Version classiqueVersion mobile


Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly

Chapter 2. Whose Security? Dilemmas of US Border Security in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands

Julie A. Murphy Erfani

Texte intégral


1Recent US government crackdowns on illicit crossings of the southern border with Mexico have helped to spawn a revolution in social networking among groups concerned with cross-border migration and national and human security. Current US border-security policy and practice have also helped to trigger crime waves associated with human and narcotics trafficking, which have in turn diminished the personal security of people who live in and transit though the borderlands. Paradoxically, federal immigration enforcement policies aimed at increasing governmental control over people crossing the southern border of the United States have actually inspired a complex array of informal networks, both legal and criminal, that exercise increasing control over everyday life and movement through US-Mexico border regions. Indeed, social networks and local government networking on both sides of the border are displacing the central government’s control over national and human security in these regions. Thus, far from recentring immigration control in the hands of the central government, as the legal doctrine of state sovereignty would dictate, recent US border policies, such as Operation Gatekeeper in California and the Arizona Border Control (ABC) Initiative, have decentred control and spurred into action a larger cast of local actors and organizational agents of change in the municipalities, counties, and states in the various border regions on both sides of the line (see the maps in figures 2.1 to 2.6).

2The Arizona-Sonora borderlands, especially since September 11, 2001, represent the quintessential example of a civil and criminal social networking revolution, a self-defeating federal border crackdown, and crime waves that threaten the personal security of residents and migrants. The Arizona-Sonora border situation raises key questions about current US border-security policy: Whose security is being enhanced by the stepped-up border surveillance of federal authorities when the personal security of people residing and moving through the region is threatened by increasing crime? Why has the increase in national-security measures rendered ordinary people less secure?

3The argument is made in this chapter that flawed federal immigration policy and intensified organizational life in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands pose two basic dilemmas for US border-security policy in the region. The first dilemma is the fact that intensified federal border surveillance has proven to be self-defeating, given that border crackdowns spawn more civil-society networking. Such social networking has proliferated in the absence of a national guest-worker policy that distinguishes migrant workers from criminals and potential terrorists. The escalation of social networking among smugglers and migrants has prompted the federal government to become more involved in border surveillance, even though it has had little success in controlling illicit border-crossing behaviour. Social networks of human traffickers, migrants, migrant assistance organizations, and US civilian militia volunteers subvert, interfere with, and/or compete with the federal border patrol to control movement through the borderlands. In the context of this politicized organizational landscape, enhanced federal surveillance appears to be increasingly self-defeating at a time when the border’s ability to filter criminals and potential terrorists is even more imperative. In effect, federal border crackdowns have engendered more social networking, politicized informal organizations, and resulted in a border that is more porous than ever before to all types of people and goods, including criminals and contraband, such as narcotics and weapons.

4The second dilemma of current US national-security policy at the Arizona-Sonora border is its crime-accelerating side effect on the borderlands. This policy has exacerbated the amount of crime related to drug and human trafficking, which in turn has affected everyone from national park rangers to ordinary Phoenix residents, who are subjected to racial profiling. The continued inability of the federal government to articulate border-control policies that differentiate migrant workers from terrorists and violent criminals will only further galvanize social networking, organizational competition, and interference with federal migration-control policies at the border.

5The failure of the federal government to establish a guest-worker program to regulate the border crossing of migrant labourers has rendered current federal border-control policies both crime inducing and self-defeating. As long as the federal government fails to establish such a program, it will continue to undermine its ability to define border security in terms of a single national interest: stopping violent and organized criminals and terrorists. Without a federal immigration policy that distinguishes migrant workers from criminals and terrorists, informal organizations involved in mediating life and movement through the borderlands will raise politically polarizing questions about whose security is being protected by US government border policy.

6For example, although “Mom and Pop” small-scale human smugglers and migrant assistance networks claim to provide individual security and human rights protection for undocumented migrants who supply inexpensive labour to American companies and households, these networks are unable to ensure a steady flow of migrant labourers to Arizona businesses. In a climate of Arizona-Sonora border crackdowns, small-scale smugglers and individual migrants unaccompanied by smugglers are often intercepted by the federal border patrol, which makes organized criminal trafficking increasingly necessary to migrants and lucrative for criminal networks and gangs. Thus human traffickers in organized criminal networks essentially secure the profitability of a variety of Arizona businesses by ensuring a steady flow of inexpensive labour, which is in high demand by the agricultural, construction, and restaurant industries. In direct opposition to human traffickers and migrant-assistance networks, US civilian militia volunteers claim to secure the southern border of the United States from any and all undocumented crossers, ranging from terrorists to “illegal aliens,” of whom the latter are said to run up US health-care costs and “steal jobs” from Americans.

7Finally, state and local government networks claim to protect local residents from the accelerating crimes associated with the federal government’s failure to regulate migrant workers and render human trafficking unprofitable via a guest-worker program. Left to cope with increased crime related to drug and human trafficking, such as car theft and gang violence against migrants, state and local governments on both sides of the border have attempted to implement a Canada-US style of “smart border” via multi-level governance practices (see Brunet-Jailly (2004). These local officials aim to secure borderlands’ residents from criminals, organized human traffickers, and potential terrorists rather than dwelling on migrant labourers. Given the scale of the problem, however, local government officials and policy networks have insufficient resources to adequately address current crime waves in the borderlands.

8In sum, the more the federal government has cracked down on illicit border-crossing of any sort, the more organized criminal networking has accelerated. In the opinion of a staffer with the nongovernmental organization (NGO) BorderLinks, based at the Casa de la Misericordia in Nogales, Sonora (whom the author interviewed on June 10, 2005), in the absence of a federal guest-worker policy that could help to put human traffickers out of business, the net effect of federal border crackdowns in Arizona and Sonora has been to increase organized crime and insecurity, both at the border and for the residents of the borderlands more broadly. Recent travel advisories issued by the US State Department for the Arizona-Sonora region, and increased gang violence against homeless, migrant returnees/deportees on the streets of Nogales, Sonora, have reflected this increased criminality and insecurity.

9This chapter examines the increasing criminality and diminished personal security for the residents of the borderlands in three different locales within the Arizona-Sonora border region. Each locale illustrates how the self-defeating dynamics of national border-security policy have contributed to a social networking revolution, as well as increasing crime and personal insecurity. Unlike the San Diego-Tijuana and El Paso-Juarez border areas, this particular border zone on the Arizona side of the line is a relatively remote, sparsely populated desert area. Yet, despite being mostly wilderness, this area is now replete with social networks, local and federal government actors, and informal organizations, including violent criminal, drug-, and human-trafficking networks and gangs. Often interfering or competing with the actors and policies of the governments of the United States and Mexico, these social networks shape everyday life, conditions of security, and movements of people and goods through the borderlands. The region’s informal organizations are also often at odds with one another, usually highly politicized, and frequently polarized. However, these networks, actors, and organizations are not always engaged in all-out border wars, as they sometimes cooperate with one another. At the same time, they are not necessarily constructing transnational sociocultural integration or wholesale national separation between the United States and Mexico. Some of the organizations, actors, and networks examined in this chapter are predominantly national and territorial in orientation, while others are primarily transnational and integrationist, and still others reflect a hybrid mix favouring transnational integration and national-territorial separation. These organizational agents of change constitute social networks of activists from civil society and government, which struggle to redefine security in relation to massive human migration along a desert-like section of the US-Mexico border now designated as crucial to US national security.


