Ten years ago, NAFTA negotiators met fierce public opposition. An incredibly broad coalition of unions, environmental and social groups, agriculturalists, opportunistic politicians and religious folk banded together to oppose the free trade agreement that threatened something they valued. That which was valued varied greatly, but all could agree that NAFTA would upset that.
Some groups found a potent political weapon: creating public hysteria over the drug trade and illegal immigration from Mexico. The free movement of goods and capital across the 2,000-mile border, they argued, would facilitate illegal immigration, which would saturate the labor market and lower the standard of living of Americans. Images of poor migrants jumping fences and running across busy highways produced an uncomfortable sense of chaos and Americans soon began fearing the open borders.
To save NAFTA, politicians began showing their resolve over the border issue by demanding greater escalation of border security. Large fences went up around every major port of entry and the number of Border Patrol inspectors increased dramatically. The persistence of pro-NAFTA politicians on border security calmed some NAFTA phobics and the agreement went into effect in 1994.
Then came the militarization of the border. Between 1994 and 1998, Drug Enforcement Agency officers increased by 155 percent, Border Patrol agents by 99 percent and Immigration and Naturalization Service chaps by 93 percent. Today 9,000 guards patrol the southern border and the INS has a lovely budget of $6.3 billion. National Guardsmen are reinforcing the Border Patrol, and the U.S. Armed Forces operate as well.
Clinton advocated for the installation of high-tech radars, night-vision cameras and X-rays that could more easily detect the passage of narcotics and smuggled people. Bush has stepped up the plan, increasing the INS budget by 20 percent. He, among most other politicians, has also tacked the War on Terror to the equally absurd War on Drugs, thereby justifying further escalation - both North and South.
Ironically, despite all of the past decade's efforts at securing the border, it failed to create a sharp decline in illegal immigration or drug smuggling. The war on drugs and migrants has, in effect, only reshaped those industries. In a survival of the fittest situation, amateur smugglers have been weeded out while large and sophisticated cartels have consolidated.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Immigrants have been the primary victims, as they have to take greater risks and pay more to professional smugglers, but with income disparity so great between Mexico and the United States it is still worth it.
The war's only success has been political; it has shaped public opinion in such a way that border-crazy politicians get reelected so long as they show increasing resolve to blockade humans and drugs.
Thus the war perpetuates its own escalation, with the help of our system of representative democracy accompanied by a hideous media industry. Whether border fortification actually deters anything is politically unimportant. Pretending that drug smuggling and immigration is a grave problem in and of itself provides a solid campaign platform.
But why haven't all these efforts hurt the trafficking of drugs and humans?
With only 3 percent of INS agents devoted to enforcing illegal employment, it seems they don't know, or don't want to know - because if the problem were solved they would lose their jobs. The DEA is also concentrated at the border, but despite increases in drug seizures, Americans are still getting high at prices unchanged since 1980.
Some truth can be found in the simple supply-follows-demand equation. Where drugs are wanted, they will come. Where cheap labor is wanted, it will come. No amount of enforcement will deter supply amidst such persistent demand, yet government efforts at curbing demand are pitifully miniscule.
But too many economic and political incentives exist to ignore the demands. Prison wardens, after all, are businessmen looking for clientele. Domestic drug consumption supplies them with lots of felonious, if virtually harmless, customers. Agriculturalists dependent on cheap labor also would not be so inclined to lose their illegal surplus.
On one hand, NAFTA contradicts its neo-liberal ideology by opening its borders to goods and capital while closing it to people and drugs. However, efforts to propagate this contradiction - via militarization of the border - have not actually curbed the passage of people and drugs, but have cost taxpayers lots of money and have cost immigrants even more.
by Mike Wolff
Daily Lobo Columnist
Questions or comments can be sent to said Wolff at mudrat@unm.edu
