The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, of which 580 miles was fenced (not “walled”!) prior to Donald Trump taking office (Wikipedia). That leaves 1,374 miles of proposed new barrier (immoral “wall” if built by Trump; moral “fence” if built by others?). Of those 1,374 miles, 118 miles are part of Big Bend National Park.
Reading The Line Becomes a River, by a former Border Patrol agent (2008-2012), made me wonder how Trump’s proposed barrier can work along this part of the border. Some excerpts:
On a hot Texas evening at the edge of Big Bend National Park, I watched a man ride his horse across the Rio Grande.
I gestured at the village across the river and asked the man if he lived in Boquillas. Of course, he said, beaming with pride. I asked what he did for work and he nodded at the unattended souvenirs and handmade crafts that had been set out atop the rocks. No hay trabajo, he complained—we make our money from tourists. I asked if many Americans crossed over to visit. Sure, he said, Boquillas is very safe. Narcos don’t bother us, even the rangers and la migra leave us alone. He paused. You know, he said, there’s a nice restaurant in my village. Is there breakfast? I asked. Of course, he smiled. I’ll come for you in the morning.
The next morning, as the sun grew pale and white in the eastern sky, I met my guide at the banks of the river. He instructed me to climb onto his horse, and then, like it was nothing, he spurred the animal across the river into Mexico. We spoke little as I jostled atop sauntering haunches and grasped at the back of his saddle. Passing the first cinderblock homes of Boquillas, I considered the extent to which my safekeeping depended upon this stranger, leading me into the silent and unfamiliar streets of his village.
Our young fit fluent-in-Spanish half-Mexican hero bravely makes a trip that, during my visit to Big Bend, was mostly being taken by senior citizens after exiting from their RVs. The “river” is more like a wide shallow stream at this point in its course. Neither the U.S. nor Mexico was bothering to do any border control at the border. In the case of the U.S., there were checkpoints across the roads about 50 miles north. I enjoyed my time in Boquillas, especially the town’s dusty museum (unattended by any guard; pay into a box via the honor system).
The National Park Service now has an official guide to visiting Boquillas. It seems that the ability to walk to Boquillas and get a taco was one of the freedoms we supposed lost after 9/11 (Wikipedia; except that the author made it across easily!), but since 2013 (Wikipedia) there is a formal border crossing.
I wonder how Trump’s political promise can be implemented in this part of the country. Here are some possibilities:
- Despite the idea that national parks are supposed to be mostly natural, we install an ugly fence along our side of the river. It will appear in every visitor’s snapshots from Big Bend.
- We build a fence on the north edge of the park, with checkpoints at the handful of roads that would cross the fence. Any caravan of migrants that has made its way to Mexico City can ride a bus for another 18 hours, get off in Boquillas, walk across the Rio Grande and tell the nearest park ranger “I am seeking asylum” (or give birth to a baby who will then be entitled to bring the parents in 18 years from now, thus saddling U.S. taxpayers with the cost of public housing, health care, food stamps, etc., for the now-older parents)
- We pay the Mexicans to build a monster fence somewhere on their side of the border, out of sight of the tourists who come to Big Bend (but the Mexicans have their own state park on their side).
Is there any other alternative that is consistent with Trump’s campaign promise?
[Also, given that it is easy to walk into the U.S. at Big Bend, why aren’t migrant caravans choosing this route right now? Why wait near the border in Tijuana, for example, when one could just as easily be over the border and on one’s way from Big Bend?]
Google Secure Border Initiative, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/rise-and-fall-secure-border-initiative%E2%80%99s-high-tech-solution-unauthorized-immigration, it was a Bush-era program that Boeing led (disastrously as is par for Boeing projects) and that Obama mercifully and correctly killed.
The plan itself seemed somewhat good, place hundred foot poles every couple of miles along the border, put at the top of the pole the various radars and cameras (visual and IR) of an Apache helicopter (today I guess we’d also put a drone nest up there as well), and complement them with ground sensors (seismometers), all the stuff we probably use to keep bases in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan safe, and feed that information to the Border Patrol alerting them ahead of time to migrants crossing the border and letting them see IR imagery etc so they can be picked up when they cross a trail.
It should have been cheaper than a wall, and most of the sensors “were off the wall components from the Apache Helicopter” along with the control software that Boeing also made (my general paraphrase), and also been far far environmentally safer in that it allowed endanger species (like a very rare black panther) to cross the border back and forth.