10Multiple local actors and organizations on both sides of the Arizona-Sonora border are currently engaged in intensive efforts to redefine security in relation to cross-border movements of people from Mexico to the United States. The Arizona-Sonora borderlands have become a terrain of highly contested social struggles about cross-border migration and its effects on security, especially in the post-9/11 era. As militarized operations, recent crackdowns by the US government on illicit border-crossing by undocumented Mexican labourers have generally failed and, in doing so, have intensified the social struggles among rival groups, which differ fundamentally in their views on migration and security. Some social networks are organized to discourage migrants from crossing into the United States and to reinforce US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) border patrols. Other social networks rally to aid undocumented migrants and assist migrants in distress on the trip through the harsh desert terrain of the borderlands. Still other social and policy networks are organized to try to intercept criminal drug and human traffickers, while facilitating cross-border flows of people and goods associated with transnational economic cooperation, integration, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

11These rival networks generally approach the Arizona-Sonora border crisis from one of three competing perspectives on border security. Until March and April 2006 the most vocal position in the local and national press was taken by Arizona’s anti-migrant activists, vigilantes, and local supporters of Proposition 200, legislation passed in 2005 to exclude undocumented migrants in Arizona from voting and from receiving public social services. As of this writing, in March and April 2006, pro-migrant mass demonstrations in Phoenix and in other large US cities have overtaken anti-migrant activists in local and national headlines.

12Anti-migrant activists, such as the Minutemen, define national and human security for the United States and its citizens as contingent upon the imposition and enforcement of a formal boundary strictly separating the United States from Mexico. In 2005 these activists organized and networked to pass legislation in Arizona that denies undocumented Mexican migrants access to public social services and public education. Since the mid-to late 1990s anti-migrant forces have also organized various civilian militias to patrol the Arizona-Sonora border, with the aim of supplementing the federal government’s surveillance of the border against illicit crossing by anyone for any purpose. In 2005 in metropolitan Phoenix, anti-migrant activists in the Arizona legislature and the Maricopa County Attorney’s office began to revise and reinterpret local laws in order to convert the civil offence of border-crossing by ordinary, undocumented Mexican labourers into a felony offence under Arizona law. From this perspective, the security of the United States and of its citizens requires strict enforcement of a boundary. The American nomenclature of “border” expresses the social construction of a border as a strict boundary that establishes difference and separation as the fundamental basis of national security. Those groups seeking to label all undocumented migrants as criminals essentially aim to enforce a strict boundary between the United States and Mexico.

13A second, contrasting perspective on the border is reflected in the Mexican nomenclature for the US-Mexico divide as a frontera, or frontier. The social construction of a frontier conveys the sense of an in-between space where differing cultures encounter each other, mingle, and begin to integrate (see Brunet-Jailly 2005, 3). In this social construction the US-Mexico divide is a more porous borderlands of multicultural encounter, rather than a strict boundary dividing countries and peoples, and security is based upon intercultural human contact and cross-cultural integration of common interests across borders. From this perspective border-crossing and border security are scripted according to broader concerns for human security. In fact, from this vantage point, the emergence of a transnational space of borderlands conceived as a zone of multicultural exchange and cross-border movement and cooperation makes both human security and border security possible. Those groups advocating amnesty and an assured path to US citizenship for undocumented migrants seek to construct a border region that entails a relatively unobstructed cross-border movement of people.

14In the Arizona-Sonora context a growing number of migrant-assistance activists and organizations have embraced this social construction of borderlands security. A number of non-governmental migrant assistance networks in Tucson, Phoenix, Ambos Nogales, and Douglas-Agua Prieta have actively sought to reconstruct the discourse on border-crossing and border security in Arizona and Sonora in the language of protection of basic human rights and human security, regardless of national origin or legal status. For instance, Derechos Humanos, a human rights NGO in Tucson, enlists US attorneys as advocates for the human and legal rights of undocumented Mexican migrants. Humane Borders, a faith-based NGO also based in Tucson, networks to place water stations along the southern Arizona and northern Sonoran border regions in order to reduce migrant deaths from dehydration as crossers walk through remote parts of the desert. No More Deaths (No Más Muertes), an NGO with a statewide network, organizes and operates migrant assistance camps on both sides of the border to aid migrants in distress in the Arizona-Sonora wilderness. BorderLinks and Frontera de Cristo (Healing Our Borders), two more faith-based NGOs based in Ambos Nogales-Tucson and Douglas Agua Prieta respectively, focus on cross-border cultural exchange and community outreach with a transnational human rights orientation.

15For these pro-migrant organizations, cross-border migration and issues of border security are defined in terms of human security and human rights. For them border security is derived from the protection of human rights and human security in a borderland region of intercultural exchange, in which the human rights to life, health, safety, a living wage, and cultural dignity must be defended by people on both sides of the border, regardless of the national origin or formal legal status of border-crossers. Rather than viewing the border as a strict boundary dividing nationalities, countries, and ethical responsibilities along territorial lines, these NGOs view it as a porous borderland of interaction, in which the human and national security of the two nations are inextricably interdependent. Two prime examples of the social construction of a borderland region appeared in the unexpectedly large pro-migrant demonstration of March 24, 2006, and the 200,000-person pro-migrant demonstration of April 10, 2006, both of which took place on the streets of downtown Phoenix. In the demonstration on March 24 protestors rejected US House of Representatives Bill HR4437, which proposed to make it a felony for undocumented people to live and work in the United States. Protestors’ signs called for “Safe, Humane, and Just Borders” and for “A Path to Permanent Residency” for undocumented migrants. On April 10 one of the key chants of undocumented Mexican migrant demonstrators was “Somos América” (“We are America”). The essence of that statement is a conception of the borderlands according to which anyone who contributes work to a society is rooted and belongs in that society.

