for future generations. Mexicans
Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert often migrate without their children so that they can afford the books and uniforms, or pay the private tuition, required to send their children to school in Mexico. Mexico’s highly successful cash transfer program, Oportunidades (Opportunities), promotes education by tying payments to children’s school attendance. This program has also reduced extreme poverty somewhat through government payments to about 5 million families. Thus, as a society, Mexicans have already demonstrated a concern for and success in improving educational outcomes through government programs that incentivize it (Malkin, 2008). Problems with the Mexican economy are not likely to be remedied solely through educational incentives. The more urgent problem has been a lack of living wage jobs within the country. Hence, the reasons that some children in rural parts of Mexico do not attend school is not because their parents do not value education in principle, but because children are working alongside parents in the fields, or are in other ways contributing to the economic well being of their families, to survive in the short term. The dire economic situation in Mexico is not due to the Mexican government’s failure to engage in international trade. Mexico is one of the most economically liberalized countries in the world (Kotschwar, 2008). The international trade agreements enacted between the U.S., Canada and Mexico have largely shaped the Mexican economy since 1994. In negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Mexican government did little to protect its poorest citizens. Hence, perhaps the most salient critique of the Mexican government is its failure to reduce the extremely high level of inequality that exists in the country. Buelna (2007) argues that mass emigration is caused by the Mexican government’s failure to eliminate monopolies owned by Mexican billionaires. Although there has been a growth in the Mexican middle class in the last decade (Williams, 2007), the distance between middle and upper class is greater than any other OECD country (OECD, 2008). Mexico continues to rank highest in income inequality among all the OECD countries (OECD, 2008). The poorest 10% live on