Boeing of course, used it as an opportunity to fuck the taxpayer over once more. A completely graft ridden incompetent company that would benefit us all by being broken up.
Anyway, I’d be open to seeing something like that proposed, the difficulty being getting assholes like former Governor of Arizona then DHS Secretary now President of UC Janet Napolitano to not install them around their cities, borders, and college campuses. (That bitch stuck radar cameras on Phoenix freeways and had other cameras installed at the **state** borders.)
In the Age of Asylum, I don’t know why people even seek to avoid being captured by the Border Patrol. As long as they spin a sufficiently convincing tale, they shouldn’t have anything to fear from the process, no?
Even if they’ve previously been denied asylum, can’t they just come through and claim asylum based on a new story? Suppose that an asylum-seeker claims domestic violence. For whatever reason, the story is disbelieved. The would-be immigrant goes back over the border and then comes back a week later saying that during the week in Mexico he or she was targeted by a narco gang. If we are serious about asylum, the fact that someone was previously denied shouldn’t prevent them from re-applying based on a new victimhood classification, should it?
Phil – did you visit Big Bend while you were in Austin? From Boquillas (inside the park itself) – it’s 47 miles to the North entrance or 42 miles to the West one by Terlingua across some pretty unforgiving territory. Then it’s either another 40 miles North to Marathon or 81 miles to Alpine – along highways with mandatory Border Patrol checkpoints.
I’m sure someone could be picked up by car and make it through – but I’m guessing that are much more preferable ways into the country than through BBNP.
As as aside – load up your camera and go – it’s beautiful.
That’s an 8-hour drive from Austin! And I was busy eating 10 BBQ meals in 72 hours.
Why are the Border Patrol checkpoints relevant? Why would a car pickup be necessary? Why can’t the asylum-seeker walk across the river, ask for asylum, and then get picked up by a Border Patrol Eurocopter?
My understanding is the ones who are waiting want to enter legally. The honor system, basically.
Also do you know for a fact that most Mexican immigrants receive public support? I’ve heard they pay taxes like I do. I think I’ve been a profitable investment even though my parents were immigrants. Why would Mexicans be any different?
I don’t think the “illegal” versus “legal” entry distinction is relevant for anyone who applies for asylum. As long as the asylum-seeker is on U.S. soil, regardless of how he or she got there, the asylum-seeker becomes legal as soon as the request for asylum is made. So the question still stands… why not walk into BBNP and then ask the nearest ranger for asylum?
I don’t know if there are detailed statistics on Mexican immigrants and their use of the welfare system. Certainly most should be entitled to welfare. See http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/ for “some 55% of second-generation Asian Americans have a bachelor’s degree or more, compared with 21% of Hispanics.”
A population in which 21 percent of adults are college graduates is a welfare-eligible population in the coastal U.S. And remember that’s the second generation (child of immigrants).
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households says that 73% of immigrant-headed households from Central America and Mexico actually do receive welfare (supporters of expanded low-skill immigration would say that a person who gets a free house, free food, and free health care via “means-tested” programs is not “on welfare” because there is no cash grant, but these CIS folks do consider a free house, for example, to be “welfare”).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224433/ uses some older data: ” On average, 8 percent of white children were in families receiving food stamps in one survey year (Table 10-2). Almost half of first-generation Mexican children were in families receiving food stamps, a higher proportion than for any other group.”
The biggest question for those like yourself who believe that admitting caravans of low-skill asylum-seekers will benefit the U.S. is “Why don’t other countries bid for them?” Why don’t Canadians want to get richer by taking all of the folks we reject? Air transportation is cheap. Why don’t the French send over Airbus A380s to Tijuana to bring in everyone who wants to live in France, giving each new French citizen a cash bonus as an incentive?
Maybe we are too dumb to see the GDP- and quality-of-life-boosting benefits of low-skill immigration. Why are all of the other countries around the world similarly dumb? If low skill immigrants are hugely valuable, why is there no bid from any modern welfare state to take them?
A family of 4 is eligible for public housing in Los Angeles, for example, if they earn less than $77,500 per year (see http://home.hacla.org/applyforph ). An individual immigrant would be entitled to taxpayer-subsidized housing (a.k.a. “welfare”) if earning less than $54,250 per year.
The median family income of a recent arrival from Mexico was $31,100 in 2013. See http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-37/
(i.e., the majority of immigrants from Mexico should be welfare-eligible)
A population in which 21 percent of adults are college graduates is a welfare-eligible population in the coastal U.S. And remember that’s the second generation (child of immigrants).
This statement doesn’t make sense. Is the whole population eligible for welfare, including the 21%? I’ve seen statistics that show that about 30% of Americans of working age (roughly 21 – 65) have a college degree, but only around of the jobs in the country require one. By your logic all of America is a “welfare-eligible population”.
Vince: that is the beauty of the U.S.! The majority of Americans, if they settle in any of the higher-cost states (which is where most of the jobs are), are eligible for welfare (e.g., subsidized Obamacare up to 400% of the poverty line). They would also be eligible for subsidized public housing in many places. So if you’re a politician promising expanding welfare, you should be able to get a majority of voters to support you.
As for comparing to another population, remember that immigrants and children of immigrants are the main source of U.S. population growth (therefore eventually looking at the whole U.S. population actually becomes looking at immigrants and children of recent immigrants). Perhaps a good proxy for looking at native-born Americans would be the “non-Hispanic white Americans” group (we’re not getting a lot of immigrants from Norway right now!). They are 37 percent likely to have a college degree (see https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-americans-have-college-degrees-than-ever-before ). Compare to 6.2 percent for an immigrant from Mexico (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/14/education-levels-of-u-s-immigrants-are-on-the-rise/ ).
(For a particular population, when I wrote “the population is welfare-eligible,” of course I meant that at least 50 percent of the members would be eligible for welfare, not that 100% would be.)
The southern Arizona border with Mexico has worse complications. The giant Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation is part in Arizona and part in Mexico. This is a sovereign Indian nation that has been on this land for 5 to 8 centuries. The Arizona part of the tribe are US citizens. The Mexican part of the tribe are Mexican citizens. These people move back and forth across the border inside the reservation as they have for centuries. US rules do not apply there. US Border Patrol and other law enforcement authorities have no rights. Building any wall is a non starter since the border is on Indian land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohono_O%27odham
http://www.worldofmaps.net/en/north-america/arizona-usa/map-federal-lands-and-indian-reservations.htm
http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Issue-Brief-Tohono-Oodham-Nation-Opposes-Border-Wall.pdf
Thanks for that link. Same question, then! Why can’t a caravan drive into the Mexican side of the reservation, walk over the border, and, now on U.S. soil, request asylum? That last link that you sent says that they’ve installed “vehicle barriers” on the roads there, but it sounds as though people can still simply walk.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-illegal-entry-to-the-u-s-or-lying-and-using-false-documents-at-entry-create-problems-when-applying-for-asylum.html
“You may have needed to use dishonest means to enter the U.S. and apply for asylum, but must now demonstrate your honesty going forward with your application for asylum or a U.S. green card. … And what if you entered through a border post, with permission from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), but you lied or used fake papers to do so? … Unlike many other categories of applicants for immigration benefits, people seeking asylum in the U.S. are not barred by having made an illegal entry; for example, sneaked across the U.S. border. Huge numbers of past asylum applicants found that entering the U.S. without permission was their only or best way to get to safety and flee the persecution they faced at home.”
It seems that a lot of folks are applying for asylum after crossing using false documents. I would think that someone who applied after just going for a walk in the desert would be more credible to a judge.
The asylum gambit is one of many methods illegals use to stay in the US. When they ask for asylum they get a hearing date. But there are very limited numbers of hearing Judges. So that hearing may be years away. So the illegal can stay in the country legally and work and have US kids and draw welfare until the hearing. Then at the hearing it is mostly chance who gets to stay and who must go back. Families are split when the father or mother loses at the hearing and is deported while the US kids stay here. This is why some politicians want more Judges and courts to speed up this process. It is also why Trump has added a new plan to force some asylum seekers to wait in Mexico. But if the illegal gets across the border at a non port of entry spot and then asks for asylum he gets to stay here waiting for his hearing. Messed up laws huh…….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
Right, but given the reservation you cite and Big Bend National Park, why is there anyone waiting on the Mexican side of the border? It seems that applying for asylum works just as well whether one applies at an official border crossing or with the nearest government official after walking across.
Because it is expensive to hire a guide (coyote) who knows the way across the desert. Then even if you come up with the money many coyotes will steal the rest of your money and leave you in the desert or take you to a semi-slave work house in the US. They rape the girls. They leave the kids and old people. Plus many die in the desert. And even if they get across a lot are caught and sent home and deported without claiming asylum.
This is why the numbers of illegals caught each year has been steadily going down for about a decade.. This is also why we do not need an expensive wall while we ignore changing and fixing some of the other issues.
bill: “we do not need an expensive wall”
But you say that people are paying coyotes. Why are they paying coyotes? Isn’t that evidence that the existing fences (not “immoral” walls, I hope!) are hard to get through? Otherwise why wouldn’t a would-be migrant simply walk across the border without the need for a guide?
Answer to your question is that people don’t know how to use google maps and have no working knowledge of geography to begin with.
Same is true with migrants coming into EU. Those who try finding alternative ways on their own often get stuck in some difficult terrain, drown trying to swim fast sections of rivers etc. And it could all be avoided with some prior study of maps and aerial imagery.
Did you talk with any of the current Border Patrol agents or Park Rangers down there about this?
Anyone asking why caravans don’t come through Big Bend don’t know the area on the US or Mexico side. When I worked down there we had been told that the wall was not going to go through Big Bend and that there is only going to be about 500 miles of wall of the 2,000 miles of the border.
The landscape would not allow for a wall down there and also out border down there is determined by the river half way is the border so if the river we’re to flood like it did in the early 1900 parts of the Rio Grande village could be in Mexico.
NC: What is the obstacle on the Mexican side? There is a road to Boquillas, right? It would not be illegal for a caravan of migrants to drive to Boquillas, would it? After that, it is a short walk into U.S. territory (a.k.a. Land of Asylum (TM)).
(Separately, “there is only going to be about 500 miles of wall of the 2,000 miles of the border” … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier says that 580 miles is already fenced.)
I went to Big Bend about 15 years ago and read up a lot on the area. First of all, you cannot walk across the border, at least in summer, when we went. The Rio Grande requires a boat. In the past there was a ferry (i.e., rowboat) you could (illegally) take to Mexico to eat at a restaurant there, but it was not in operation by the time we went.
Secondly, I had read that the Mexican side was as brutal and remote as the American side. There is no way that you are going to walk across that terrain for any length of time without dying. It’s hot, there is no water, and “desert” turns out to be full of all kinds of shit that gets in the way of walking, including plants, terrain like washes, and insects and animals you don’t want to know about. We drove the 26 mile Old Ore Road backcountry unmaintained road in a rental Ford Expedition full of water from Walmart, at 5 mph, since it was not a road by any reasonable definition, at at the halfway point I was scared to death, halfway in and I thought if one of those sharp rocks punctured our tire we were dead. We didn’t meet a single other car, except for a van off to the side at the beginning that seemed to be abandoned. This is a north-south road and representative of best-case conditions for anyone walking in from Mexico.
So the Mexican side would need vehicles, supply trucks, repair for vehicles. I don’t think you’re going to get a “caravan” in at Big Bend. You’d need to use the normal roads, with a multi-vehicle caravan.
And there are not many ways out of Big Bend to civilization, and the terrain there is also brutal. Midland-Odessa is nowheresville, but it’s 200 miles away, where we flew in on a 30 seater and rented our car. Between MO and BB after the first segment is … nothing. Ranches and a couple of “feed stores,” which are all pupose department stores for ranchers.
There are a lot of cops though, and the speed limit changes every minute. You have to pay attention. And on the way out there was the Border Patrol (CBP these days). We were stopped on the way out at like 3 in the morning by a Border Patrol car that had followed us for quite a while, In a new rental car with cruise control he couldn’t find a reason to stop us, but he did and looked at our passports (definitely take a passport to any southern border trip!)
I just don’t think Big Bend would be a priority unless well-prepared lone terrorists started to use it. But of your options, one of the away from the border either side options would be good. In the U.S. within 100 miles of the border they can just throw you back into Mexico, but the new tactic is to claim asylum, so until the law is changed, a Mexican side wall, manned by Americans, would be best.
What difference does it make if the Mexican side of the border is desert? It is not illegal or impractical to take a bus or car from Mexico City to Boquillas, is it? Then it is a short walk to the river, at which point a rubber raft may be inflated if one does not wish to walk/wade.
As you point out, since the end goal is an asylum claim, what difference does it make if it is challenging to walk out of Big Bend National Park to some other part of the U.S.? The migrant can simply apply for asylum at the air-conditioned visitor center, no? Then wait for a Border Patrol air-conditioned bus and/or Eurocopter to arrive for further transport.
If the goal is simply to arrive on U.S. soil and there are no obstacles to transportation on Mexican roads, why doesn’t it work to walk for that last 1/2 mile or so?