Up Against a Wall on Immigration

I hardly thought that a lecture entitled “Global Crisis: Immigration, Drug Trafficking, and Financial Meltdown” would have much to do with Wildlands CPR’s work. But this fascinating discussion by University of California, Santa Barbara Sociology Professor William Robinson raised important questions about the ecological consequences of immigration policy. Robinson explored connections between seemingly disparate topics (download a podcast from the University of Montana here), but what struck me most was his discussion about corporate profiteering from the immigration crackdown. That crackdown and proposed border policies are posing enormous threats to conservation along the southern and northern US borders.

While the “military-industrial complex” is long-studied, a new complex is emerging and threatening environmental protection and restoration. The “immigration-industrial complex” is at the heart of some of the most damaging legislation in years. In 2008 (see The RIPorter 13.4) we wrote about the profound impacts of the border fence/wall between the US and Mexico (the US government calls it a fence, but for all purposes it acts as a wall). Unfortunately, in addition to continued border wall construction, legislation now pending in Congress could significantly impact land management along a wide swath on both the southern and northern US borders. While the bills are couched in the context of homeland security (as explained in Robinson’s lecture), it seems likely that their goal is to increase corporate profits – with people, land, water and wildlife all suffering as a result.

To get a sense of what’s at stake, let’s consider these bills: The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (HR1505); the Senate Homeland Security Authorization bill (S1546); and the House Homeland Security Authorization bill (HR3116). The premise behind all three is the same – they give the Department of Homeland Security authority over all other federal land managers and agencies within 100 miles of the US border(s) while exempting Homeland Security from most, if not all, environmental laws. HR1505 is a stand-alone bill to provide this authority on the northern and southern borders. HR 3116 is more comprehensive, but an amendment from Representative Quayle (R-AZ) incorporates the essential provisions of HR1505. Similarly, S1546 is a comprehensive security bill with an amendment from Senator McCain (R-AZ), but unlike the other two, McCain’s amendment only affects the southern border.

The wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Photo by Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr.

These bills could wreak havoc on fragile ecosystems along both borders. The border wall has already disrupted terrestrial and aquatic connectivity between the US and Mexico. Jaguars and other far-ranging predators were starting to migrate north and re-occupy former habitat in the United States – but walls constructed to stop people also stop wildlife. And while people can find ways around them, the walls are very effective at fragmenting wildlife habitat. HR1505 would exempt the border patrol/DHS from environmental laws including the Wilderness Act, National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, which are designed to protect human health and safety. Laws derived from international treaties would also be at risk, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Despite these threats, the bills provide no real solution to either real or purported immigration problems. While people are clearly entering the country illegally, the border wall only treats a symptom, rather than asking why people are willing to risk their lives to enter the United States (as Robinson and others have explained, some of our domestic and international policies exacerbate the conditions that promote illegal immigration). In addition, erecting walls has been ineffective at stopping human movement.

According to University of Kansas professor Tonya Golash-Boza, immigration fits the same pattern as other industrial complexes:

“The discord between rhetoric and reality when it comes to immigration policy points to the importance of using a framework similar to that of the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex to understand the immigration industrial complex. These three complexes share three major features: (a) a rhetoric of fear; (b) the confluence of powerful interests; and (c) a discourse of other-ization. With the military build-up during the Cold War, the ‘others’ were communists. With the prison expansion of the 1990s, the ‘others’ were criminals (often racialized and gendered as black men). With the expansion of the immigration industrial complex, the ‘others’ are ‘illegals’ (racialized as Mexicans). In each case, the creation of an undesirable other creates popular support for government spending to safeguard the nation”  (Golash-Boza 2008).

Robinson, Golash-Boza and others go on to explain the economics of the immigration industrial complex and the corporate interests who gain from increased militarization of the border. For example, Golash- Boza cites data from the National Network for Immigration and Refugee Rights showing the profound increase in federal funding for immigration and border control since 2003 – with both the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) budgets nearly doubling by 2008.

As right-wing media pundits vilified illegal immigrants, they helped create space for politicians to overfund immigration and border control such that special interest corporations gained financial benefits. Once the American public was sufficiently frightened, militarized solutions became not just viable, but preferable by both political parties. The legislation currently under consideration is a direct result of the growth and success of the immigration-industrial complex. For them, the southern border is not enough – greedy corporations and politicians are now pushing to the north to create new opportunities for profit – regardless of any real threat on the ground.

Conservation organizations, especially in the Southwest, have been challenging border policies for years, with some success. For example, in 2006 the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior and Agriculture signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on interagency cooperation to improve security. This MOA created mechanisms to ensure Homeland Security could do its job without interfering with land management agencies, while also ensuring that land management activities would not exacerbate border control challenges. This MOA was not limited to the Mexico/US border. In critical grizzly bear habitat, for example, road use can be very problematic. Fish and Wildlife agents now coordinate with DHS agents to ensure motorized access into critical habitat is carefully documented and controlled to fall within acceptable standards for wildlife.

Erosion at the base of the wall. Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

Critics of HR1505 claim that the bill would reduce this co-operation – why would DHS agents ask how to reduce impacts to wildlife if the law allows them to run roughshod over wildlife? Perhaps 100 miles doesn’t sound like so much, but one look at a map makes clear how much land is at stake. In Montana, for example, the zone would extend from the border through the entirety of Glacier National Park and deep into the Bob Marshall Wilderness. It’s unfathomable to imagine the Dept of Homeland Security having ultimate authority to do as they please across this entire landscape with no environmental regulation.

The philosophical and ecological questions behind bills like HR1505 are enormous, and consequences on the ground are equally profound. As conservationists across borders work to ensure wildlife connectivity and the steady supply of ecosystem services such as clean water, the immigration-industrial complex is creating new threats to our success. The sections of  order wall constructed in the south have already had disastrous ecological impacts – hampering the movement of iconic species like the jaguar, while also blocking the normal flow of water. Giving the Department of Homeland Security unfettered management of a 100- mile swath of land south of Canada and north of Mexico will do little to improve American security while doing much to degrade American natural resources. It will create a hostile environment for the movement of species like grizzly bears, caribou and wolves between Canada and the United States, in addition to the damage that has already occurred in the south. The military-industrial complex has dominated American policy for more than half a century. We can only hope the same will not be true of the emerging immigration-industrial complex.

Citations:
Robinson, William. 2011. Global Crisis: Immigration, Drug Trafficking, and Financial Meltdown. University of Montana 2011-12 President’s Lecture Series. Missoula, MT. 12-1-11.
Golash-Boza, Tonya. 2009. The Immigration Industrial Complex: Why we enforce immigration policies destined to fail. Sociology Compass 3(2) 295-309.
Golash-Boza, Tonya. 2009. A Confluence of Interest in Immigration Enforcement: How Politicians, the Media and Corporations Profit from Immigration Policies Destined to Fail. Sociology Compass 3/(2) 283-299.