• No results found

Human Trafficking and Migration in Mexico

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Human Trafficking and Migration in Mexico"

Copied!
82
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN

Human Trafficking and

Migration in Mexico

The U.S. as a Negative Influence to the Mexican Situation?

Name: Natalia Paulina Báez Zamudio

Address: Damsterdiep 42, 9711SM Groningen, The Netherlands Student Number: S2339293

Telephone Number: 0623392157

(2)

1

DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that this thesis, “Human Trafficking and Migration in Mexico – The U.S. as a Negative Influence to the Mexican Situation?”, is my own work and my own effort and

that it has not been accepted anywhere else for the award of any other degree or diploma. Where sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged.

Name

Natalia Paulina Báez Zamudio

Signature

Date

(3)

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ... 3

1. Securitization Theory and Methodology ... 11

2. Securitization of Migration in the U.S. ... 20

2.1. Securitization of U.S.-Mexico Migration after 9/11 ... 24

3. The U.S.-Mexico Human Trafficking Situation ... 35

3.1. Differences between North and South enhancing human trafficking? ... 37

3.2. Border security policies enhancing human trafficking? ... 41

3.3. Criminalization of immigration enhancing human trafficking? ... 43

4. The Fight against Human Trafficking in Mexico ... 46

4.1. U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Human Trafficking and Migration ... 46

4.2. Anti-Human Trafficking Efforts in Mexico ... 51

Conclusion ... 58

Appendix ... 60

(4)

3

Introduction

“Hardened immigration and border security policies have helped increase the grip of criminal networks on immigrants and have helped to enhance the position of power of these networks at the cross border region in general. We can see that not only is the safety of immigrants put at risk by trying to find a way through increasingly dangerous crossing places, but also by the enhanced power that smugglers of human cargo are gaining as a result of the new policies.” (Alvarez Perez/Berger, 2009: 10) Mexico is an international point of reference when it comes to human trafficking and migration issues, mainly due to its status as a country of origin, transit, destination, and return for hundreds of thousands of migrants every year but also due to its current increase on violence originated by the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking (cf. IOM, 2011: 5). Migration flows are predominantly from less developed countries to industrialized nations, such as the United States, or towards neighboring countries with significantly higher standards of living. Therefore, Mexico – due to its special geographical location – is a territory that not only provides migrants, but also that temporarily shelters those coming from less developed Central American countries on their way to the U.S. (Miko, 2002: 1). Many migrants risk their life and safety throughout their journey to the United States, facing constant and serious violations to their human rights. Human trafficking is among the main crimes affecting migrants, especially the more vulnerable groups among them such as women and children.1 According to statistical data of the International Organization

for Migration (IOM, 2011: 10) on victims of human trafficking in Mexico, the most common motives for this crime are labor and sexual exploitation. Human trafficking of

1 Article 3 of the UN’s Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime defines Trafficking in persons as “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs” (UN Trafficking Protocol, 2000).

(5)

4

irregular migrants, especially (sex)trafficking of women and children, as well as for forced labor is one of the fastest growing areas of this international criminal activity.

Important for this paper is therefore the concept of irregular migration2 in relation to the

migrant flows crossing through Mexico into the U.S. Irregular migrants are people who do not possess an authorized entry to the destination country, have broken legal entry conditions or unlawfully overstayed their visa permits in the host country (IOM, 2011). The majority of people trafficked for forced labor, domestic servitude, or sexual exploitation are women and children (U.S. Department of State, 2013b and Miko, 2003).

Recent figures from the United Nations and the International Labor Organization show that there are at least over 12 million enslaved adults and children around the world, from which around one and a half million are victims of commercial sexual servitude (U.S. CBP, 2013)3. For the last 50 years women have represented almost half of the migrant population globally and have constituted the majority of victims of trafficking in persons detected globally. But more importantly, more than half of all forced labor victims are women and girls (cf. UNODC, 2012).4

Approximately 400,000 people pass through Mexico annually and 6 out of 10 girls and women suffer from sexual violence. Migrants fall victims of the many different strings of illegal activities deriving from organized crime. In the year 2012 alone, 22,000 migrants were kidnapped (cf. CATWLAC, 2012: 10 and Camacho Servín, 2013b). In this respect, the Migration Policy Institute points out that criminal organizations on Mexican soil control other illegal activity branches besides drug trafficking, such as arms trafficking, human

2 Irregular migration refers to “the movement that takes place outside the regulatory norms of the sending, transit and receiving countries. From the perspective of destination countries it is entry, stay or work in a country without the necessary authorization or documents required under immigration regulations. From the perspective of the sending country, the irregularity is seen in cases in which a person crosses an international boundary without a valid passport or travel document or does not fulfil the administrative requirements for leaving the country.” (IOM, 2011)

(6)

5

trafficking and extortion of transmigrants on their way to or already residing in the U.S. Along this problem, there is still disagreement about the role and influence of organized crime on migration. Nevertheless, it is evident that the routes of migrant and drug flows are often the same, making it easier for criminal organizations to branch out and engage in illegal practices such as human trafficking and smuggling as well as kidnapping and extortion of migrants (Rosenblum/Brick, 2011: 13 and Dudley, 2012).

Securitized and repressive (im)migration policies have pushed a large number of migrants into the hands of smugglers and traffickers. This has allowed human traffickers to become international players by facilitating illegal border crossings to those who cannot migrate legally. As a result, human trafficking has become a more lucrative business, increasing the numbers of victimized migrants during their journey to the U.S. (Lee, 2011: 2 et seq.). Hence, U.S. deterrence and border security measures have had little successful influence on stemming undocumented migrant flows or reducing the incidence of smuggling and human trafficking activities, establishing a fruitful market for human smugglers and traffickers. Nevertheless, despite the lack of results – other than increasing migrant detentions – Mexico has supported the U.S.’ post-9/11 national and international security policies that resulted in stronger border enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In this respect, Cicero Domínguez (2006: 318) suggests that U.S. tactics against illegal immigration focusing on criminal deportation and the securitization of the borders have created a more unsafe and violent environment along the U.S.-Mexico border region, characterized by criminal activities related to smuggling and trafficking in persons that make transmigrants more vulnerable to fall victims of organized crime.