16Proponents of the third perspective on the social construction of security embrace a binational notion of a “smart border” that effectively regulates border-crossings with the dual objectives of balancing security concerns and advocating economic integration via cross-border commerce, labour movements, and trade. Smart-border proponents envision multiple levels of government on both sides of the border working cooperatively to filter out criminals and terrorists while retaining a border porous enough to permit ongoing economic integration via flows of shoppers, tourists, labourers, goods, and commerce in general. The most vocal proponents of this perspective are local government officials, particularly the governors of Arizona and Sonora, the mayors of Phoenix and Tucson and of various Arizona-Sonora border towns, and key segments of the private business sectors on both sides of the border. In Sonora, tourist industry representatives, whose revenues depend on tourists from Arizona favour this approach, while in Arizona the smart-border concept is advocated primarily by business interests and organizations in industries dependent on migrant labour, such as construction and services (restaurants, hotels, and resorts), as well as other labour-intensive industries such as landscaping. The president of the Arizona Contractors Association, for instance, has publicly embraced a smart border implemented in conjunction with a national guest-worker policy. A federally approved and locally implemented guest-worker policy would not only require federal and local officials on the US side of the border to cooperate significantly more than they have in the past, but it would also require cooperation, at both local and national levels of government, between the United States and Mexico, a form of cooperation that is currently latent at best.

17However, as the remainder of this chapter illustrates, civil society on the Arizona side of the borderlands is so mobilized around, and divided on, issues of border security and cross-border migration that a smart-border security policy is unlikely to emerge or succeed. Despite some support among local-government officials and some private-sector actors, an effective Canada-US style of smart border, with multiple levels of government cooperating on both sides of the border, has not successfully emerged in the Arizona-Sonora border area. The actions, or social agency, and the relative political clout of competing and divided local civic groups and social networks have effectively blocked the emergence of a culturally integrating cross-border region. Thus, despite strong structural market forces and cross-border trade between Arizona and Sonora, various local political actors have effectively disrupted, and continue to disrupt, the emergence of a culturally integrating cross-border region with a smart border. Instead, both personal-security and national-security conditions have increasingly deteriorated for residents of the borderlands. This increasing insecurity and lack of cultural integration in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands corroborates the theory of borderlands studies advanced by Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly in this volume.


18Since 1999 civilian anti-migrant vigilantes have increased the levels of economic and physical insecurity of those who live in and transit through the Arizona-Sonora borderlands bounded by Cochise County, Arizona. In 1999, when the US Border Patrol’s Operation Safeguard 99 finished sealing the urban border at Nogales, and then again after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, Cochise County became ground zero for the organizing of armed civilians and vigilantes dedicated to patrolling the southeastern Arizona side of the US border for undocumented migrants. The stated purpose of these vigilantes and armed civilians is to publicize and bolster the border patrol’s failed mission to stop undocumented migrants from crossing the Arizona-Sonora border. According to The Militant (June 26, 2000), anti-immigrant organizing began in 1999, when a Douglas rancher and Sierra Vista businessman, Roger Barnett, and twenty other ranchers signed a proclamation declaring that “if the government refuses to provide security, then the only recourse is to provide it ourselves” (cited in Border Action Network 2002). In the same year, Cochise County Concerned Citizens (CCCC), a citizens’ support group allied with vigilante groups, was founded by Larry Vance (Border Action Network 2002, 4). The American Patrol’s website ( reported that the CCCC contended that the US government had failed to defend American citizens from “foreign invasion” and called for the deployment of military troops or the National Guard at the US border (cited in Border Action Network 2002, 4). The Cochise County Board of Supervisors made a similar request of Jane Hall, then governor of Arizona, in May 2000, calling for deployment of the National Guard as administrative support for the US Border Patrol (Associated Press 2000). As well, as noted by Reuters wire service on May 16, 2000, the CCCC teamed up with a California-based anti-migrant organizer, Glenn Spencer, and the American Patrol group in California to proclaim a “shadow Border Patrol” to monitor federal border-patrol operations.

19In the summer of 2000 a flyer and the website of Ranch Rescue, a Texas-based vigilante group founded by a rancher, Jack Foote, began recruiting armed civilians to come to Arizona to hunt “hordes of criminal aliens” (cited in Border Action Network 2002). After 9/11 Ranch Rescue stepped up its operations in Cochise County and in October 2002 it organized Operation Hawk, a paramilitary operation complete with armed volunteers dressed in camouflage fatigues.

20The Cochise County towns of Tombstone, Douglas, and Sierra Vista also saw a post-9/11 rise in anti-migrant organizations that identified undocumented labourers from Mexico as threats to US national security. Beginning in late 2001, Chris Simcox, a recent arrival in Arizona from California and the editor of the local newspaper, The Tombstone, organized a volunteer civilian militia called Arizona Homeland Defense, later renamed the Minutemen, to patrol the Arizona border. In November 2002 Simcox declared: “I’m vigilant in providing homeland security. We’re going to show America how this can be done by sane, responsible people” (Gannett News Service 2002). Along these same lines, during the spring of 2004 a homemade, handwritten anti-migrant sign appeared on the outskirts of Douglas, Arizona, proclaiming: “Terrorists love open borders. Remember 9-11.” In Sierra Vista, home to the US Army’s Fort Huachuca, soldiers were deployed to repair parts of the border fence, and the fort’s sophisticated monitoring technologies found local applications in border surveillance (House 2005).

21Many long-time residents of Cochise County expressed dismay and worry about this influx of armed volunteers from out of state, who would likely alienate their border neighbours just to the south. The border towns of Douglas and Agua Prieta have developed urban economies that revolve around their proximity to the US-Mexico border. Douglas, Arizona, is a small town of 14,312 people (as of the 2000 Census) and many of its merchants rely on cross-border shoppers from Mexico, who walk from Agua Prieta through the US Customs checkpoint daily to shop in Douglas supermarkets and other retail establishments. The Douglas economy also includes a private ranching and cattle-raising industry, and a number of the area’s private ranches are situated right at the international border. (The Mexican Consul at Douglas, Miguel Escobar, cited Ron Tracy’s as one such ranch in the Douglas area.) According to Mark Adams of Frontera de Cristo, the town’s overall economy, once dependent on copper mining, now depends as much on commercial ties with cross-border Mexican shoppers, Mexican migrants, and human smugglers as it does on the economic and employment benefits provided by the extensive numbers of US Border Patrol personnel, whose salaries in the Douglas area amount annually to US$ 36 million.

22In 2005, for example, Border Patrol personnel decided to boycott the Hungry Bear Café, a small food establishment in Douglas that was owned by a woman who had emigrated legally from Agua Prieta, after one of the restaurant’s waitresses, also a legal immigrant, broke off an abusive relationship with a Border Patrol agent who frequented the restaurant. In retaliation, Border Patrol personnel who regularly patronized the restaurant stopped eating there, and the waitress was arrested on site by Border Patrol agents and incarcerated for three days in the immigration jail in Florence. The restaurant suffered financially until the boycott ended later that same year.

