SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
On Dogs and Illegals
Aug 17, 2007
The public outcry and debate surrounding the July 17 indictment of football star Michael Vick for dogfighting raises many questions. Among them--given the widespread, simultaneous silence surrounding the growing migrant death toll along the U.S.-Mexico boundary--is how concern for the well-being of dogs compares to that for human beings.
On the day following Vick's indictment, U.S. authorities found a ten-year-old Mexican boy wandering the southern Arizona desert. Border Patrol agents located his mother's corpse in the vicinity. The next day, officials in the area stumbled on another 10-year-old boy--from Guatemala--and soon recovered the body of his mother nearby.
The two were among the latest casualties in the ever-expanding quest for "security" along the U.S.-Mexico divide. Since the mid-1990s when the federal government began a massive increase in boundary enforcement, migrant deaths have become a way of life in the borderlands. Well over 4,000 bodies have been recovered since 1995, with Arizona the proverbial "ground zero." Fiscal year 2007 is on track to be the deadliest year in the state''s history: authorities found 199 migrant bodies between Oct. 1, 2006 and July 31, 2007.
In ruling circles--in comparison to Vick's alleged activities--however, there is little to no outrage, nor even a reaction to the carnage. On the day the Border Patrol found the Guatemalan mother, Senator Robert Byrd denounced dogfighting, shouting "How inhuman, how dastardly!" The next day, Senator John Kerry wrote to the National Football League's commissioner, characterizing dogfighting as "one of society's most barbaric and inhumane activities" and calling for Vick's suspension.
While Byrd and Kerry worked to reduce dog abuse, they and their colleagues agreed to intensify Washington's bipartisan war on unwanted migrants by strengthening the very factors that have increased the death toll.
On July 26, by a vote of 89 to 1, the Senate authorized $3 billion to build 700 miles of additional walls and fences along the Mexican boundary, and to almost double the size of the Border Patrol to 23,000 agents by 2009. Underlying this effort is a vacuous notion of security in the face of a "threat" that U.S. policies have helped to engender.
In the case of Mexico, for instance, Washington's and Wall Street's encouragement of neoliberal restructuring has greatly contributed to illicit migration. According to a 2003 Carnegie Endowment study, to cite one example, a NAFTA-related trade deficit, one favoring the United States, contributed significantly to the loss of about 1.3 million jobs in Mexico's agricultural sector in 1994-2002, thus encouraging many to migrate across the boundary.
As for Guatemala, U.S. support for violently antidemocratic elements underlies the country's pervasive poverty and instability. From the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically-elected Arbenz government in 1954 to U.S. backing of the country's military as it engaged in genocidal acts in the 1970s and 1980s, Washington has helped make life nonviable for many in Guatemala.
But rather than acknowledging and accepting responsibility for such migration-inducing developments, politicians from both major parties and many in the society at large rail against "illegals," emptily pledge allegiance to the law, and proclaim the need to uphold it--as if law and justice were one and the same.
From a perspective that privileges justice, immigration reform's recent defeat in the Senate provides an opportunity: rather than cause for embracing a "security-first" politics, it offers a chance to rethink our very approach to immigration and the boundaries that separate and bring together the United States and the rest of the world. This requires--among other things--a recognition that migrants are first and foremost human beings, ones deserving of human rights regardless of which side of the boundaries that divide the privileged from the disadvantaged they come from.
The effect of immigration and boundary enforcement is to force unwanted migrants to subsist where there are not enough resources to provide sufficient livelihood or, in order to overcome their deprivation and insecurity, to risk their lives trying to overcome ever-stronger boundary controls in wealthy countries. And if they do succeed in crossing the increasingly militarized divides between the relatively rich and poor, they still have to deal with all the indignities and hazards associated with being "illegal"--from sub-standard wages, to divided families, and the risk of arrest and deportation.
Such a world is not worthy of a dog or a human being.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Joseph Nevins
Joseph Nevins is an associate professor of geography at Vassar College. He is a co-author of "A People's Guide to Greater Boston" (2020). His other books include: "Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age of Global Apartheid" (2008) and "Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond: The War on "illegals" and the Remaking of the U.S. - Mexico Boundary" (2010).