(7)

6

Research Question

In this context, this paper aims to find out to what extent the U.S. has influenced the Mexican human trafficking situation in relation to migration, in particular (sex)trafficking of migrant women. This, under the assumption that the U.S.’ securitized approach to these issues has influenced Mexico’s human trafficking5 situation and anti-trafficking efforts in a negative way, increasing the vulnerability of migrants and violence perpetuated against them. The possible negative effects on the Mexican situation will be analyzed by outweighing the U.S.’ intended or unintended leverage on Mexico resulting from the securitization of migration. This paper will therefore ask the question: To what extent has the securitization of U.S.-Mexico migration6 and borders influenced the Mexican human trafficking situation and anti- trafficking efforts?

Social and Scientific Significance of Research Question

An analysis of the U.S.’ role and influence on the Mexican human trafficking and migration issue will provide new insights on why the Mexican government addresses the issue in a certain way, as well as on the leverage that the U.S. has had on the manner in which the problem is perceived and addressed. As a result, by pointing out weaknesses on current strategies and perceptions of the issue, new ways to successfully and effectively counter human trafficking and human rights violations against migrants will be discovered.

This research will make two contributions, on the one hand empirical data will provide information about why certain strategies adopted by Mexico and the U.S. in matters of migration and human trafficking have not been successful or positive to the improvement of the situation of transmigrants in Mexico. Furthermore, Mexican institutional weaknesses and the permeability of police forces and migration agents towards organized crime as well as historic economic ties and differences between north and south will be taken into account, due to their role as obstacles to the success of measures undertaken to tackle human trafficking and prevent illegal migration. On the other hand, this paper will provide

5 The concepts embedded in the here portrayed term of “human trafficking situation” include the occurrence of human trafficking, defined by the increasing or decreasing numbers of disappearances and (sex)trafficking victims as well as the amount of (effective) governmental efforts against human trafficking.

(8)

7

new perspectives on how to address these issues and deal with United States’ influence on the matter.

At the social level, this paper may contribute to the reform of government programs for a better democratic performance of Mexico under the administration of Enrique Peña Nieto by pointing out weaknesses and obstacles to the government’s actions to guarantee the respect of human rights of irregular migrants crossing through Mexico, as well as the fight against organized crime activities, such as human trafficking and the protection of migrants from these organized crime groups. Scientifically, the paper will contribute to the existing literature on the securitization of borders and migration, as well as organized crime and human trafficking related issues between the U.S. and Mexico by addressing the underresearched relation between the securitization of migration and human trafficking.

Research Design and Methodology

This paper will examine the development of migration and human trafficking on Mexican territory in relation to the securitized migration strategies of the United States, especially during the last decade. Additionally, the success or failure of implemented human trafficking and migration approaches in Mexico and its relation to a possibly U.S. influenced securitized perception of those issues will be analyzed by using the securitization theory as a guiding line when looking at the U.S’ securitization of migration and its effects on the Mexican situation with the help of empirical data on both human trafficking and migration, as well as recent policy developments on the matter.

(9)

8

stronger and more flexible smuggling and trafficking networks, weakening the possibilities for protection of undocumented immigrants from organized crime.7

Measures undertaken by the U.S. at the U.S.-Mexico border, especially after the events of 9/11 have affected all types of migration to the U.S., but more importantly they have rendered irregular migrants more susceptible to fall victims of human trafficking groups, failing to reduce the pressures that cause them to leave their countries of origin behind. Central American transmigrants have increasingly become victims of dangerous and exploitative situations during their journey through Mexico but also after their arrival in the United States. This has created the impression that the “war on terror” and the securitization of migration accompanied by its increasing border control measures has had negative side-effects, especially on the Mexican side, making it harder for both the U.S. and Mexico to fulfill their humanitarian obligations and provide a worthy environment and treatment of (im)migrants by protecting them from human rights violations and organized crime, especially human trafficking (cf. ICHRP, 2010: 2).

The U.S. has principally tried to manage migration through collaboration with Mexico on a security level, creating policies that link migration to security. Nonetheless, toughened immigration controls resulting from cooperation agreements between Mexico and the U.S. have proved to be ineffective, causing only a shift of human trafficking routes, keeping migrant flows growing steady and consequently providing a feeding ground for these organized crime groups (Estévez, 2012: 35-38).

Until today, U.S.-Mexico migration policies have focused on reducing migrant flows through border enforcement instead of tackling the problem from its roots, such as the lack of development and job opportunities, as well as Mexico’s violence burdened societies. To some extent the current approach to migration resembles the one used against drugs and arms trafficking. Policies focus on preventing the entrance of immigrants through

(10)

9

militarizing and patrolling the borders, which consequently pushes irregular migrants to seek help from smuggling and human trafficking groups (cf. ibid. and Alvarez Perez/Berger, 2009: 11).

Migration and human trafficking are closely linked by the search and strong desire for better life conditions and job opportunities. This has become the perfect hook for traffickers to recruit and expose migrants to modern slavery, either in transit (Mexico) or destination countries (U.S.). Therefore, what starts as a smuggling operation can quickly turn into human trafficking, pressuring migrants into forced labor or prostitution (cf. Le Goff/Weiss, 2011: 23; Garza, 2011 and UNODC, 2006).

Thereupon, when trying to delineate the subject area of this paper some limitations arouse in terms of finding the most adequate perspective to look at the human trafficking phenomenon in relation to the securitization of migration. This was caused by its multifaceted character and the possibility to look at it from many different perspectives, i.e. as a modern form of slavery, as a side effect of the globalization of crime, as a problem of transnational organized crime, as a synonym to prostitution, as a migration problem and also as a human rights issue (Lee, 2011: 20). In this respect, the securitization theory is an adequate tool to analyze the influence of securitized immigration policies on the incidence of the human trafficking phenomenon due to its clear elements and conditions for success in the securitization process that here will be combined with empirical data to support the line of reasoning of the analysis.

Thus, the main argument of this paper is that the securitization of U.S.-Mexico migration has increased the number of human trafficking victims in and from Mexico as well as influenced the anti-trafficking efforts of the Mexican government.

The paper is structured as follows:

(11)

10

methodology used to analyze these. Furthermore, the granted theoretical insight will prepare the reader for the analysis section on the securitization of U.S.-Mexico migration and its alleged negative influence on the Mexican human trafficking situation.

Accordingly, the second chapter will analyze U.S. actions leading to the securitization of migration and borders before and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. For this, the question: To what extent has there been a securitization of U.S.-Mexico migration? will be asked. The securitization of migration in the U.S., as well as U.S.-Mexico migration will be addressed, explaining the relation between the two and the influence that the 9/11 events had on the U.S. securitization process overall.