23Agua Prieta is adjacent to Douglas on the Mexican side of the line. It is a larger town of 61,944 people (as of the 2000 Census) who are mainly employed in commerce and services, both legal and illicit, associated with the town’s geographical location on the international border. Spurred on by the ABC Initiative crackdown in March 2004, the town’s casas de huéspedes (guest houses) have continued to boom as migrants, smugglers, and returnee migrants who are deported to Mexico by the US government frequent them. The town’s hotels, restaurants, and bars also cater to migrants, small-scale smugglers, and organized criminal traffickers of both humans and narcotics. Some hotels act as fronts for money-laundering by smugglers. In May 2004, for example, a man named Paredes, the owner of a large hotel in downtown Agua Prieta, and three members of his family were shot and killed in broad daylight in the hotel’s restaurant. Paredes was the apparent victim of drug traffickers with whom he was competing for control of the drug-smuggling routes through southeastern Arizona (Associated Press 2004).

24The cost of living in Agua Prieta, as in most border towns in Sonora, is quite high in relation to the low-wage structure and, due to the high cost of groceries, ordinary residents customarily walked to Douglas to buy groceries. However, anti-migrant organizing in Douglas and Cochise County in general since 9/11 has strained relations between the residents of the twin border-towns (Associated Press 2005). This has been particularly the case since April 2005, when Chris Simcox deployed civilian vigilante Minutemen volunteers, some of whom carried weapons, to patrol thirty-seven kilometres of desert between Douglas and Naco, Arizona, to the west. During that time retail business in Douglas dropped significantly as cross-border Mexican shoppers in Agua Prieta diminished in number in response to the Minutemen’s presence (Associated Press 2005).

25Residents and migrants who live in or transit through Cochise County, Douglas-Agua Prieta, and the Naco area must face the everyday insecurities generated by the actions of these anti-migrant vigilantes. Given the vigilantes’ tendency toward racial profiling, many residents of Douglas, a town that is 92 percent Latino, live with the fear of being targeted by them. Local municipal authorities, as well as immigrant assistance networks, have attempted to publicize and mediate these increasing insecurities among both residents and migrants. For example, when the Minutemen deployed border patrols in April 2005, Ray Borane, mayor of Douglas, publicly stated his concern: “There was a lot of concern expressed right at the beginning. There is a sense of fear in Douglas among residents, a fear of being discriminated against. There was and is an aura of tension” (Associated Press 2005). Local humanitarian networks, such as the Center for Recuperation and Rehabilitation from Drug and Alcohol Addictions (CRREDA) in Agua Prieta, work with the Douglas-based group Frontera de Cristo (Healing Our Borders), a binational Presbyterian border ministry in Douglas-Agua Prieta, the Just Coffee cooperative of Agua Prieta, Humane Borders in Tucson, and Christian Peacemaker Teams in Douglas, to aid migrants with donations of water, food, and clothing. These humanitarian networks also work to bring about greater cross-border cultural understanding and improve conditions of human security in general for migrants and residents in a politically polarized landscape.

26Problems of increasing tensions and insecurity posed by anti-migrant vigilantes and by the dangers of border-crossing in remote areas have sparked expanded networking by humanitarian assistance organizations in the Douglas-Agua Prieta area. In 2005 CRREDA, Frontera de Cristo, and No More Deaths organized and operated a binational migrant assistance camp in the desert about twenty kilometres east of Agua Prieta, toward Naco (see figure 6.1). Three days into the encampment, in early March, several unmarked trucks manned by Chris Simcox’s Homeland Defense (Minutemen) volunteers appeared on the US side of the border in front of the camp. Simcox told a reporter that he had learned of the camp’s location from a contact in the US Border Patrol (Ibarra 2005). According to Simcox, he and his companions were there “helping out the Department of Homeland Security, being their eyes and ears, spotting and reporting” (Ibarra 2005), and this particular outing was a “dress rehearsal’ for the Minutemen’s deployment the following month, April 2005, west of Douglas-Agua Prieta. The face-to-face confrontational posture of the vigilantes in military attire vis-à-vis camp volunteers was symptomatic of the increasingly tense borderlands environment. The potential for violent confrontation and the implied danger of such encounters in the wilderness have continued to grow in the context of the Cochise County border, as vigilantes from Tombstone, Sierra Vista, and Douglas increasingly deploy as armed civilian forces. When the author interviewed the previous Mexican Consul at Douglas, Miguel Escobar Valdez, in May 2004, he decried anti-migrant vigilante activity in Cochise County and mentioned having had to notify next of kin in Mexico of migrants who died while crossing in the Agua Prieta-Douglas area.

27The federal, locally funded Mexican migrant assistance corps, the Grupo Beta, aids stranded migrants who lose their way on the Mexican side of the border, although its operatives, who are officially prohibited by the Mexican government from carrying arms, increasingly find themselves in greater danger as armed human traffickers replace small-scale smugglers and armed drug traffickers become more prone to violence as they attempt to evade enhanced US Border Patrol surveillance.


28During 2004 a key route for migrants crossing the Arizona-Sonora border – and, for many of them, dying en route – was through desert wilderness from the Sonoran town of Altar to Sasabe, Arizona, and then through the Tohono O’odham Nation Reservation near Sells. In 2005 two popular routes were from Sasabe to Three Points, near Tucson, or from Sasabe through the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and then on to Arivaca, near Tucson (see figure 6.2). In Mexico the town of Altar had become a major staging ground for migrants planning to cross. Migrants gathered there and then travelled in vans and pickup trucks across the border to Sasabe, a tiny town in the middle of the desert west of Nogales. Two hundred and twenty-four migrants died that year in the US Border Patrol’s Tucson sector alone, with heavy concentrations of deaths occurring on the Tohono O’odham Nation Reservation, particularly just east of Sells (see figures 2.5 and 2.6).

29Founded in June 2000, Humane Borders is a faith-based humanitarian network that currently maintains seventy-three water stations for migrants, which are marked with blue flags and are found throughout the desert wilderness of Pima County and outside Agua Prieta on the Mexican side of the border. The Pima County Board of Supervisors cooperates with Humane Borders and contributes funds to its network of water stations. Although from 2002 to 2004 many migrants died near Sells, the Tohono O’odham Nation does not permit Humane Borders to place water stations on its land. It did, however, partner with the federal DHS in the ABC Initiative, Phases I and II, in 2004-05 (US DHS 2005). The federal Department of the Interior also partnered with the DHS to implement the ABC Initiative on the various national wildlife refuges, national forests, and national monument lands scattered across southern Arizona at the border. However, several of the Department of the Interior’s wildlife agencies, specifically the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, as well as wilderness land preserves, allow Humane Borders to situate and maintain water stations along highly travelled migrant routes through federal preserves, in an effort to decrease the number of migrant deaths from heat exhaustion and dehydration (by far the most common cause of migrant death in Arizona).

30Indeed, the largest percentage of the land along the Arizona border with Sonora consists of federal lands, including wildlife refuges, a national forest, national preserves, a Native American tribal reservation, a US Air Force and Marine Corps gunnery range, and US Bureau of Land Management and other federal lands leased to private ranchers (see figure 6.2). Since about 2000 the Cabeza Prieta and Buenos Aires National Wildlife refuges and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, along Arizona’s southwestern border, have become major transit sites for undocumented migrants, as well as for US Border Patrol surveillance and enforcement operations.

31Researcher John Slown wrote an article in 2003 about the federal Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Cabeza Prieta refuge and the endangerment of the Sonoran pronghorn antelope. In the introduction to his article, Slown described the Cabeza Prieta refuge as follows: “Imagine a dry-as-dust land baked by 118 degree summer heat, crossed by a single road and facing 25,000 trespassers each year.” He also reported that at the Cabeza Prieta refuge the border patrol has placed sensors on known migrant paths, which have recorded 4,000 to 6,000 crossings per month during the peak crossing months of April, May, and June each year (Slown 2003).

32In 2004 a park ranger at the Buenos Aires refuge expressed to the author as much concern about border-patrol vehicles’ destruction of the refuge’s wilderness character and wildlife habitat as about similar destruction resulting from migrant foot traffic and trash, and from the vehicles of human and narcotics traffickers. However, John Slown, in his discussions with another park ranger at the refuge, was struck by the ranger’s overwhelming concern for the well-being of the refuge’s wildlife, which was well beyond any concern for the lives of the many migrants who cross through it each day. That said, satellite images comparing the vegetation cover of the refuge in 1986 and in 2001 indicated increasing degradation of Buenos Aires’s wilderness habitat (Slown 2003).

33Despite increasing humanitarian social networking, water-station installations, and migrant assistance camps, the lives of migrants are increasingly threatened as they enter ever more remote stretches of desert wilderness on foot. Threatened as well are the wilderness habitats and national park rangers stationed and working on remote public lands. The personal insecurity and dangers faced by park rangers have increased in recent years as heavily armed narco-traffickers cross the border via public preserves, either to evade heightened US Border Patrol surveillance on the Arizona side or to evade Mexican law enforcement on the Sonoran side. In August 2002, for example, a known narcotics trafficker operating in the Sonoyta area under the alias “El Zarco” shot and killed National Park Service ranger Kris Eggle with an AK-47 weapon at Organ Pipe National Monument, the federal preserve immediately east of the Cabeza Prieta wilderness refuge. Eggle was killed helping federal border-patrol agents pursue two narcotics traffickers who had fled over the Arizona border while being pursued by Mexican authorities. In effect, the park ranger was called upon to act as if he were a US Border Patrol agent, even though his role was clearly to protect the refuge’s wildlife and habitat. His killer was a suspect in a hit squad execution on a Sonoyta ranch in retribution for a drug-related debt (Associated Press 2002, August 16). In direct response to his murder, the National Park Service decided to build a major vehicle barrier in a reinforced concrete base along the entire fifty-kilometre length of Organ Pipe Monument’s southern boundary with Sonora. As of October 2005, that barrier was still under construction, and the National Park Service had announced further plans to build a second barrier at the Coronado National Memorial, on the border just west of Douglas (Associated Press 2002, December 8).

34Since the late 1990s, when the Clinton Administration sealed off most Arizona border-crossings in urban areas, particularly at Nogales, organized criminal traffickers have increasingly smuggled people, narcotics, and weapons through US national preserves and public lands, which are generally the most remote areas of the Arizona borderlands. Since 9/11 heightened US Border Patrol activity in Arizona has further increased the organized criminal smuggling presence in national preserves and diverted still more border-crossings and smuggling onto these preserves. Consequently, the risks, hazards, and insecurities of being a National Park Service ranger in southern Arizona have increased substantially, as have national parks’ expenditures on what is now referred to as homeland security carried out by National Park Service personnel. After the murder of Kris Eggle in Organ Pipe, the service increased the number of park rangers working at the monument and on other preserves in southern Arizona. At Organ Pipe alone, the number of rangers went from three at the time of Eggle’s murder in 2002 to fourteen in 2005 (Reese 2005, 2).

35Underscoring the mounting threats faced by park rangers, a report by the Fraternal Order of Police in 2003 ranked Organ Pipe National Monument as the most dangerous park in the United States (cited in Reese 2005, 1). Speaking in December 2002, a former assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation commented that the narco-traffickers, human smugglers, and potential terrorists whom park rangers are expected to arrest are more prone to violence than ever before (Gehrke 2002). Currently, rangers in the borderlands parks of southern Arizona usually carry weapons – M-16s, AR-15s, and/or side arms – in order to perform their dual set of duties: preservation of, and information-sharing about, wildlife and wilderness habitats; and national-security, Border Patrol-like functions of stopping drug traffickers, human smugglers, and undocumented migrants, and arresting violent criminals (Gehrke 2002; Turf 2004). For example, in early February 2004 Thane Weigand, chief ranger at Coronado National Monument just west of Douglas, described his experience of supervising groups of armed park rangers dressed in camouflage, wearing bulletproof vests, and carrying powerful flashlights, who were spending nights waiting for smugglers in remote parts of the park’s Huachuca Mountains. As for the park rangers’ new national security duties, Weigand said, “We have a responsibility to provide homeland security. Being on the border, we don’t have a choice” (Turf 2004).

36The National Park Service’s increased spending on security since 9/11, especially in parks in Arizona and elsewhere in the US Southwest, has severely strained its budget and had deleterious effects on the entire national park system. Organ Pipe, for example, hired nine new protection rangers at a cost of US$ 900,000 and has continued to build the vehicle barrier along its border at a cost of US$ 7 million, but those expenditures did not include funds to repair damaged habitats or care for park resources and wildlife (US National Park Service 2004). Threats to the park and its wildlife were highlighted in January 2004 when Organ Pipe was named one of the ten most endangered parks in the country (US National Park Service 2004), a rating based on the scale of damage to habitat and wildlife that had resulted from hundreds of kilometres of illegal trails and roads being carved through the wilderness preserve, the draining and polluting of water sources, and huge amounts of trash being discarded by traffickers, undocumented migrants, and border patrol agents crossing through federal park lands. Overall, the National Park Service manages nearly 600 kilometres of land along the US-Mexico border, but since September 11, 2001, the US Congress has allocated US$ 120 million to the National Park Service to enhance security, and the parks have spent US$ 21 million more on security alone. Even with such security expenditures, park rangers report that smugglers’ equipment typically rivals their own, and includes radios, cell phones, and often guns (Turf 2004). In July 2005 the US House of Representatives Resource Committee commented that park security expenditures allocated to block potential terrorists, human and narcotics traffickers, and undocumented migrants from crossing through border parks have diverted too many funds away from park maintenance and other necessities (Talhelm 2005). In 2005 security-related operating costs for the National Park Service soared to about US$ 40 million in annual recurring costs (US Newswire 2005).

37Organized crime in southern Arizona parks has accelerated as US border crackdowns have rendered organized criminal trafficking of humans and narcotics ever more lucrative. Since 9/11, the US government has responded to this situation by calling on the National Park Service to supplement the DHS’s border-patrol duties, but without budgetary compensation. The resulting militarization of national park rangers has diverted designated money, resources, and attention away from their fundamental roles of securing and preserving wilderness habitats and wildlife for all national parks in the United States. With US$ 48 million spent by the National Park Service for security-related construction costs alone at five park locations (including the vehicle barriers at Organ Pipe and Coronado), parks such as those at Carlsbad Caverns, the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Bryce Canyon have suffered a dramatic decline in basic upkeep, visitor services, and preservation of park resources (US Newswire 2005).

38Thus, during the past five years, US national security policy and related crackdowns at the Arizona border have not only made the Sonoran wilderness more dangerous, but also made the people who live in and transit through it feel less secure.


39In the face of heightened US national security following 9/11, metropolitan Phoenix has peaked as an urban focus for international criminal smuggling operations. Organized criminal human traffickers, especially those who hold undocumented migrants hostage until their smuggling fees are paid, have operated in increasing numbers in the metropolitan area since security policy was enhanced on the Arizona border in the late 1990s. The scope of these criminal operations is illustrated by the many migrant drop houses operated by criminal traffickers throughout metropolitan Phoenix. A spokesperson for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency recently called Phoenix “a transportation hub for smugglers” (Gonzalez and Johnson 2005). Clearly, unresolved federal issues of how to regulate undocumented migration and implement homeland security have contributed to accelerated criminal human smuggling activity in Arizona, with metropolitan Phoenix bearing the brunt of it. The lack of a federal guest-worker policy to regulate undocumented migration has also helped to spawn criminal industries of fake ID production and automobile theft, both of which flourish in metropolitan Phoenix and grow out of organized criminal trafficking in humans (Wagner 2005).

40Accelerating human smuggling, undocumented migration, and homeland security issues have essentially split the organizational and policy landscape of metropolitan Phoenix and the state of Arizona into two opposing camps. In one camp are local residents who prefer to have relatively free movement across the border, or a smart-border system that would filter out criminals and terrorists while regulating legal guest workers. In the other camp are those who favour a border closed almost entirely to immigrants and migrant labourers. In a poll of 600 Arizona voters conducted from October 6 to 9, 2005, 68 percent said that they believed that some undocumented workers with no criminal record should be allowed to stay in the United States (Carroll 2005, A1, A19). In other words, most respondents did not want all undocumented migrants sent home, even though 79 percent of these same respondents felt that undocumented migrants were a burden on the state, given their use of social services. In contrast, a minority of those polled, 28 percent, stated that undocumented workers should be sent home, and another 4 percent said that they didn’t know. As for opinions on national security, an overwhelming majority of those polled was skeptical of national border security. Nearly two-thirds believed that the border was not secure and, more specifically, 64 percent believed that the United States had not been successful in securing the border. Eighty-five percent of the 600 respondents stated that the possibility of terrorists entering the country through an unsecured border was a major concern. Only 34 percent believed that the United States had been moderately successful in securing the border (Carroll 2005, A19).

41The division in Washington, DC, over immigration policy has led to a deep division between local-government and political officials in metropolitan Phoenix. In one camp are those state officials who want to implement a smart-border policy. In the other are local officials who tilt toward closing the US border to Mexican immigrants entirely. The state’s Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, has been placed in the awkward position of trying to mediate these two opposing stances, while still providing border security and maintaining favourable trade relations between Arizona and Sonora. The governor has essentially opted for a multi-level governance approach to border security whereby state and local officials would work with federal DHS agencies to implement a smart border capable of filtering out organized criminal smugglers and potential terrorists. Some local officials, however, have taken an avowedly anti-migrant stance, and the federal DHS has offered little in the way of cooperation with the governor or with Arizona law enforcement. For example, until she declared a state of emergency on Arizona’s southern border on August 15, 2005, Governor Napolitano was unable to get the Phoenix branch of ICE that was assigned to targeting criminal smugglers and drug traffickers in Phoenix to cooperate with state agencies. Until then the ICE’s Phoenix office had stonewalled her proposal to share a dozen Arizona Department of Public Safety officers with ICE to assist the federal agency in targeting human and drug traffickers in metropolitan Phoenix (Wagner 2005, A18). In general ICE and DHS agreed to increase cooperation only after the governor declared a border emergency.

42While Governor Napolitano was battling with ICE officials in Phoenix to have them cooperate with local law enforcement in targeting smugglers, she signed a state bill that gave local police the authority to arrest “coyotes” (human smugglers), especially those in metropolitan Phoenix who coerced migrants into forced labour or prostitution. It went into effect on August 12, 2005, just three days before her border-emergency declaration. As noted earlier, her declaration resulted in ICE agents cooperating with local police to arrest coyotes (Scutari 2005, A1, A4), but Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, a Republican in charge of criminal prosecutions in metropolitan Phoenix, went one step further. He immediately attempted to expand the scope of the coyote law by broadly reinterpreting it to support arresting all undocumented migrants (Kiefer 2005, August 21, B1, B7). In effect Thomas embraced the side of the immigration debate in Arizona that essentially favours closing US borders to all migrant labour. He stated publicly that he believed that Arizona’s conspiracy statutes gave him the authority to prosecute undocumented migrants under the coyote law (Kiefer 2005, August 21, B1, B7).

43Upon Thomas’s announcement, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio initially articulated his own different approach to enforcing the coyote law on the streets of metropolitan Phoenix: “I want the authority to lock up smugglers, but I am not going to lock up illegals hanging around street corners. I’m not going to waste my resources going after a guy in a truck when he picks up five illegals to go trim palm trees” (Kiefer 2005, A4). Less than a month later, however, Arpaio asked County Attorney Thomas to clarify certain points of the law, specifically, whether county sheriff’s officers could and should ask suspected undocumented migrants their nationality; whether officers should arrest migrants not suspected of being smugglers; and, if so, where the sheriff’s office should incarcerate so many people (Kiefer 2005, September 30). Thomas responded that undocumented migrants could indeed be arrested if the sheriff’s office had evidence that they had “conspired to be smuggled with a given coyote,” although they “would have to have corroborating evidence” (Kiefer 2005, September 30). That evidence could include other witnesses’ testimony and proof that the migrant had paid the coyote to be transported. Sheriff Arpaio then articulated what that policy would entail in terms of everyday operations:

You arrest a smuggler, you have 50 guys there. We would have to hold those people as witnesses. We had no authority to hold them because we’d have to call the feds, and then they would have to hold those people... It gives me the authority now to arrest everybody involved in that situation and not have to rely on the feds. (quoted in Kiefer 2005, September 30)

44The resource implications of Thomas’s interpretation of the coyote law for Maricopa County and its taxpayers are essentially twofold. First, the county’s “Tent City” jail would have to be expanded to accommodate such arrests, which could result in many undocumented migrants, as well as legal residents arrested mistakenly, being held in tent city jails in a metropolitan area known for its hot climate. Second, in the event of arrests of large groups of people, Maricopa County would have to hire private attorneys on contract at public expense in order to assign every suspected “conspirator” a separate attorney and avoid later conflicts of interest given the limited number of attorneys in the public defender’s office (Kiefer 2005, September 30).

45Thomas’s decision to broaden the scope of the coyote law to allow state and local officials to arrest and prosecute undocumented migrants as “co-conspirators” in their own smuggling will likely not improve border security. Rather, it has the potential to increase racial profiling of legal residents by Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies, increase false arrests of legal Latino residents in metropolitan Phoenix, and divert scarce resources away from the full-fledged pursuit of organized criminal smuggling gangs. Arresting groups of fifty migrants at a time, as Sheriff Arpaio suggested, would quickly inundate the county’s jails and strain its budget with outsourced public-defender expenses to private attorneys. Diverting county law-enforcement resources away from criminal smuggling rings would simply undermine the intent of the coyote law: to target criminal networks of human traffickers. Since these are the same networks that local and federal officials warn are capable of smuggling terrorists and weapons of mass destruction into the United States, Thomas’s distortion of the coyote law stands to irreparably harm its local-level contribution to a smart border that could filter out such terrorists and criminal networks. Indeed, Thomas’s conflation of undocumented migrants with criminal smugglers replicates at the local level the failure of the US government to formulate a national immigration policy on undocumented migration that would distinguish government regulation of migrant labourers from the prosecution of terrorists and the criminal smuggling networks capable of aiding terrorists. Giving local police the authority to arrest undocumented migrants as co-conspirators of coyotes will not make residents of Arizona and of the United States, in general, more secure from criminal smugglers, potential terrorists, and armed vigilantes.

46However, Thomas displayed his penchant for prosecuting undocumented migrants as criminals and his political support for anti-migrant vigilante groups when he declined to prosecute army reservist Patrick Haab. On April 10, 2005, while the Minutemen were deployed in the Douglas area, Haab held seven men at gunpoint in classic vigilante fashion, threatening to kill them, at a remote rest stop at Sentinel on Arizona Interstate 8 highway. The men were later found to be undocumented migrants. Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies immediately arrested Haab on seven counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and Sheriff Arpaio publicly defended the arrest, saying that no one can force people out of their cars at gunpoint without probable cause to arrest them (Anglen and Carroll 2005). However, several days later Thomas declined to prosecute Haab, claiming that Arizona citizens have a right to make a citizen’s arrest of anyone suspected of a felony (Rotstein 2005). Instead, Thomas charged one of Haab’s seven victims with a felony crime as an alleged human smuggler and the other six with being his co-conspirators (Rotstein 2005).

47Notwithstanding that Arizona has an important and continuing history of close economic ties with Sonora, Mexico, Andrew Thomas and the anti-migrant social networks that have promoted Proposition 200, which mandates that all Arizona state employees deny public welfare benefits to undocumented migrants, repeatedly act at the local level to undermine the implementation of a smart Arizona-Sonora border that would filter out criminals rather than migrant labourers. The governor of Arizona, and other officials such as state Attorney General Terry Goddard, favour a smart border that would sustain the process of US-Mexico economic integration while filtering out criminal smugglers and potential terrorists. According to a University of Arizona study, both the governor and the attorney general valued the fact that residents of Sonora comprise 90 percent of the Mexican cross-border shoppers, who spend about US$ 1 billion a year in Arizona (cited in Higuera 2005). For political and ideological reasons, however, the attorney for Maricopa County seems willing to open a Pandora’s box of possible false arrests not only of Mexican shoppers but also of Latino residents of metropolitan Phoenix. Thus residents and those who move through the urban borderlands of Phoenix are considerably less secure because of inflammatory legal opinions and federal immigration policies that allow some local Arizona officials, such as Thomas, to treat undocumented migrants as criminals.


48One segment of Arizona’s local culture, its anti-migrant networks and activists, is currently working to undermine the emergence of a Canada-US style of smart border based upon multi-level governance at the Arizona-Sonora border. Instead of employing their local political clout to construct a smart border capable of filtering out organized criminal traffickers and terrorists, these anti-migrant activists are organizing to label and pursue ordinary migrants as criminals. This trend reflects the segment of local civil society that is intent on national security being contingent upon the enforcement of a strict boundary between the United States and Mexico.

49This local trend was aggravated at the national level in early 2006 with the passage by the US House of Representatives of Bill HR4437, which made it a felony for an undocumented person to live and work in the United States. These attempts to treat all undocumented migrants as criminals harm smart-border practices by threatening to divert law-enforcement attention and scarce resources away from pursuing organized criminals and human traffickers toward targeting multitudes of ordinary migrants. Such strict boundary-enforcement proposals are not only prohibitively expensive but also potentially counterproductive. From a national security perspective, devoting too many government resources to apprehending ordinary migrants leaves the US border less secure vis-à-vis organized criminals and terrorists.

50Nevertheless, as of April 12, 2006, the Arizona legislature gave final approval to Bill 1157, making undocumented migrant status in Arizona a crime: a Class 1 misdemeanour for a first illegal entry into Arizona and a felony after the first offence. Ironically, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, who helped two Arizona Republican state senators push the bill through the legislature, later commented that it is essentially “meaningless” for his purposes because it contains no funding to build additional jails to hold illegal migrants (Ruelas 2006). He also complained that local sheriffs’ and county attorneys’ offices lack the funding and resources required to convict first-time trespassers of a misdemeanour in order to convict them of a felony for a second offence. As a result Dever declared his support for those law-enforcement officials who had written to Governor Janet Napolitano asking her to veto the bill, which they see as pure politics and as having essentially no impact on illicit immigration or border security (Ruelas 2006). Notwithstanding their view of the bill as meaningless, one anti-migrant legislative activist, Russell Pearce, declared, “This is commonsense legislation.... It’s about time we started standing up for the legal residents, the legal citizens of the United States, and enforce our laws [and] protect our neighborhoods [sic]” (cited in Newton 2006). The Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights, which helped to organize the massive migrant rights’ demonstration of April 10, 2006, immediately issued a call via for coalition supporters to urge the governor to veto the bill. For these activists the struggle to construct security in Arizona must include the right of migrants not to be labelled a priori and targeted as criminals.

51This case study of the Arizona-Sonora border corroborates arguments advanced by the theory of borderlands studies articulated by Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly in this volume. Brunet-Jailly’s theory posits that local border culture and local political clout play essential roles in the emergence of a borderland region that is culturally emerging and integrating. As the theory suggests, in the case of Arizona the local political culture, and the political clout of anti-migrant activists and networks, have effectively blocked the emergence of a smart border and of an integrating borderland region, despite the extensive cross-border market forces at work in the area.