The public outcry and debate surrounding the July 17 indictment of football star Michael Vick for dogfighting raises many questions. Among them--given the widespread, simultaneous silence surrounding the growing migrant death toll along the U.S.-Mexico boundary--is how concern for the well-being of dogs compares to that for human beings.
On the day following Vick's indictment, U.S. authorities found a ten-year-old Mexican boy wandering the southern Arizona desert. Border Patrol agents located his mother's corpse in the vicinity. The next day, officials in the area stumbled on another 10-year-old boy--from Guatemala--and soon recovered the body of his mother nearby.
The two were among the latest casualties in the ever-expanding quest for "security" along the U.S.-Mexico divide. Since the mid-1990s when the federal government began a massive increase in boundary enforcement, migrant deaths have become a way of life in the borderlands. Well over 4,000 bodies have been recovered since 1995, with Arizona the proverbial "ground zero." Fiscal year 2007 is on track to be the deadliest year in the state''s history: authorities found 199 migrant bodies between Oct. 1, 2006 and July 31, 2007.
In ruling circles--in comparison to Vick's alleged activities--however, there is little to no outrage, nor even a reaction to the carnage. On the day the Border Patrol found the Guatemalan mother, Senator Robert Byrd denounced dogfighting, shouting "How inhuman, how dastardly!" The next day, Senator John Kerry wrote to the National Football League's commissioner, characterizing dogfighting as "one of society's most barbaric and inhumane activities" and calling for Vick's suspension.
While Byrd and Kerry worked to reduce dog abuse, they and their colleagues agreed to intensify Washington's bipartisan war on unwanted migrants by strengthening the very factors that have increased the death toll.
On July 26, by a vote of 89 to 1, the Senate authorized $3 billion to build 700 miles of additional walls and fences along the Mexican boundary, and to almost double the size of the Border Patrol to 23,000 agents by 2009. Underlying this effort is a vacuous notion of security in the face of a "threat" that U.S. policies have helped to engender.
In the case of Mexico, for instance, Washington's and Wall Street's encouragement of neoliberal restructuring has greatly contributed to illicit migration. According to a 2003 Carnegie Endowment study, to cite one example, a NAFTA-related trade deficit, one favoring the United States, contributed significantly to the loss of about 1.3 million jobs in Mexico's agricultural sector in 1994-2002, thus encouraging many to migrate across the boundary.
As for Guatemala, U.S. support for violently antidemocratic elements underlies the country's pervasive poverty and instability. From the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically-elected Arbenz government in 1954 to U.S. backing of the country's military as it engaged in genocidal acts in the 1970s and 1980s, Washington has helped make life nonviable for many in Guatemala.
But rather than acknowledging and accepting responsibility for such migration-inducing developments, politicians from both major parties and many in the society at large rail against "illegals," emptily pledge allegiance to the law, and proclaim the need to uphold it--as if law and justice were one and the same.
From a perspective that privileges justice, immigration reform's recent defeat in the Senate provides an opportunity: rather than cause for embracing a "security-first" politics, it offers a chance to rethink our very approach to immigration and the boundaries that separate and bring together the United States and the rest of the world. This requires--among other things--a recognition that migrants are first and foremost human beings, ones deserving of human rights regardless of which side of the boundaries that divide the privileged from the disadvantaged they come from.
The effect of immigration and boundary enforcement is to force unwanted migrants to subsist where there are not enough resources to provide sufficient livelihood or, in order to overcome their deprivation and insecurity, to risk their lives trying to overcome ever-stronger boundary controls in wealthy countries. And if they do succeed in crossing the increasingly militarized divides between the relatively rich and poor, they still have to deal with all the indignities and hazards associated with being "illegal"--from sub-standard wages, to divided families, and the risk of arrest and deportation.
Such a world is not worthy of a dog or a human being.