The third chapter will deal with other influential factors related to human trafficking and migration that can have an impact on the U.S.’ securitized approach to migration and impede more effective and thorough actions against human trafficking. Here, the question: To what extent have factors associated with the U.S. relationship to Mexico and Central America enhanced the occurrence of human trafficking and migration? will be asked. Correspondingly, the influence of labor and economic disparities between North and South, hardening border security measures and the criminalization of migration on the U.S.-Mexico human trafficking situation will be evaluated.

(12)

11

1. Securitization Theory and Methodology

“Securitization combines a particular understanding of the meaning of the term/practice of ‘security’ with the claim that security is a ‘speech act’, arguing that securitization is the act or process of successfully attaching the meaning of ‘security’ to a particular case or development.” (Stritzel, 2011: 343)

The securitization theory is concerned with the analysis of security issues within a country with the help of a speech act philosophy in which the linguistic articulation of security is a form of security act. Accordingly, public affairs may legitimately be treated outside the realm of "normal" politics by the utterance of security (cf. Stritzel, 2007: 360). Hence, the securitization theory – as a discipline of security studies in international relations – pursues the interest of finding an answer to the question: What is security? To do that, actors, strategies and priorities of security policies and discourses are examined. Due to its broad investigation width, the theory can be applied to various themes such as migration, human rights, European integration, terrorism, global health, among others (cf. Ciutǎ, 2009: 301). According to the securitization theory, security is “what actors make of it” (Buzan/Waever, 2003: 48). It finds its origins in the late 1980s with Ole Waever and was later further developed by the Copenhagen School (CS). The securitization theory distances itself from a materialist view of security, in which security has priority over words, i.e. when security is viewed as a given concept regardless of its pronunciation or utterance (cf. Ejdus, 2009: 11). Therefore, language and not security is of paramount importance in the securitization process. Here, an issue can be transferred from the sphere of normal politics into the security agenda through the speech act.

(13)

12

According to Carl Schmitt, any matter, be it religious, moral, economic or ethical can be "political" when the group of people starting in it can be incorporated into a friend-foe scheme. Similarly, this happens in the process of securitization, in which any matter may be securitized as long as it solidifies itself as such in the audience, and is perceived as an obvious threat to its existence (cf. Williams, 2003: 516). This means that the actor or authority that recognizes or perceives a threat can get the right to use extraordinary measures to defend itself or block the enemy’s threat, only if the audience accepts this threat and also perceives it as such. Hence, the audience’s acceptance of the posed existential threat and the suggested measures to fight it is indispensable for the existence of a successful securitization move (cf. Ejdus, 2009: 13 et seq.).

Buzan et al. (1998: 31) summarize it as follows: “Whether an issue is a security issue is not something individuals decide alone. Securitization is inter-subjective and socially constructed”. The success of a securitization move can only be detected when the audience accepts an uttered threat and consequently gives the securitizer legitimation for the use of extraordinary measures to fight it. Therefore, securitization is not objective, but characterized by the interaction between the subjects.

The Security Concept

The securitization theory attempts to produce a wider perspective on the scope of the concept of security. The theory can be characterized as critical and detailed because it separates itself from the state focus and does not limit its analysis to activities of the state – such as military interventions and investments – but also focuses on the securitization process within a broad spectrum of public affairs. The security concept within securitization refers mainly to the survival of a particular referent object, which may be existentially threatened by any public matter (Buzan, et al., 1998: 21).

(14)

13

a threat. The security analysis of the securitization theory uses a logic in which an existential threat can only transform into a security issue if the securitizer characterizes it as such and the audience simultaneously accepts this characterization (Emmers, 2010: 137). To better understand the concept of security within the securitization process Buzan, Waever and De Wilde (1998: 23 et seq.) present – in their book: “Security: a new framework for analysis” – a spectrum in which certain public issues can be classified according to their political character. Non-politicized issues are those which the state does not address and that are not part of the public debate; politicized issues are matters that belong to public policy and thus require the involvement or help from the government. Securitized issues are those that contain a certain existential threat and require emergency measures that go beyond the normal rules of the political system.8

The speech act is the main instrument inside a securitization process and can be implemented by different entities. Any actor who is able to credibly express an existential threat and thereby reach a relevant audience can be described as a securitizer. The description of certain matters as existential security threats makes it possible to attack areas from outside the normal politics frame and introduce extraordinary measures (Roe, 2008: 617 et seq.). Thus, the usual rules of politics can be avoided because of the exceptional nature of the expressed emergency situation. Extraordinary threats permit the use of extraordinary measures to restore security and consequently, public matters may be transformed into security issues.

As mentioned at the beginning, according to the CS, securitization has a performative nature, in which an action is performed only by the action of pronouncing certain words, such as “existential threat” or “threat to national security” for example. This represents the idea that only by the pronunciation of the word security the perception of certain public issues can be changed (Knudsen, 2001: 360). The “abductive” power of words plays a central role since it enables the securitizer to integrate certain issues into a new context and influence the audience’s perception of reality (Balzacq, 2005: 180 et seq.).

(15)

14

If an authority manages – through uttering the importance or urgency of blocking a certain existential threat – to combat an alleged threat without being held accountable to the existing rules and laws of the normal political system, then one can speak of a successfully completed securitization process. As a result of this, an important resonance platform is created, in which acceptance occurs, giving legitimacy to the use of special “emergency” measures and enforcing the securitization of an issue (cf. Roe, 2004: 281).

It is primordial to integrate a grammar of security into the language of the securitizer so that a significant proportion of the audience can be convinced of the importance of a security threat and the urgency to fight it. Moreover, the audience also must possess a certain degree of relevance, for it to have the power to facilitate or interfere with the success of a securitization move (cf. Emmers, 2010: 139). The authenticity of the threat is important, but also the construction of it through the audience’s acceptance and legitimation. The act itself of calling something a security threat to a particular referent object is central to the success of the securitization (cf. Buzan et al., 1998: 25 et seq.). Therefore, there are three components required in the securitization process:

1. Referent object: Objects that are designated or viewed as threatened in their existence and have the legitimate right to survival. Using the U.S.-Mexico migration as an example for securitization, the U.S. government designated the state and its institutions, the public and national security, the well-being of society itself as referent objects threatened by terrorism, porous borders and therefore also undocumented migration.

(16)

15

3. Functional actors: Actors affecting the dynamics of a particular sector by exerting a significant influence on the security decisions. They are not to be considered as referent objects. According to this definition in the U.S. mainly Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups became the functional actors. They act as functional stakeholders within the securitization process because they sometimes can affect political decision-making and other functions of the state and its institutions, as well as aspects of social life by means of terrorist activities (Buzan et al., 1998: 36 et seq.). On the other hand, Thierry Balzacq sees securitization as a strategic act and divides it into three components:

1. Audience: The audience is the reference frame of the speech act. Thus the securitization process depends on the willingness and openness to persuasion from the audience. The degree of persuasion thus depends on the positive public perception of the securitizing actor, for example as a competent and trustworthy person. Therefore, the audience has the ability to grant or deny the securitization attempt. In the U.S., the audience is composed by society, the media, and political and intellectual elites. These groups need to accept the statements of the securitizers so that the securitization process can be successful (cf. Balzacq, 2005: 190).

(17)

16

3. Capacity of the Securitizer: This is the ability of the securitizer to make use of the appropriate expressions and words that can integrate a threat in a convincing frame of reference. Consequently, the support of the audience is obtained so that his political intentions can be successfully prosecuted. This capacity of the securitizer depends primarily on its relevance or authority in society and its public perception. If the securitizer possesses little power or little credibility, his capacity to convince the audience of certain threats is significantly lower than that of a securitizer that enjoys public recognition by for example being part of a political elite (cf. Balzacq, 2005: 190).

Due to the strategic characteristics of securitization as a speech act, there is no objective understanding of security. The authenticity of a threat is not an identifiable entity and therefore the difference between a “real” and a “perceived” threat cannot be presented. Therefore, the performative utterances of the speech act have the ability to describe or create a reality according the securitizers intentions, giving him the ability to make the audience believe in the exceptionality of a threat (Stritzel, 2007).

As a result, the speech act can be described as an attempt to convince an audience – through the strategic use of terms and phrases – to believe that a threat is big and dangerous enough for it to be urgent to immediately fight it with extraordinary measures. This is mainly due to the discursive construction of a “state of emergency”. In Thierry Balzacq’s (2005: 173) opinion the CS neglects the strategic intentions of the speech act, as well as the influences of the external context on it. He argues in his book: “The three faces of securitization: political agency, audience and context” that the securitization process needs to be considered as a strategic process, because its success depends not only the speech act, but also on the outside context.

(18)

17

As a context-dependent process, the success of a securitization move depends not only on the acceptance of the audience but on a facilitating external context. Thus, the speech-act does not construct a reality but shapes the perception of reality of the audience, also influenced by the already given external context. The expressions within the speech-act do not define the essence of a problem, but rather construct a particular view or perception of it (cf. Balzacq, 2011: 12 et seq.). The success of a securitization move – in relation to the acceptance of the audience – is also closely linked to security utterances that to a certain extent reflect the context of the outside reality.

In this sense, the social reality can promote or prevent the implementation and acceptance of a securitization move. Michael C. Williams also sees the securitization process not as a pure speech act based on verbal or linguistic rhetoric, but rather as a much broader “performative” act in which the institutional and symbolic means of the external context have to be taken into consideration, since they both equally affect the success of securitization act (cf. Williams, 2003: 526).

Therefore, in this case not only the speech itself plays a central role, but also the context related elements that contribute to the acceptance of the expressed existential threat. Hence, securitization is a “rule -governed practice, where success does not necessarily depend on the existence of a real threat, but on the discursive ability to effectively endow a development with seeking a specific complexion” (Balzacq, 2005: 179).

Critique of the Securitization Theory

The limitations of the securitization theory lay within its assumption that anything can be transferred from the sphere of normal politics to the sphere of security through the speech act. In this respect, Holger Stritzel (2007: 358-363) criticizes the basic elements of a securitization process (the speech act, the securitizing actor, the audience and its facilitating conditions) of being too vague and relying heavily on the articulation of the speech act itself without providing an exact mechanism of analysis.

(19)

18

to identify the when and why and even which audience can be most relevant and how to determine its actual influence on the success of a securitization move (Stritzel 2007: 363 et seq.). Other critical voices have pointed at the lack of conceptual clarity in relation to the referent objects of security that exclude non-state and societal objects; the focus on democratic and domestic forms of governance that make it difficult to apply the theory on other systems of government; and the lack of clarity about the differences between normal and emergency measures (Watson, 2011: 5).9

The lack of attention to the external context by the CS has also been criticized by arguing that the influence of social relations are what establishes the actors and their speech acts, with the claim that an actor gains its relevance and significance influenced by the external context (Stritzel, 2007: 367; Williams, 2003; Balzacq, 2005 and McDonald, 2008). Others have formulated the claim of a securitization process not only on a linguistic level with the speech act, but through components standing outside the discursive context, such as the analysis of media transfer of images (Williams, 2003, Balzacq, 2005 and McDonald, 2008). Despite the above presented criticism of the securitization theory, it is the most suitable for this paper due to the Copenhagen School’s comprehensive security framework that allows the examination of the links between the concepts of security and migration, as well as the effect of emergency measures resulting out of them (cf. Stivachtis, 2008: 2).

Implementation of the Securitization Theory

For the following analysis, border control and anti-migration strategies and measures, as well as utterances of the U.S. government, in form of speeches in relation to migration, borders and terrorism will be analyzed. More specifically, this part of the paper will deal with the application of the securitization theory to public speeches of U.S. Presidents and other representatives of the executive branch, and with the analysis of concrete actions and

9 For more information on the different critique points of the securitization theory see: Wilkinson, C. (2007): The Copenhagen School on tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is securitization theory usable outside Europe? Security

Dialogue Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 5-25; Vuori, J. (2008): Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: Applying

the theory of securitization to the study of non-democratic political orders. European Journal of International

Relations Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 65-99; Rasmussen, M. (2001): Reflexive security: NATO and international risk

(20)

19

programs (official U.S. government documents) on migration, border control and anti-trafficking.

To determine a successful securitization process, an answer to the following questions must be found: Which actors are involved in the securitization of migration in the U.S.? Which reference objects are threatened by irregular migration and porous borders? What is the reaction of the audience in relation to the written and oral statements of the government or other securitizers? According to the elements of a securitization process, has there been a successful securitization of migration and borders? If so, how have the securitized actions undertaken influenced the human trafficking situation and anti-trafficking efforts in Mexico?

The securitization of migration is not only visible in speech-acts, but also in form of concrete actions undertaken, such as the creation of security measures, strategies and institutions to gain legitimacy. This following section will address the restrictive border security and migration programs launched before and after the statements of George W. Bush on terrorism. Hence, the securitization process will be divided into two stages:

1. The speech act: Here, the securitization process deals with the utterance of a threat by means of discursive elements that can be incorporated in public speeches and discourses in order to convince an audience of the existence of this threat.

2. The introduction of security measures to combat the expressed threat: This stage of the securitization process deals with the preparation and implementation of strategies and programs to combat postulated threat scenarios. For example, in the case of the securitization of migration in the U.S. this would be the creation of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) focused on terrorism, migration and border control issues or an increment in border patrol agents.

(21)

20

2. Securitization of Migration in the U.S.

According to Bidlo and Englert (2011: 241) those who dominate the security discourse have the power to decide “who and what must be considered as an enemy of national security and vice versa, and who or what is part of the threatened”. Therefore, this section will deal with the process of the securitization in the U.S., especially U.S.-Mexico migration. According to the theoretical framework presented above, it will be analyzed to what extent migration has been securitized in relation to undocumented immigrant flows and terrorism in the U.S. Under the assumption that this led to harder and stronger border control and deterrence efforts that had a negative influence on the human trafficking situation in Mexico.

To securitize immigration, the securitizer must utter credible claims that establish migrants as a factor that threatens the survival of specific political units. Therefore, a securitization process provides the possibility to draw attention to certain issues that are raised to a level of threat and response that allows them to be handled in a less objective manner. In this case, undocumented migrants are characterized as undesirable security threats (Huysmans, 1995). This transforms (im)migrants into entities related to fear by denominating them as potential threats, reducing them to dangerous objects, factors or statistics that intensify inclusion and exclusion processes between countries (Huysmans, 2006: 61).

Current debates surrounding migration and security reflect changes both in the nature of migration, as well as in the nature of thinking about migration. Originally, migration was perceived merely as a social and economic phenomenon, as opposed to today where migration is also considered around global politics and security (Huysmans/Squire, 2009: 1).For instance, in the U.S. the rise of undocumented immigrants was initially portrayed as a destabilizer of the American labor market and therefore undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border were seen as enhancers of unemployment, as existential threats to the labor market of the United States (cf. Huysmans, 2006: 47).

(22)

21

two peoples and two languages” in reference to Hispanics and white non-migrant U.S. citizens (Huntington, 2004)10. Consequently, Huntington perceives illegal immigration as a major threat to the cultural, economic and political integrity of the United States (cf. Citrin/Lerman/Murakami/Pearson, 2007).

Huntington’s work has been highly questioned and described by some as “racist” and “xenophobic” as well as scientifically unreliable (cf. Etzioni, 2005: 476). Nevertheless, his point of view on migration is a good example for a conservative United States’ perception of irregular immigration as a threat, be it to the national, societal or economic security of the country. (cf. Citrin/Lerman/Murakami/Pearson, 2007: 31 and Huntington, 2004: 235). Initially, the growing and no longer necessary influx of immigrants from Mexico into the U.S. was linked to a possibly threatening scenario for the (cultural) identity and (economic) security of the American society (cf. Stivachtis, 2008: 3). 11 Especially during the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a significant increase on illegal migration to America, which resulted in the Border Patrol increasing its manpower and implementing modern technology at the border.12

Moreover, during the 1990’s different high profile border control operations to secure borders and impede the entrance to undocumented immigrant flows were created, such as: “Operation Hold the Line” in El Paso, “Operation Gatekeeper” in San Diego, “Operation Safeguard” in Arizona and “Operation Rio Grande” in Texas together with the construction of new walls and fences along the U.S.-Mexico border and the creation of a Border Safety Initiative (BSI) in 1998, which also intended to increase the cooperation with Mexico around this issue (cf. CBP, 2010 and Heyman, 2009: 45). As a result, the border between Mexico and the United States started to close up due to increased restrictive immigration policies (cf. Andreas and Snyder, 2000; Spener, 2003 in Lee, 2011: 116).

10 Samuel P. Huntington perceives illegal immigration as a merely Mexican phenomenon, based majorly on the immigrant flows to the U.S. during the 1990’s, where more than 60 percent of the illegal immigrants entering the U.S. and over 50 percent of the total illegal population were Mexican, emphasizing that the problem of illegal immigration into the U.S. was a majorly Mexican issue.

11 Bracero Program: Due to the Second World War, the United States experienced a shortage in manpower, which pushed the country to legally hire over 4.5 million Mexicans citizens for temporary (agricultural) work. The Program was established in 1942 and terminated in 1964 (Bracero History Archive, 2014).

(23)

22

By the year 2001 homeland security had become a primary concern due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As a result, border security was established a constant topic of interest (cf. CBP, 2010). In the words of Heyman (2009: 44) the U.S. securitization process is proof of how terrorist violence against American civilians has been merged with narcotics, smuggling and undocumented migration in border policy. In this sense, securitization of migration provided the U.S. government with the necessary impunity from public scrutiny and control for the implementation of extraordinary measures, as seen with the exponential growth of detection and force technologies at the U.S.-Mexico border. Therefore, the discourse in relation to the securitization of migration has revolved mainly around the alleged threat that irregular immigration poses to social and more recently national security, especially after the terrorist attacks to the U.S. and the resulting “global war on terrorism” (GWoT).

It is important to introduce this initial phase of the securitization of U.S. migration to later better understand the effects of the securitization of U.S.-Mexico migration after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. As shown above the U.S. had long started a securitization of the U.S.-Mexico border before the events of 2001. The U.S.’ incorporated the pre-existing securitization of irregular immigration to the U.S. into a further securitization of the U.S.-Mexico border justified by the necessity to counter potential terrorist threats and not only undocumented migration (Buzan, 2006, 1106 et seq.).

(24)

23

the issue, targeting not only undocumented migration but also Arab and Muslim migrants as potential terrorists and threats to national security. Porous borders and irregular migration became serious issues, being portrayed as existential threats, as threats to the existence and well-being of the U.S. nation as a whole, justifying harder deterrence measures at the U.S.-Mexico border (cf. Tirman, 2006 and Stivachtis, 2008: 2).

In general, migration issues developed in the course of the years as part of high domestic and international politics engaging the attention of international organizations and states. Particularly in relation to terrorism, migration has been linked to matters of defense, international security and foreign relations. As a result, the rise of migration flows and potential terrorist threats to the U.S. boosted its anti-immigration policies as well as the perception of undocumented migrants as threats to national and international security and stability (Stivachtis, 2008: 1 et seq.).

(25)

24

2.1. Securitization of U.S.-Mexico Migration after 9/11

As already introduced above, security anxieties in relation to undocumented immigration to the U.S. although constant, significantly increased after 9/11 by linking the immigration threat to terrorism, under the argument that the U.S.-Mexico border could be a possible entry route for terrorists. Thus, increased border enforcement measures such as electronic fences, deployment of national guard troops, as well as expanded border patrols have been employed under the idea that this would keep illegal immigrants away and at the same time provide protection against terrorist threats (Tirman, 2006: 2). Hence, this section will analyze to what extent U.S.-Mexico migration has been securitized to later address the effects that this has had on the human trafficking situation in Mexico.

Grounded on the fear of porous borders influenced by the 9/11 attacks, anti-terrorism measures became the highest national priority, having the main goal of stopping the entry of any possible future terrorists. In order to achieve this, border control was transformed from being a public order issue into a national security issue. Thus, through a securitization process, migration and border control were taken from the realm of public policy into the realm of security.

Consequently, over at least the last two decades, the U.S. has worked on reducing the flow of illegal immigrants with securitized measures such as the increased military presence at the U.S. border with Mexico, as well as Border Patrol agents, strong fencing and monitoring through electronic devices and aerial drones. Nevertheless, illegal immigrant flows not only from Mexico but especially from Central American countries have remained steady. This serves as proof to the fact that as long as there are still considerable economic and developmental differences between the U.S. and its southern neighbors, the incentives for illegal immigrants to enter the country will remain and therefore also their risks of being trafficked (cf. Alden, 2012: 112-113).

(26)

25

immigration through enforcement measures alone: tougher enforcement increases the financial incentive to elude enforcement.” Therefore, any possibility to outlaw the increased border enforcement becomes justified and deemed necessary and is therefore also on high demand, creating a human trafficking problem (Alden, 2012: 116). In this respect, smuggling and human trafficking groups have highly profited from the U.S. stronger deterrence and border control measures resulting from the securitization of migration and the U.S.-Mexico border.

Most of the literature concerning the securitization of migration and the resulting association of border control to security points out that the linkage of migration and borders to security has had a negative effect on the intended stemming of migration flows and possible threats to security. Moreover, most authors agree upon the ineffectiveness of decades old deterrence efforts that have caused the relocation of illegal immigration routes as well as increased organized crime activities and created more safety risks for undocumented immigrants (cf. Ackleson, 2005/Andreas, 2003/Astor, 2009/Casillas, 2011/Castles, 2004/Cirero Domínguez, 2005/Johnson, 2002, Martínez, 2009 and Tirman, 2006).

It is important to take a closer look into the securitization process of the U.S., to analyze how this linkage of migration and security was established and how increasingly militarized border security and anti-immigration efforts were legitimized and justified in the U.S. public (cf. Buzan et al., 1998:32-33). As mentioned earlier, a successful securitization must include a posed and accepted existential threat, emergency actions to counter it, by breaking free of rules – meaning the use of extraordinary measures justified by the urgency of combating the threat – and the emotionality of recipients, who must feel involved and directly threatened in order to legitimize the extraordinary measures suggested by the securitizer.

(27)

26

success of the securitization move, since the audience had been currently burdened by the fear of another terrorist attack; society’s concern with security had been boosted. Therefore, the likelihood of the audience accepting the posed threat was very high.

During this time, the attitudes toward immigration and immigrants inside the U.S. changed strongly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After these events, the federal government initiated a securitization move, by posing migration and terrorism as threats to national security and making the enforcement of borders an indispensable task in order to protect the U.S. as a nation. This shift of perception came along with new immigration reforms that focused on patrolling and constraining the movement of mainly people, but also goods and services inside and outside the U.S.

Under the flag of the urgent necessity to secure the nation’s borders and increase security measures against potential terrorist threats, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003, making homeland defense and security an even more central task to the U.S.’ foreign and national policy. One of the main tasks of this department was and still is border control and establishing a link between border security and terrorism. The linkage was established by merging different border control agencies, such as the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Coast Guard.

Moreover, border and immigration enforcement became the largest budget receivers at the DHS, getting more than half of the agency’s annual budget. Additionally the “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act” was issued in 2005 and the “Secure Fence Act” of 2006 led to the construction of a wall across more than 1000 km of the Southwest border that replace the previous fencing (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011: 15 and Alden, 2012: 111).13 These actions show a clear exponentially growing focus on law enforcement and national security institutions, as the perception of unauthorized migration as a matter of national security (Andreas, 2003: 5 and Astor, 2009: 5-6).

Under the Obama administration the U.S.-Mexico cooperation on law enforcement and intelligence agencies also increased. For instance, in 2010 the DHS Secretary Napolitano

(28)

27

and Mexican Secretary of Public Safety Genaro García Luna signed a Declaration of Principles of Coordination on efforts regarding security, travel and trade. Later on, President Obama and President Calderón also signed the “Declaration by The Government of The United States Of America and The Government of The United Mexican States Concerning Twenty-First Century Border Management” which established principles and collaboration goals concerning border management (NIF, 2010: 2-3).

Physically, changes also became visible through the significant increment of border patrolling with over 21,000 agents and securing borders with kilometers of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, together with the deployment of high technologies such as pilotless drones and sensor cameras to prevent illegal crossings (cf. Alden, 2012: 107). However, the implemented securitized strategies did not have a significant impact on stemming illegal migrant flows into the U.S. or the detection of potential terrorist threats, but they did increment the violation of human rights and increased the occurrence of illegal activities at the U.S.-Mexico border, such as human, sex and drug trafficking (cf. Johnson Jr., 2002: 201).

After the events of 9/11 migration was successfully securitized in the U.S. Traditional border issues such as migration and human trafficking are now evaluated through a security lens. There is a wide spread fear of porous borders, immigration and terrorism; public opinion surveys done after the attacks of 9/11 showed that the majority of its participants perceived border control and stricter enforcement of immigration laws as an essential task to prevent terrorism (Andreas, 2003: 1-2).

From the Realm of Normal Politics to the Realm of Security

(29)

28

1993 to 2008 the U.S. funds dedicated to border operations increased 1,000 percent and the number of border patrol agents grew by 354 percent (cf. Massey, 2009b).

Border patrols have always been present between Mexico and the U.S., nonetheless the steadily repressive scenario of anti-migration policies was emphasized after 9/11, when President George W. Bush established a connection between his “war on terrorism” and immigration, and therefore also indirectly initiated a fight against illegal immigration. The southern U.S. border was turned into a police and military fortress. For instance, U.S. border enforcement policies had a 950% increment of the U.S. Border Patrol budget compared to the one designated for the year 1980 (cf. Massey, 2009b).

In 2001 there were around 9,000 agents at the southwest border sectors, whereas in 2012 there were 18,546 border patrol agents from 21,394 agents positioned nationwide, leaving almost 86 percent of the agents concentrated at the U.S.-Mexico border (U.S. CBP, 2013a). By the year 2009, there were a total of 20,100 agents active and over 1,000 kilometers of fences had been built along the U.S.-Mexico border (cf. Herrera-Lasso/Artola, 2011: 27). The toughening migration controls and deterrence efforts have exposed migrants to great dangers when attempting to enter through less monitored places. As a result, immigrants were forced to move to more dangerous routes with the help of human traffickers or smugglers in order to reach their final destination, risking their lives and falling victims of human rights violations such as human and sex trafficking (cf. Estévez, 2012: 50-51). In this regard, Andreas (2003: 2) identifies the increase of border control initiatives in the U.S. as “politically successful policy failures”; successful in the sense that they had a symbolic and imagery effect on the American audience, which contributed to the success of the securitization move initiated after the 9/11 attacks; a failure in terms of ineffective deterrence efforts, the steadiness of immigration and drug flows as well as the uncertainty of terrorist threats being traceable or preventable when it came to illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border.

(30)

29

rapidly expanded and tripled its budget since the 1990’s. It became the fastest growing federal agency and this fact seemed logically acceptable and necessary to the Americans (cf. Andreas, 2003: 2). As a result of the exponentially growing border enforcement strategies, the U.S. border patrol agent staffing almost doubled from the year 2000 to 2011 (U.S. CBP, 2013b).

The increasing emphasis on border enforcement after 2001 and the securitization of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border has been notorious. Nevertheless, the increased border enforcement measures as an attempt to protect the U.S. as a nation from external threats failed to effectively counter illegal practices, such as undocumented migration, human trafficking and smuggling. Militarization and increased border policing proved unsuccessful, causing only the redirection and relocation of illegal migrant crossings as well as human trafficking methods and routes (Andreas 2003: 3).

Securitization and the Speech Act

President Bush can be seen as the main securitizer in the U.S. securitization process; his speeches after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 provide concrete examples of the use of a security grammar inside the speech-acts of securitization:

“And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” (Bush, 2001, emphasis added).

The expressions used in Bush’s speeches use a friend vs. enemy scheme as part of the securitization move, considering the U.S. nation and other western countries that support the U.S. in its “war on terror” as friends, while terrorists and every other nation that refuses to support the U.S. in this matter are invariably described as threats or enemies: “These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity.” (G.W. Bush in Phillips, 2005, emphasis added).14

(31)

30

Consequently, sentences such as the above emphasized create a dramatic atmosphere, in which the audience is more likely to feel integrated, by implicitly being grouped as a friend of the U.S., and therefore also feel directly affected by the posed threat.

According to Thierry Balzacq (2011: 3 et seq.) securitization is a process in which a securitizer can make use of heuristic means such as metaphors, images, stereotypes and emotions in order to place a matter in a particular context and achieve certain effects in the audience, such as feelings, thoughts, sensations and perceptions with respect to the seriousness of a threat to a referent object. The uttered measures to combat threats must match the justifications of the securitizer, so that the audience can be drawn into a newly “fabricated” threatening atmosphere and in this way boost the acceptance of the extraordinary threat-combat measures.

“Americans are asking, what is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.” (Bush, 2001, emphasis added) Here, the use of emotions to catch the public’s attention and sympathy is very clear. In his speeches, Bush mentions the American citizens, the families, the children, etc. in order to increase the emotionality and heroic tone of his utterances. Additionally, after using emotions, he reintroduces the idea of a continuous threat that has to be fought urgently in order to combine the emotionality with the fear of a threat and increase the public’s acceptance of it.

“Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” (Bush, 2001, emphasis added)

(32)

31

“We ask every nation to join us […] The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded with sympathy and with support […] The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next.” (Bush, 2001, emphasis added)

Hither, the control of an external threat is justified through certain security threatening entities and the help of rhetorical devices that justify or explain the fight as a natural reaction to the attacks of an “enemy” (cf. Charrett, 2009: 34). Accordingly, after the declaration of this war not only at a national but also at a global level, borders were seen as possible entrance roots for threats to national security, justifying the increment on border enforcement measures, as an action against terrorism, trying to close possible entrance roots as much as possible (cf. Herrera-Lasso/Artola, 2011: 27).

By portraying an unavoidable threat, the need and urgency to counter it in order to protect a referent object becomes inevitable and necessary and therefore justifies certain budget increases for the security sector as well as changes in the focus points of (foreign) policies:

“Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security […] So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me – the Office of Homeland Security.” (Bush, 2001, emphasis added).

(33)

32

that it should not be exposed to the normal haggling of politics but should be dealt with decisively by top leaders prior to other issues” (Buzan et al., 1998: 29).

Moreover, a heroic tone in the speeches characterized by its security grammar has been very common in the U.S., especially the use of patriotic and nationalistic elements. For instance, by talking about the U.S. nation as a whole, President Bush mentions the American children and grandchildren that might be put at risk if the threat is not countered in time and with strong measures, creating a heroic and sentimental undertone.

This undertone serves the purpose of convincing the audience through awakening compassion and sympathy to the situation, as well as feeling more integrated in the speech and directly threatened by the portrayed “enemies”:

“Free nations have faced new enemies and adjusted to new threats before, and we have prevailed. Like the struggles of the last century, today's war on terror is, above all, a struggle for freedom and liberty […] We're fighting for the cause of humanity against those who seek to impose the darkness of tyranny and terror upon the entire world. And we're fighting for a peaceful future for our children and our grandchildren.” (Bush, 2006, emphasis added)

Another example for the securitization of migration in the U.S. in relation to terrorism are the utterances of politicians such as the one of Senator Byron Dorgan at a congressional hearing on Northern border security in late 2001: “America can’t effectively combat terrorism if it doesn’t control its borders.” Here, terrorism is being posed as a threat which must be countered through increased migration and border controls in order to protect the U.S. nation as a whole (Andreas, 2003: 6).

(34)

33

profitable structures, as well as adapting to the new scenarios by changing or redirecting smuggling and trafficking routes (cf. Andreas, 2003: 3).

Another aspect of the securitization of migration has been the masking of failure as progress, justifying further investment in a militarized and border enforcement focused strategy towards migration (cf. Andreas, 2003: 4). This is partly also due to the fact that there is no single indicator in the Mexico-U.S. border that individually shows the progress on major public policy issues. Therefore, the tendency to analyze the border through the lens of immigration and security has caused the U.S. to evaluate the situation at the border in relation to the number of arrests of undocumented migrants by border patrol agents. Nevertheless, this method of evaluation has been proven to be ineffective and subjective since the numbers of arrests are not the only or most important indicator of progress at the U.S.-Mexico border region and therefore do not show a thorough picture of the situation (Wilson/Lee, 2013: 8).

Mexico’s close relationship to the U.S. has been characterized by the pressures and expectations from the latter to get support in its anti-terrorism, anti-drug and cross-border security efforts not always with remarkable or positive results, especially for Mexico (cf. Andreas, 2003: 10). Despite the awareness about the border regions being a feeding and action ground for national and international organized crime, little has been done to improve the situation from a societal or developmental perspective. Instead, increased policing and militarizing of the borders has been a constant strategy since at least the last two decades. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to stop undocumented immigration, but most importantly prevent the violation of territorial boundaries by smuggling, drug and human trafficking organizations (cf. Presidencia de la República, 2007: 68 and Andreas, 2003: 13).

(35)

34

migration flows can be achieved. Secondly, the steady illegal immigrant flows in combination with tougher border enforcement have provided a feeding ground for organized crime groups, which receive high earnings by helping illegal migrants cross the border or using them for human trafficking.

As a result, despite the border control efforts, the border’s insecurity rate has grown, especially on the Mexican side (cf. Alden, 2012: 108-109). It has been proven, that the U.S. process of securitization of migration and borders was successful. This became visible not only through the speech act utterances in relation to this issue, but also through the acceptance of the significant amount of changes, such as the military and economic investments done in this area, as well as the creation of security, migration and terrorism focused institutions and laws.

(36)

35

3. The U.S.-Mexico Human Trafficking Situation

U.S. and Mexican government officials have shown that a securitized perception of migration and human trafficking – although to a different extent – exists both in the U.S. and Mexico.15 Accordingly, it can be assumed that the U.S.’ securitized perception of

migration has had a certain amount of leverage on Mexico’s approach to this issue. In the U.S. migration is often automatically linked to terrorism. Therefore, trafficking routes are seen as routes through which terrorists and other national security threats can enter the United States (cf. Keefer, 2006: 4).

In this context, it is necessary to pay attention to the pressures and restrictions inside the trafficking and smuggling processes but also to the labor relations and economic ties between North and South that have influenced Mexico’s situation and approach to migration and human trafficking. Economic, social and developmental disparities between the U.S. and migrant-sending countries that fail to provide public safety, labor opportunities and possibilities for legal migration to its citizens are the main incentives behind illegal migration. Thus, Lee (2011: 29) refers to trafficking as “an unintended consequence of restrictive migration policies […] and of state efforts to curb illegal entry and illegal employment of migrants.”

Respectively, this chapter will address the causes for an increased human trafficking occurrence between Mexico and the United States, mainly influenced by the divisions between North and South that boost illegal immigration flows; border security policies that encourage resorting to trafficking groups as a possibility to enter the U.S.; and the criminalization of immigration that increases the probability of innocent migrants being mistreated as felons and not as potential human trafficking victims.

(37)

36

The securitization of migration and borders, even if not deliberatively intentioned, has pushed illegal immigrants into the hands of smugglers and traffickers. The differences between the economic development and job opportunities in the United States compared to the situation of Central American countries and Mexico itself are the main drivers and incentives for immigrants to illegally cross borders, risk their lives and be potentially victimized by trafficking groups.

The criminalization of immigration resulting from the hardening border security measures intensified the vulnerability of potentially trafficked illegal immigrants by labeling them as criminals and denying them the necessary protection. Thereupon, these afore mentioned factors are relevant to our analysis of the securitization of U.S.-Mexico migration because of their negative side effects on the human trafficking situation as well as their heightened impact on steadily growing illegal immigration flows. Demetrios Papademetriou (2005) summarizes the relation between the concerns of developed countries (U.S) and less developed ones (Mexico), as follows:

“While developed countries are concerned with their set of problems — threats to security, perceived lack of control, effects on labor markets — less developed countries have their own concerns about unauthorized migration. These include the disregard for the human rights, labor rights, and other basic rights of their nationals who enter the illegal immigration stream, and the trafficking industry that has grown around such movements” (Papademetriou, 2005)

Accordingly, this chapter will answer the question: To what extent have factors associated with the U.S. relationship to Mexico and Central America enhanced the occurrence of human trafficking and migration?

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Seventeen papers were presented, covering pensioners who migrated as a result of reunification policies (Russian Jews to Germany); retired labour migrants who moved back to their

Burgers hebben volgens Cees en Gerda boter op hun hoofd omdat ze met de mond belijden dat ze het milieu en dieren­ welzijn zo belangrijk vinden maar in de supermarkt toch het

3 Senior researcher KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis 4 Deputy head water policy and safety* Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management 5 Deputy

Role- taking is essential for narrative emotions as it may lead to “transportation into the narrative world and sympathy and/or empathy with the character.” However, it was Kidd

The extraction of the fetal electrocardiogram from mul- tilead potential recordings on the mother’s skin has been tackled by a combined use of second-order and higher-order

To my knowledge this is the first research that uses cultural characteristics of a country in explaining the strength of the relation between real stock market returns and

The hypothesis that bidder returns in cross-border M&As where the bidder is located in a civil law country and the target in a common law country differ

Although this study does not find significant evidence that differences among cross-border and domestic M&As exist, it does find significant differences