Figure 2.1 Arizona-Sonora Border Towns

Figure 2.1 Arizona-Sonora Border Towns

Source: Barton-Aschman and La Empresa, 1997

Figure 2.2 Federal Lands and Indian Reservations in Arizona

Figure 2.2 Federal Lands and Indian Reservations in Arizona

Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

Figure 2.3 Migrant Deaths in the Tucson Sector, 2003

Figure 2.3 Migrant Deaths in the Tucson Sector, 2003

Source: Human Borders, Tucson, Arizona

Figure 2.4 Migrant Deaths in the Tucson Sector, 2004

Figure 2.4 Migrant Deaths in the Tucson Sector, 2004

Source: Humane Borders, Tucson, Arizona

Figure 2.5 Migrant Deaths at One Day’s, Two Days’, and Three Days’ Walking Distance from Sasabe to Three Points, Arizona

Figure 2.5 Migrant Deaths at One Day’s, Two Days’, and Three Days’ Walking Distance from Sasabe to Three Points, Arizona

Source: Barton-Aschman and La Empresa, 1997

Figure 2.6 Migrant Deaths in California and the West Desert of Arizona, 2000-04

Figure 2.6 Migrant Deaths in California and the West Desert of Arizona, 2000-04



Anglen, Robert, and Susan Carroll. 2005. “Case Sounds Vigilante Alarm.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (April 13), B1-B2.

Associated Press. 2000. “Supervisors Formally Ask Governor for National Guard” (May 16).

—. 2004. “Killings in Border Town Likely Drug Turf War” (May 7). Associated Press, State and Local Wire. 2002. “Mexico Says Ranger Killed By Man Fleeing Botched Attack” (august 16).

—. 2002. “National Park Service Plans to Build Vehicle Barriers Along Border” (December 8).

—. 2005. “Minuteman Project Still Creating Tension, Hurting Douglas Businesses” (April 15).

Border Action Network. 2002. Hate or Heroism: Vigilantes on the Arizona-Mexico Border: A Report by Border Action Network. Tucson, AZ: Border Action Network.

Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel. 2004. “NAFTA, Economic Integration, and the Canadian-American Security Regime in the Post-September 11, 2001 Era: Multi-level Governance and Transparent Border?” Journal of Borderland Studies 19:1,123-43.

—. 2005. “Theorizing Borders: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.” Geopolitics 10, 633-49.

Carroll, Susan. 2005. “Most in Poll Would Let Immigrants Stay.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (October 19), A1, A19.

Gannett News Service. 2002. “Founder of Armed Border Patrol Group Rejects ‘Rambo’ Label” (November 25).

Gehrke, Robert. 2002. “Park Rangers Being Called Upon to Deal with Crime as well as Critters.” Associated Press (December 28).

Gonzalez, Daniel, and Weldon B. Johnson. 2005. “Four Migrant Drophouses Found in Valley: Wealthy Areas Not Immune.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (March 17), B1-B2.

Hawley, Chris. 2005. “In Altar, Teeming with Transients, Small Town Shares Arizona’s Conflicts over Impact of Illegal Immigration.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (August 21), A1, A20.

Higuera, Jonathan J. 2005. “Historic Economic Ties.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (August 20), A18.

House, Billy. 2005. “Border Agents Get Help from Above: Unmanned Aircraft Arriving in Arizona Next Month.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (August 31), B1.

Ibarra, Ignacio. 2005. “‘No More Deaths Camp’ an Oasis for Migrants.” Arizona Daily Star [Tucson] (March 2).

Kiefer, Michael. 2005. “Law Agencies Cool to New ‘Coyote’ Law: Units Say They Will Abide by Federal, Not State, Requirements.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (August 21), B1, B7.

Kiefer, Michael. 2005. “Smuggled Can Be ‘Conspirators’: ‘Coyote’ Opinion Adds Teeth to Law.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (September 30), B6.

Newton, Casey. 2006. “Senate OKs Arrests of Immigrant Trespassers: Bill Sent to Governor.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (April 13).

Reese, April. 2005. “National Parks: Policing Parks Can Be Dangerous—and Sometimes Deadly.” Greenwire, Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC.

Rotstein, Arthur H. 2005. “Army Reservist Who Held Migrants at Gunpoint Won’t Be Prosecuted.” Associated Press, State and Local Wire (April 21).

Ruelas, Richard. 2006. “Sheriff: Migrant Bill Worthless Without Funding.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (April 14), B12.

Scutari, Chip. 2005. “US to Aid Border Fight: Homeland Security Heeds Governor’s Plea to Help Combat Smuggling.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (August 23), A1, A4.

Slown, John. 2003. “Taking Refuge.” American Planning Association, April 21. [online]. [consulted April 14, 2006].

Talhelm, Jennifer. 2005. “Border Security Stretches National Parks’ Budget, Resources.” Associate Press, State and Local Wire (July 8).

Turf, Luke. 2004. “Searches for Migrants, Drugs Divert National Park Resources.” The Tucson Citizen (February 8).

United States Department of Homeland Security. 2005. Fact Sheet: Arizona Border Control Initiative – Phase II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

United States National Park Service. 2004. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Named to List of Ten Most Endangered National Parks. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

US Newswire, Flagstaff, Arizona. 2005. “Congressional Hearing Examines Health of Southwest National Parks, Says NPCA” (October 13).

Wagner, Dennis. 2005. “Border Governors Unite: Arizona-Sonora Duo Tackle Immigration.” The Arizona Republic [Phoenix] (August 20), A1, A18-A19.

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 2.1 Arizona-Sonora Border Towns
Légende Source: Barton-Aschman and La Empresa, 1997
Fichier image/jpeg, 362k
Titre Figure 2.2 Federal Lands and Indian Reservations in Arizona
Légende Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America
Fichier image/jpeg, 375k
Titre Figure 2.3 Migrant Deaths in the Tucson Sector, 2003
Légende Source: Human Borders, Tucson, Arizona
Fichier image/jpeg, 410k
Titre Figure 2.4 Migrant Deaths in the Tucson Sector, 2004
Légende Source: Humane Borders, Tucson, Arizona
Fichier image/jpeg, 415k
Titre Figure 2.5 Migrant Deaths at One Day’s, Two Days’, and Three Days’ Walking Distance from Sasabe to Three Points, Arizona
Légende Source: Barton-Aschman and La Empresa, 1997
Fichier image/jpeg, 328k
Titre Figure 2.6 Migrant Deaths in California and the West Desert of Arizona, 2000-04
Fichier image/jpeg, 442k


Department of Politics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States

© Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa Press, 2007

Conditions d’utilisation :

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.


Volume papier
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search