Joseph Nevins
Joseph Nevins is an associate professor of geography at Vassar College. He is a co-author of "A People's Guide to Greater Boston" (2020). His other books include: "Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age of Global Apartheid" (2008) and "Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond: The War on "illegals" and the Remaking of the U.S. - Mexico Boundary" (2010).
The public outcry and debate surrounding the July 17 indictment of football star Michael Vick for dogfighting raises many questions. Among them--given the widespread, simultaneous silence surrounding the growing migrant death toll along the U.S.-Mexico boundary--is how concern for the well-being of dogs compares to that for human beings.
On the day following Vick's indictment, U.S. authorities found a ten-year-old Mexican boy wandering the southern Arizona desert. Border Patrol agents located his mother's corpse in the vicinity. The next day, officials in the area stumbled on another 10-year-old boy--from Guatemala--and soon recovered the body of his mother nearby.
The two were among the latest casualties in the ever-expanding quest for "security" along the U.S.-Mexico divide. Since the mid-1990s when the federal government began a massive increase in boundary enforcement, migrant deaths have become a way of life in the borderlands. Well over 4,000 bodies have been recovered since 1995, with Arizona the proverbial "ground zero." Fiscal year 2007 is on track to be the deadliest year in the state''s history: authorities found 199 migrant bodies between Oct. 1, 2006 and July 31, 2007.
In ruling circles--in comparison to Vick's alleged activities--however, there is little to no outrage, nor even a reaction to the carnage. On the day the Border Patrol found the Guatemalan mother, Senator Robert Byrd denounced dogfighting, shouting "How inhuman, how dastardly!" The next day, Senator John Kerry wrote to the National Football League's commissioner, characterizing dogfighting as "one of society's most barbaric and inhumane activities" and calling for Vick's suspension.
While Byrd and Kerry worked to reduce dog abuse, they and their colleagues agreed to intensify Washington's bipartisan war on unwanted migrants by strengthening the very factors that have increased the death toll.
On July 26, by a vote of 89 to 1, the Senate authorized $3 billion to build 700 miles of additional walls and fences along the Mexican boundary, and to almost double the size of the Border Patrol to 23,000 agents by 2009. Underlying this effort is a vacuous notion of security in the face of a "threat" that U.S. policies have helped to engender.
In the case of Mexico, for instance, Washington's and Wall Street's encouragement of neoliberal restructuring has greatly contributed to illicit migration. According to a 2003 Carnegie Endowment study, to cite one example, a NAFTA-related trade deficit, one favoring the United States, contributed significantly to the loss of about 1.3 million jobs in Mexico's agricultural sector in 1994-2002, thus encouraging many to migrate across the boundary.
As for Guatemala, U.S. support for violently antidemocratic elements underlies the country's pervasive poverty and instability. From the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically-elected Arbenz government in 1954 to U.S. backing of the country's military as it engaged in genocidal acts in the 1970s and 1980s, Washington has helped make life nonviable for many in Guatemala.
But rather than acknowledging and accepting responsibility for such migration-inducing developments, politicians from both major parties and many in the society at large rail against "illegals," emptily pledge allegiance to the law, and proclaim the need to uphold it--as if law and justice were one and the same.
From a perspective that privileges justice, immigration reform's recent defeat in the Senate provides an opportunity: rather than cause for embracing a "security-first" politics, it offers a chance to rethink our very approach to immigration and the boundaries that separate and bring together the United States and the rest of the world. This requires--among other things--a recognition that migrants are first and foremost human beings, ones deserving of human rights regardless of which side of the boundaries that divide the privileged from the disadvantaged they come from.
The effect of immigration and boundary enforcement is to force unwanted migrants to subsist where there are not enough resources to provide sufficient livelihood or, in order to overcome their deprivation and insecurity, to risk their lives trying to overcome ever-stronger boundary controls in wealthy countries. And if they do succeed in crossing the increasingly militarized divides between the relatively rich and poor, they still have to deal with all the indignities and hazards associated with being "illegal"--from sub-standard wages, to divided families, and the risk of arrest and deportation.
Such a world is not worthy of a dog or a human being.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy