SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Even with the billions and billions of dollars spent, the new technologies, the smart walls (and dumb ones), the checkpoints and biometric ID devices, borders can always be subverted with some grassroots organizing, a little luck, and a joyful spirit. (Photo: Mani Albrecht/U.S. Border Patrol/Flickr)
The driver of the passenger van pulled onto the shoulder of the road, looked back, and said, "There's an immigration checkpoint up ahead. Does everyone have their papers?"
We were just north of the Guatemalan border, outside the town of Ciudad Hidalgo in the Mexican state of Chiapas. There were 10 of us in the van: a family of eight from nearby Monte Rico, Guatemala, photojournalist Jeff Abbott, and me. The driver pointed to the road blockade, already in sight. From a backseat, I could see uniformed officials questioning people inside stopped vehicles.
It was a broiling afternoon in August 2014. Dark clouds were building overhead, threatening rain. There was a murmur of hushed conversation among the family members whom I had first seen no more than half an hour before. They had only recently landed on the Mexican side of the Suchiate River on a raft made of gigantic inner tubes and wooden boards and were already aboard the van when Abbott and I crammed in.
They would prove to be a boisterous crew. "Welcome to the family!" a woman who later introduced herself as Sandra said. "At least for this trip to Tapachula!" Much laughter followed. They were going to the wake of a family member in Mexico and, as people had done here forever, they simply crossed the river, avoiding the official entry point less than a mile away. Like so many political borders around the world, the Guatemalan-Mexican divide had been officially demarcated relatively recently--in 1882, to be exact--cutting through regions with strong family, community, and linguistic ties.
The checkpoint just ahead represented a new kind of demarcation line: the United States border arriving 1,000 miles to the south. A month before, in July 2014, when Mexican officials announced a bolstering of their own border in what they called Programa Frontera Sur (the Southern Border Program), the United States immediately applauded that country's new "strategy for its southern border" in an embassy press release.
Under a multibillion-dollar military aid program known as the Merida Initiative, as that cable made clear, the U.S. was already, in the pre-Donald Trump era, supporting the Mexican government's border enforcement strategies in significant ways, including enhancing its biometric and other identification systems. Indeed, U.S. help in strengthening Mexico's southern border already included backscatter X-ray vans and contraband-detection equipment; funds for Mexico's National Institute of Migration, the Mexican Marines, and the federal police; patrol boats, night-vision and communication equipment, and marine sensors. That country's interior minister, Miguel Osorio Chong, said, "Who doesn't have the necessary documents to enter into our territory and enter the United States, we can't allow them to be in our territory." It was in its own way a serious admission: Mexico had already functionally been "hired" to protect the U.S. border from 1,000 miles away.
And this was something U.S. officials had already been pushing for years. As Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Alan Bersin said in 2012, "The Guatemalan border with Chiapas is now our southern border." And indeed it was. So don't just blame Donald Trump for this country's border fixation.
Creating an Empire of Borders
In a broader sense, in the twenty-first century, the border should no longer be considered just that familiar territory between the U.S. and Mexico (where President Trump now wants to build that "big, fat, beautiful wall" of his) and the Canadian border to the north. Never mind that, as a start, there already is a wall there or rather, as the U.S. border enforcement officials have long described it, a "multi-layered" enforcement zone. If you were to redefine a wall as obstacles meant to blockade, reroute, and in the end stop (as well as incarcerate) people, then, even before Donald Trump, the equivalent of a wall was that expansive 100-mile-deep zone of defenses. These included sophisticated detection technologies of every sort and increasing numbers of armed border personnel supported by unprecedented budgets over the last 25 years.
In those same years, this country's borders have, in a sense, undergone a kind of expansion not just into southern Mexico (as I witnessed in 2014), but also into parts of Central America and South America, the Caribbean, and other areas of the world. As Bersin put it, there had been a post-9/11 shift to emphasizing the policing not just of the literal U.S. border but of global versions of the same, a massive, if underreported, "paradigm change." A U.S. border strategy of "prevention through deterrence," initiated in 1994, that first militarized and then blockaded urban areas on our actual southern border like Brownsville, El Paso, Nogales, and San Diego, would later spread internationally.
The recent focus on Trump's wall has hidden such global developments that, since 2003, have, for instance, led to 23 Customs and Border Protection attaches being stationed in places like Bogota, Cairo, New Delhi, Panama City, and Rome. In 2004, CBP commissioner Robert Bonner described this as "extending our zone of security where we can... so that American borders are the last line of defense, not the first line of defense."
In 2003, the 9/11 Commission Report laid out the thinking behind this clearly indeed: "9/11 has taught us that terrorism against Americans 'over there' should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against Americans 'over here.' In this same sense the American homeland is the planet."
Fourteen years later, retired General John Kelly endorsed just such a strategy at his confirmation hearing as Department of Homeland Security secretary. "Border security," he assured the senators, "cannot be attempted as an endless series of 'goal line stands' on the one-foot line at the ports of entry or along the thousands of miles of border between this country and Mexico... I believe the defense of the Southwest border starts 1,500 miles to the south in Peru."
As it happened, even Kelly was understating just how far the U.S. border already extended into the world.
How the U.S. Border Arrived in the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, and Jordan
When I first began to research the exporting of the U.S. border, I didn't faintly know the extent of it, though I would, in the end, visit the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Kenya, and the Philippines, among other places.
In 2015, while waiting at the front gate of the Zacapa military base in Guatemala--I had an interview scheduled with the commander of that country's new border force known as the Chorti--a soldier asked me if I was from BORTAC. "What?" I replied, certain I hadn't heard him correctly. He then repeated the word more slowly, as if perhaps he had pronounced it incorrectly.
I wouldn't have been alone in my surprise. Most people in the United States had never heard of BORTAC. After many years of researching the U.S. border, however, I now know quite a bit about that "Border Patrol Tactical Unit" that performs SWAT-style operations along the U.S. borderlands. As it happens, it also does training missions abroad. Indeed, as I would soon find out from Colonel Obed Lopez, the Chorti commander, its members had visited his military base during a three-month-long training session also involving the U.S. National Guard, Special Forces units, and police that, as he put it, "they used in cities." They had provided instruction in "weapons, tactics, ground movements and agility training, first aid," Colonel Lopez told me.
In fact, on its international missions, BORTAC often works as part of a larger Customs and Border Protection team. As one CBP trainer told me, they would "travel and see the border operations in various countries and make an assessment of their border security, and make recommendations on what could be done to improve their security." Like doctors of border policing, the CBP team would analyze the situation, then offer a diagnosis and prescription, including recommendations for funding, training, assistance, and equipment from Washington.
The Dominican Republic was the first place where, in 2012, I saw the results of such U.S. training and funding. Border guards from CESFRONT, an enforcement unit formed in 2007, were by then stationed along that country's border with Haiti. Holding assault rifles, they stood behind barricades on the banks of the grimly named Massacre River, looking like rudimentary replicas of the U.S. Border Patrol in Nogales. As Haitians bathed in the river, they remained there for hours and hours, ensuring that no unauthorized people tried to cross from one of the poorest places on the planet because, of course, wherever you go, the border story turns out to be about how the rich and powerful deal with the poor and marginalized.
Between the State Department and the Department of Defense there are now more than 100 programs that the Department of Homeland Security uses to finance such border programs globally. Among the most prominent are those run by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and the Export Control and Border Security Related Program (EXBS). The INL works in 71 countries, EXBS in 60, including every country in North Africa and every island state in the South Pacific. With these two outfits alone, you could stand in front of a world map, point anywhere, and the likelihood is that you'd find a U.S. program funneling funds, resources, and border training there.
In other words, when it comes to borders, U.S. operations aren't limited either to the Western hemisphere or even to countries with land borders. In the Philippines in 2015, for example, the U.S. dedicated $20 million to the construction of the National Coastal Watch Center, an "action that underscores the U.S. commitment to helping the Philippines manage and secure its maritime domain," according to the American embassy there. After all, as that year's Pentagon "Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy" stressed, the United States has "enduring economic and security interests" in that region where it puts a "premium on maintaining peace and security." In that spirit, it doled out the lucrative contract to build that Watch Center to Raytheon. (Yes, in building a global border regime, there's money to be made.)
That company also landed a big contract to build what journalist William Arkin described as the "Great Wall of Jordan." According to a document it produced in 2016, "Border Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection," this meant a 287-mile "security system" on Jordan's borders with Syria and Iraq, including high-tech cameras, ground radars, "quick reaction" team vehicles, command and control centers, and "passive barrier fencing." In that same document, Raytheon took credit for "deployed solutions" globally covering more than 10,000 kilometers of land and maritime borders in more than 24 countries, while training more than 9,000 security force members in "surveillance system operations, maintenance, and border security operations."
And all this just scratches the surface when it comes to the sums of money involved. In Jordan alone in 2015, for instance, $385 million in such funding went into the Jordanian military to support border policing and "counter-terrorism" efforts, including 26,000 rifles and machine guns, three million rounds of small-arms ammunition, 5,000 night-vision devices, and eight UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. As U.S. Ambassador Alice Wells said the next year, the helicopters would "provide Jordan with another tool for safeguarding its frontiers." In discussing "the sheer number of incursions the Border Guards thwart, almost nightly," however, she made no mention of the massive refugee crises -- in Syria and Iraq -- significantly provoked by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; nor did she mention U.S. geopolitical interests in the region of the sort former Pentagon senior policy adviser Eric Edelman described to the Senate Armed Services Committee in December 2017: "U.S. policy makers have considered access to the region's energy resources vital for the U.S. allies in Europe, and ultimately for the United States itself."
In other words, the emerging U.S. global border system can be conceptualized in two ways: there are our territorial borders, of course, but increasingly there is a global empire of borders meant to promote Washington's geopolitical, economic, and military interests, no matter who is in office.
Keeping the Poor in Line
Such efforts will ultimately contribute to a vast global border and immigration system. In total, there are already more than 70 border walls on this planet, tens of thousands of border agents, and billions of dollars of high-tech surveillance equipment in place along borders that separate the Global North from the Global South. Militarized borders are almost never about one country's security or protection. They represent, instead, global partnerships that pit transnational elites against the world's most vulnerable people.
Scholar and activist Harsha Walia explains it this way: "Border controls are most severely deployed by those Western regimes that create mass displacement... and are most severely deployed against those whose very recourse to migration results from the ravages of capital and military occupations." In the years to come, this will increasingly include millions displaced by the impact of the global climate crisis that will disturb the lives of the world's least developed countries at a rate predicted to be five times higher than the global average.
As journalist John Washington put it, borders have become "globalization's bouncers." Borderlands historian Guadalupe Castillo explains it this way: "The nation-state has become the policeman for the corporate world," creating borders to "clear the landscape for those... for whom borders don't exist"; that is, the "1 percent." The power of that one percent can go wherever it pleases, extracting natural wealth and fossil fuels, while destroying livelihoods and the living earth. Borders aren't for them, but for those who find themselves unable to make ends meet and so are vulnerable to every threat.
Chiapas, where our van idled 200 yards from that checkpoint so long ago, was an example of this. One of the richest places in Mexico in terms of natural resources -- water, petroleum, mineral wealth, natural gas, coffee -- it remains one of the poorest for its people. During my stay there, everyone was talking about the border operativos and sensed that the increased fortification of their border was the result of direct orders from Washington. (And keep in mind that this was years before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office and such developments became front-page news.)
In 2017, at the Border Security Expo, I listened to Tony Crowder, commander of Customs and Border Patrol Air and Marine Operations, confirm the suspicions of those inhabitants of Chiapas by saying that the U.S. had gone into Mexico and "built technology" giving that country's officials more "domain awareness capability." He added, "We coordinated with them directly in their country with as many as 600 to 800 tactical responses in a year's time... sharing domain awareness with them." Later, explaining to me his agency's intense and constant coordination with Mexico, a CBP official said, "I bet you there are fifteen phone calls going on with Mexico at this very moment."
That same year, as U.S. Northern Command head General Lori Robinson pointed out, "to support the Government of Mexico's Southern Border Strategy to improve security on their border with Guatemala and Belize," her command had ensured "the timely delivery of a record Foreign Military Sales of over a billion dollars in UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles." And now, two years later, Mexico's newly formed National Guard patrols that southern frontier in force, essentially at the behest of Donald Trump.
At that checkpoint so long ago, the driver suddenly turned the van around and we headed back toward the border with Guatemala. I assumed that the family, which had suddenly gone silent, would just miss that wake. I figured that the driver had decided to skip the checkpoint so that the family wouldn't be pulled out, handcuffed, incarcerated, and formally expelled from the country like so many others.
Then he suddenly made a surprise right turn and we were on a dirt road, parallel to the main road, heading the other way. Above us, purple clouds were moving fast over the landscape and there was the smell of rain. We were clearly evading the checkpoint.
Sandra suddenly gave us a smile. "We don't have papers!" she exclaimed. Then she laughed, a sound so joyful that her mother, a blanket over her shoulders, burst into laughter, too, just as the sky burst with rain.
I still wonder how many similar moments have happened in the five years since or will happen in the years to come around the world. This is the nature of a global border system. When the state, including the American imperial state, puts up barriers, people figure out ways to get around them. It matters little whether it's the Jordanian-Syrian divide, the waters between the Philippines and Malaysia, or the southern border of the United States. Even with the billions and billions of dollars spent, the new technologies, the smart walls (and dumb ones), the checkpoints and biometric ID devices, borders can always be subverted with some grassroots organizing, a little luck, and a joyful spirit.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The driver of the passenger van pulled onto the shoulder of the road, looked back, and said, "There's an immigration checkpoint up ahead. Does everyone have their papers?"
We were just north of the Guatemalan border, outside the town of Ciudad Hidalgo in the Mexican state of Chiapas. There were 10 of us in the van: a family of eight from nearby Monte Rico, Guatemala, photojournalist Jeff Abbott, and me. The driver pointed to the road blockade, already in sight. From a backseat, I could see uniformed officials questioning people inside stopped vehicles.
It was a broiling afternoon in August 2014. Dark clouds were building overhead, threatening rain. There was a murmur of hushed conversation among the family members whom I had first seen no more than half an hour before. They had only recently landed on the Mexican side of the Suchiate River on a raft made of gigantic inner tubes and wooden boards and were already aboard the van when Abbott and I crammed in.
They would prove to be a boisterous crew. "Welcome to the family!" a woman who later introduced herself as Sandra said. "At least for this trip to Tapachula!" Much laughter followed. They were going to the wake of a family member in Mexico and, as people had done here forever, they simply crossed the river, avoiding the official entry point less than a mile away. Like so many political borders around the world, the Guatemalan-Mexican divide had been officially demarcated relatively recently--in 1882, to be exact--cutting through regions with strong family, community, and linguistic ties.
The checkpoint just ahead represented a new kind of demarcation line: the United States border arriving 1,000 miles to the south. A month before, in July 2014, when Mexican officials announced a bolstering of their own border in what they called Programa Frontera Sur (the Southern Border Program), the United States immediately applauded that country's new "strategy for its southern border" in an embassy press release.
Under a multibillion-dollar military aid program known as the Merida Initiative, as that cable made clear, the U.S. was already, in the pre-Donald Trump era, supporting the Mexican government's border enforcement strategies in significant ways, including enhancing its biometric and other identification systems. Indeed, U.S. help in strengthening Mexico's southern border already included backscatter X-ray vans and contraband-detection equipment; funds for Mexico's National Institute of Migration, the Mexican Marines, and the federal police; patrol boats, night-vision and communication equipment, and marine sensors. That country's interior minister, Miguel Osorio Chong, said, "Who doesn't have the necessary documents to enter into our territory and enter the United States, we can't allow them to be in our territory." It was in its own way a serious admission: Mexico had already functionally been "hired" to protect the U.S. border from 1,000 miles away.
And this was something U.S. officials had already been pushing for years. As Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Alan Bersin said in 2012, "The Guatemalan border with Chiapas is now our southern border." And indeed it was. So don't just blame Donald Trump for this country's border fixation.
Creating an Empire of Borders
In a broader sense, in the twenty-first century, the border should no longer be considered just that familiar territory between the U.S. and Mexico (where President Trump now wants to build that "big, fat, beautiful wall" of his) and the Canadian border to the north. Never mind that, as a start, there already is a wall there or rather, as the U.S. border enforcement officials have long described it, a "multi-layered" enforcement zone. If you were to redefine a wall as obstacles meant to blockade, reroute, and in the end stop (as well as incarcerate) people, then, even before Donald Trump, the equivalent of a wall was that expansive 100-mile-deep zone of defenses. These included sophisticated detection technologies of every sort and increasing numbers of armed border personnel supported by unprecedented budgets over the last 25 years.
In those same years, this country's borders have, in a sense, undergone a kind of expansion not just into southern Mexico (as I witnessed in 2014), but also into parts of Central America and South America, the Caribbean, and other areas of the world. As Bersin put it, there had been a post-9/11 shift to emphasizing the policing not just of the literal U.S. border but of global versions of the same, a massive, if underreported, "paradigm change." A U.S. border strategy of "prevention through deterrence," initiated in 1994, that first militarized and then blockaded urban areas on our actual southern border like Brownsville, El Paso, Nogales, and San Diego, would later spread internationally.
The recent focus on Trump's wall has hidden such global developments that, since 2003, have, for instance, led to 23 Customs and Border Protection attaches being stationed in places like Bogota, Cairo, New Delhi, Panama City, and Rome. In 2004, CBP commissioner Robert Bonner described this as "extending our zone of security where we can... so that American borders are the last line of defense, not the first line of defense."
In 2003, the 9/11 Commission Report laid out the thinking behind this clearly indeed: "9/11 has taught us that terrorism against Americans 'over there' should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against Americans 'over here.' In this same sense the American homeland is the planet."
Fourteen years later, retired General John Kelly endorsed just such a strategy at his confirmation hearing as Department of Homeland Security secretary. "Border security," he assured the senators, "cannot be attempted as an endless series of 'goal line stands' on the one-foot line at the ports of entry or along the thousands of miles of border between this country and Mexico... I believe the defense of the Southwest border starts 1,500 miles to the south in Peru."
As it happened, even Kelly was understating just how far the U.S. border already extended into the world.
How the U.S. Border Arrived in the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, and Jordan
When I first began to research the exporting of the U.S. border, I didn't faintly know the extent of it, though I would, in the end, visit the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Kenya, and the Philippines, among other places.
In 2015, while waiting at the front gate of the Zacapa military base in Guatemala--I had an interview scheduled with the commander of that country's new border force known as the Chorti--a soldier asked me if I was from BORTAC. "What?" I replied, certain I hadn't heard him correctly. He then repeated the word more slowly, as if perhaps he had pronounced it incorrectly.
I wouldn't have been alone in my surprise. Most people in the United States had never heard of BORTAC. After many years of researching the U.S. border, however, I now know quite a bit about that "Border Patrol Tactical Unit" that performs SWAT-style operations along the U.S. borderlands. As it happens, it also does training missions abroad. Indeed, as I would soon find out from Colonel Obed Lopez, the Chorti commander, its members had visited his military base during a three-month-long training session also involving the U.S. National Guard, Special Forces units, and police that, as he put it, "they used in cities." They had provided instruction in "weapons, tactics, ground movements and agility training, first aid," Colonel Lopez told me.
In fact, on its international missions, BORTAC often works as part of a larger Customs and Border Protection team. As one CBP trainer told me, they would "travel and see the border operations in various countries and make an assessment of their border security, and make recommendations on what could be done to improve their security." Like doctors of border policing, the CBP team would analyze the situation, then offer a diagnosis and prescription, including recommendations for funding, training, assistance, and equipment from Washington.
The Dominican Republic was the first place where, in 2012, I saw the results of such U.S. training and funding. Border guards from CESFRONT, an enforcement unit formed in 2007, were by then stationed along that country's border with Haiti. Holding assault rifles, they stood behind barricades on the banks of the grimly named Massacre River, looking like rudimentary replicas of the U.S. Border Patrol in Nogales. As Haitians bathed in the river, they remained there for hours and hours, ensuring that no unauthorized people tried to cross from one of the poorest places on the planet because, of course, wherever you go, the border story turns out to be about how the rich and powerful deal with the poor and marginalized.
Between the State Department and the Department of Defense there are now more than 100 programs that the Department of Homeland Security uses to finance such border programs globally. Among the most prominent are those run by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and the Export Control and Border Security Related Program (EXBS). The INL works in 71 countries, EXBS in 60, including every country in North Africa and every island state in the South Pacific. With these two outfits alone, you could stand in front of a world map, point anywhere, and the likelihood is that you'd find a U.S. program funneling funds, resources, and border training there.
In other words, when it comes to borders, U.S. operations aren't limited either to the Western hemisphere or even to countries with land borders. In the Philippines in 2015, for example, the U.S. dedicated $20 million to the construction of the National Coastal Watch Center, an "action that underscores the U.S. commitment to helping the Philippines manage and secure its maritime domain," according to the American embassy there. After all, as that year's Pentagon "Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy" stressed, the United States has "enduring economic and security interests" in that region where it puts a "premium on maintaining peace and security." In that spirit, it doled out the lucrative contract to build that Watch Center to Raytheon. (Yes, in building a global border regime, there's money to be made.)
That company also landed a big contract to build what journalist William Arkin described as the "Great Wall of Jordan." According to a document it produced in 2016, "Border Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection," this meant a 287-mile "security system" on Jordan's borders with Syria and Iraq, including high-tech cameras, ground radars, "quick reaction" team vehicles, command and control centers, and "passive barrier fencing." In that same document, Raytheon took credit for "deployed solutions" globally covering more than 10,000 kilometers of land and maritime borders in more than 24 countries, while training more than 9,000 security force members in "surveillance system operations, maintenance, and border security operations."
And all this just scratches the surface when it comes to the sums of money involved. In Jordan alone in 2015, for instance, $385 million in such funding went into the Jordanian military to support border policing and "counter-terrorism" efforts, including 26,000 rifles and machine guns, three million rounds of small-arms ammunition, 5,000 night-vision devices, and eight UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. As U.S. Ambassador Alice Wells said the next year, the helicopters would "provide Jordan with another tool for safeguarding its frontiers." In discussing "the sheer number of incursions the Border Guards thwart, almost nightly," however, she made no mention of the massive refugee crises -- in Syria and Iraq -- significantly provoked by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; nor did she mention U.S. geopolitical interests in the region of the sort former Pentagon senior policy adviser Eric Edelman described to the Senate Armed Services Committee in December 2017: "U.S. policy makers have considered access to the region's energy resources vital for the U.S. allies in Europe, and ultimately for the United States itself."
In other words, the emerging U.S. global border system can be conceptualized in two ways: there are our territorial borders, of course, but increasingly there is a global empire of borders meant to promote Washington's geopolitical, economic, and military interests, no matter who is in office.
Keeping the Poor in Line
Such efforts will ultimately contribute to a vast global border and immigration system. In total, there are already more than 70 border walls on this planet, tens of thousands of border agents, and billions of dollars of high-tech surveillance equipment in place along borders that separate the Global North from the Global South. Militarized borders are almost never about one country's security or protection. They represent, instead, global partnerships that pit transnational elites against the world's most vulnerable people.
Scholar and activist Harsha Walia explains it this way: "Border controls are most severely deployed by those Western regimes that create mass displacement... and are most severely deployed against those whose very recourse to migration results from the ravages of capital and military occupations." In the years to come, this will increasingly include millions displaced by the impact of the global climate crisis that will disturb the lives of the world's least developed countries at a rate predicted to be five times higher than the global average.
As journalist John Washington put it, borders have become "globalization's bouncers." Borderlands historian Guadalupe Castillo explains it this way: "The nation-state has become the policeman for the corporate world," creating borders to "clear the landscape for those... for whom borders don't exist"; that is, the "1 percent." The power of that one percent can go wherever it pleases, extracting natural wealth and fossil fuels, while destroying livelihoods and the living earth. Borders aren't for them, but for those who find themselves unable to make ends meet and so are vulnerable to every threat.
Chiapas, where our van idled 200 yards from that checkpoint so long ago, was an example of this. One of the richest places in Mexico in terms of natural resources -- water, petroleum, mineral wealth, natural gas, coffee -- it remains one of the poorest for its people. During my stay there, everyone was talking about the border operativos and sensed that the increased fortification of their border was the result of direct orders from Washington. (And keep in mind that this was years before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office and such developments became front-page news.)
In 2017, at the Border Security Expo, I listened to Tony Crowder, commander of Customs and Border Patrol Air and Marine Operations, confirm the suspicions of those inhabitants of Chiapas by saying that the U.S. had gone into Mexico and "built technology" giving that country's officials more "domain awareness capability." He added, "We coordinated with them directly in their country with as many as 600 to 800 tactical responses in a year's time... sharing domain awareness with them." Later, explaining to me his agency's intense and constant coordination with Mexico, a CBP official said, "I bet you there are fifteen phone calls going on with Mexico at this very moment."
That same year, as U.S. Northern Command head General Lori Robinson pointed out, "to support the Government of Mexico's Southern Border Strategy to improve security on their border with Guatemala and Belize," her command had ensured "the timely delivery of a record Foreign Military Sales of over a billion dollars in UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles." And now, two years later, Mexico's newly formed National Guard patrols that southern frontier in force, essentially at the behest of Donald Trump.
At that checkpoint so long ago, the driver suddenly turned the van around and we headed back toward the border with Guatemala. I assumed that the family, which had suddenly gone silent, would just miss that wake. I figured that the driver had decided to skip the checkpoint so that the family wouldn't be pulled out, handcuffed, incarcerated, and formally expelled from the country like so many others.
Then he suddenly made a surprise right turn and we were on a dirt road, parallel to the main road, heading the other way. Above us, purple clouds were moving fast over the landscape and there was the smell of rain. We were clearly evading the checkpoint.
Sandra suddenly gave us a smile. "We don't have papers!" she exclaimed. Then she laughed, a sound so joyful that her mother, a blanket over her shoulders, burst into laughter, too, just as the sky burst with rain.
I still wonder how many similar moments have happened in the five years since or will happen in the years to come around the world. This is the nature of a global border system. When the state, including the American imperial state, puts up barriers, people figure out ways to get around them. It matters little whether it's the Jordanian-Syrian divide, the waters between the Philippines and Malaysia, or the southern border of the United States. Even with the billions and billions of dollars spent, the new technologies, the smart walls (and dumb ones), the checkpoints and biometric ID devices, borders can always be subverted with some grassroots organizing, a little luck, and a joyful spirit.
The driver of the passenger van pulled onto the shoulder of the road, looked back, and said, "There's an immigration checkpoint up ahead. Does everyone have their papers?"
We were just north of the Guatemalan border, outside the town of Ciudad Hidalgo in the Mexican state of Chiapas. There were 10 of us in the van: a family of eight from nearby Monte Rico, Guatemala, photojournalist Jeff Abbott, and me. The driver pointed to the road blockade, already in sight. From a backseat, I could see uniformed officials questioning people inside stopped vehicles.
It was a broiling afternoon in August 2014. Dark clouds were building overhead, threatening rain. There was a murmur of hushed conversation among the family members whom I had first seen no more than half an hour before. They had only recently landed on the Mexican side of the Suchiate River on a raft made of gigantic inner tubes and wooden boards and were already aboard the van when Abbott and I crammed in.
They would prove to be a boisterous crew. "Welcome to the family!" a woman who later introduced herself as Sandra said. "At least for this trip to Tapachula!" Much laughter followed. They were going to the wake of a family member in Mexico and, as people had done here forever, they simply crossed the river, avoiding the official entry point less than a mile away. Like so many political borders around the world, the Guatemalan-Mexican divide had been officially demarcated relatively recently--in 1882, to be exact--cutting through regions with strong family, community, and linguistic ties.
The checkpoint just ahead represented a new kind of demarcation line: the United States border arriving 1,000 miles to the south. A month before, in July 2014, when Mexican officials announced a bolstering of their own border in what they called Programa Frontera Sur (the Southern Border Program), the United States immediately applauded that country's new "strategy for its southern border" in an embassy press release.
Under a multibillion-dollar military aid program known as the Merida Initiative, as that cable made clear, the U.S. was already, in the pre-Donald Trump era, supporting the Mexican government's border enforcement strategies in significant ways, including enhancing its biometric and other identification systems. Indeed, U.S. help in strengthening Mexico's southern border already included backscatter X-ray vans and contraband-detection equipment; funds for Mexico's National Institute of Migration, the Mexican Marines, and the federal police; patrol boats, night-vision and communication equipment, and marine sensors. That country's interior minister, Miguel Osorio Chong, said, "Who doesn't have the necessary documents to enter into our territory and enter the United States, we can't allow them to be in our territory." It was in its own way a serious admission: Mexico had already functionally been "hired" to protect the U.S. border from 1,000 miles away.
And this was something U.S. officials had already been pushing for years. As Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Alan Bersin said in 2012, "The Guatemalan border with Chiapas is now our southern border." And indeed it was. So don't just blame Donald Trump for this country's border fixation.
Creating an Empire of Borders
In a broader sense, in the twenty-first century, the border should no longer be considered just that familiar territory between the U.S. and Mexico (where President Trump now wants to build that "big, fat, beautiful wall" of his) and the Canadian border to the north. Never mind that, as a start, there already is a wall there or rather, as the U.S. border enforcement officials have long described it, a "multi-layered" enforcement zone. If you were to redefine a wall as obstacles meant to blockade, reroute, and in the end stop (as well as incarcerate) people, then, even before Donald Trump, the equivalent of a wall was that expansive 100-mile-deep zone of defenses. These included sophisticated detection technologies of every sort and increasing numbers of armed border personnel supported by unprecedented budgets over the last 25 years.
In those same years, this country's borders have, in a sense, undergone a kind of expansion not just into southern Mexico (as I witnessed in 2014), but also into parts of Central America and South America, the Caribbean, and other areas of the world. As Bersin put it, there had been a post-9/11 shift to emphasizing the policing not just of the literal U.S. border but of global versions of the same, a massive, if underreported, "paradigm change." A U.S. border strategy of "prevention through deterrence," initiated in 1994, that first militarized and then blockaded urban areas on our actual southern border like Brownsville, El Paso, Nogales, and San Diego, would later spread internationally.
The recent focus on Trump's wall has hidden such global developments that, since 2003, have, for instance, led to 23 Customs and Border Protection attaches being stationed in places like Bogota, Cairo, New Delhi, Panama City, and Rome. In 2004, CBP commissioner Robert Bonner described this as "extending our zone of security where we can... so that American borders are the last line of defense, not the first line of defense."
In 2003, the 9/11 Commission Report laid out the thinking behind this clearly indeed: "9/11 has taught us that terrorism against Americans 'over there' should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against Americans 'over here.' In this same sense the American homeland is the planet."
Fourteen years later, retired General John Kelly endorsed just such a strategy at his confirmation hearing as Department of Homeland Security secretary. "Border security," he assured the senators, "cannot be attempted as an endless series of 'goal line stands' on the one-foot line at the ports of entry or along the thousands of miles of border between this country and Mexico... I believe the defense of the Southwest border starts 1,500 miles to the south in Peru."
As it happened, even Kelly was understating just how far the U.S. border already extended into the world.
How the U.S. Border Arrived in the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, and Jordan
When I first began to research the exporting of the U.S. border, I didn't faintly know the extent of it, though I would, in the end, visit the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Kenya, and the Philippines, among other places.
In 2015, while waiting at the front gate of the Zacapa military base in Guatemala--I had an interview scheduled with the commander of that country's new border force known as the Chorti--a soldier asked me if I was from BORTAC. "What?" I replied, certain I hadn't heard him correctly. He then repeated the word more slowly, as if perhaps he had pronounced it incorrectly.
I wouldn't have been alone in my surprise. Most people in the United States had never heard of BORTAC. After many years of researching the U.S. border, however, I now know quite a bit about that "Border Patrol Tactical Unit" that performs SWAT-style operations along the U.S. borderlands. As it happens, it also does training missions abroad. Indeed, as I would soon find out from Colonel Obed Lopez, the Chorti commander, its members had visited his military base during a three-month-long training session also involving the U.S. National Guard, Special Forces units, and police that, as he put it, "they used in cities." They had provided instruction in "weapons, tactics, ground movements and agility training, first aid," Colonel Lopez told me.
In fact, on its international missions, BORTAC often works as part of a larger Customs and Border Protection team. As one CBP trainer told me, they would "travel and see the border operations in various countries and make an assessment of their border security, and make recommendations on what could be done to improve their security." Like doctors of border policing, the CBP team would analyze the situation, then offer a diagnosis and prescription, including recommendations for funding, training, assistance, and equipment from Washington.
The Dominican Republic was the first place where, in 2012, I saw the results of such U.S. training and funding. Border guards from CESFRONT, an enforcement unit formed in 2007, were by then stationed along that country's border with Haiti. Holding assault rifles, they stood behind barricades on the banks of the grimly named Massacre River, looking like rudimentary replicas of the U.S. Border Patrol in Nogales. As Haitians bathed in the river, they remained there for hours and hours, ensuring that no unauthorized people tried to cross from one of the poorest places on the planet because, of course, wherever you go, the border story turns out to be about how the rich and powerful deal with the poor and marginalized.
Between the State Department and the Department of Defense there are now more than 100 programs that the Department of Homeland Security uses to finance such border programs globally. Among the most prominent are those run by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and the Export Control and Border Security Related Program (EXBS). The INL works in 71 countries, EXBS in 60, including every country in North Africa and every island state in the South Pacific. With these two outfits alone, you could stand in front of a world map, point anywhere, and the likelihood is that you'd find a U.S. program funneling funds, resources, and border training there.
In other words, when it comes to borders, U.S. operations aren't limited either to the Western hemisphere or even to countries with land borders. In the Philippines in 2015, for example, the U.S. dedicated $20 million to the construction of the National Coastal Watch Center, an "action that underscores the U.S. commitment to helping the Philippines manage and secure its maritime domain," according to the American embassy there. After all, as that year's Pentagon "Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy" stressed, the United States has "enduring economic and security interests" in that region where it puts a "premium on maintaining peace and security." In that spirit, it doled out the lucrative contract to build that Watch Center to Raytheon. (Yes, in building a global border regime, there's money to be made.)
That company also landed a big contract to build what journalist William Arkin described as the "Great Wall of Jordan." According to a document it produced in 2016, "Border Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection," this meant a 287-mile "security system" on Jordan's borders with Syria and Iraq, including high-tech cameras, ground radars, "quick reaction" team vehicles, command and control centers, and "passive barrier fencing." In that same document, Raytheon took credit for "deployed solutions" globally covering more than 10,000 kilometers of land and maritime borders in more than 24 countries, while training more than 9,000 security force members in "surveillance system operations, maintenance, and border security operations."
And all this just scratches the surface when it comes to the sums of money involved. In Jordan alone in 2015, for instance, $385 million in such funding went into the Jordanian military to support border policing and "counter-terrorism" efforts, including 26,000 rifles and machine guns, three million rounds of small-arms ammunition, 5,000 night-vision devices, and eight UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. As U.S. Ambassador Alice Wells said the next year, the helicopters would "provide Jordan with another tool for safeguarding its frontiers." In discussing "the sheer number of incursions the Border Guards thwart, almost nightly," however, she made no mention of the massive refugee crises -- in Syria and Iraq -- significantly provoked by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; nor did she mention U.S. geopolitical interests in the region of the sort former Pentagon senior policy adviser Eric Edelman described to the Senate Armed Services Committee in December 2017: "U.S. policy makers have considered access to the region's energy resources vital for the U.S. allies in Europe, and ultimately for the United States itself."
In other words, the emerging U.S. global border system can be conceptualized in two ways: there are our territorial borders, of course, but increasingly there is a global empire of borders meant to promote Washington's geopolitical, economic, and military interests, no matter who is in office.
Keeping the Poor in Line
Such efforts will ultimately contribute to a vast global border and immigration system. In total, there are already more than 70 border walls on this planet, tens of thousands of border agents, and billions of dollars of high-tech surveillance equipment in place along borders that separate the Global North from the Global South. Militarized borders are almost never about one country's security or protection. They represent, instead, global partnerships that pit transnational elites against the world's most vulnerable people.
Scholar and activist Harsha Walia explains it this way: "Border controls are most severely deployed by those Western regimes that create mass displacement... and are most severely deployed against those whose very recourse to migration results from the ravages of capital and military occupations." In the years to come, this will increasingly include millions displaced by the impact of the global climate crisis that will disturb the lives of the world's least developed countries at a rate predicted to be five times higher than the global average.
As journalist John Washington put it, borders have become "globalization's bouncers." Borderlands historian Guadalupe Castillo explains it this way: "The nation-state has become the policeman for the corporate world," creating borders to "clear the landscape for those... for whom borders don't exist"; that is, the "1 percent." The power of that one percent can go wherever it pleases, extracting natural wealth and fossil fuels, while destroying livelihoods and the living earth. Borders aren't for them, but for those who find themselves unable to make ends meet and so are vulnerable to every threat.
Chiapas, where our van idled 200 yards from that checkpoint so long ago, was an example of this. One of the richest places in Mexico in terms of natural resources -- water, petroleum, mineral wealth, natural gas, coffee -- it remains one of the poorest for its people. During my stay there, everyone was talking about the border operativos and sensed that the increased fortification of their border was the result of direct orders from Washington. (And keep in mind that this was years before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office and such developments became front-page news.)
In 2017, at the Border Security Expo, I listened to Tony Crowder, commander of Customs and Border Patrol Air and Marine Operations, confirm the suspicions of those inhabitants of Chiapas by saying that the U.S. had gone into Mexico and "built technology" giving that country's officials more "domain awareness capability." He added, "We coordinated with them directly in their country with as many as 600 to 800 tactical responses in a year's time... sharing domain awareness with them." Later, explaining to me his agency's intense and constant coordination with Mexico, a CBP official said, "I bet you there are fifteen phone calls going on with Mexico at this very moment."
That same year, as U.S. Northern Command head General Lori Robinson pointed out, "to support the Government of Mexico's Southern Border Strategy to improve security on their border with Guatemala and Belize," her command had ensured "the timely delivery of a record Foreign Military Sales of over a billion dollars in UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles." And now, two years later, Mexico's newly formed National Guard patrols that southern frontier in force, essentially at the behest of Donald Trump.
At that checkpoint so long ago, the driver suddenly turned the van around and we headed back toward the border with Guatemala. I assumed that the family, which had suddenly gone silent, would just miss that wake. I figured that the driver had decided to skip the checkpoint so that the family wouldn't be pulled out, handcuffed, incarcerated, and formally expelled from the country like so many others.
Then he suddenly made a surprise right turn and we were on a dirt road, parallel to the main road, heading the other way. Above us, purple clouds were moving fast over the landscape and there was the smell of rain. We were clearly evading the checkpoint.
Sandra suddenly gave us a smile. "We don't have papers!" she exclaimed. Then she laughed, a sound so joyful that her mother, a blanket over her shoulders, burst into laughter, too, just as the sky burst with rain.
I still wonder how many similar moments have happened in the five years since or will happen in the years to come around the world. This is the nature of a global border system. When the state, including the American imperial state, puts up barriers, people figure out ways to get around them. It matters little whether it's the Jordanian-Syrian divide, the waters between the Philippines and Malaysia, or the southern border of the United States. Even with the billions and billions of dollars spent, the new technologies, the smart walls (and dumb ones), the checkpoints and biometric ID devices, borders can always be subverted with some grassroots organizing, a little luck, and a joyful spirit.
"On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, legislation intended to thwart President Donald Trump's attacks on the agency that administers benefits for millions of seniors and other Americans.
In a statement introducing his bill, Sanders (I-Vt.) called out not only Trump but also Elon Musk, who is the richest person on Earth and led the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until he left the administration in May.
"Since Trump has been in office, he has been working overtime with the wealthiest man in the world, Elon Musk, to dismantle Social Security and undermine the faith that the American people have in this vitally important program," Sanders said. "Thousands of Social Security staff have lost their jobs, seniors and people with disabilities are having a much harder time receiving the benefits they have earned, field offices have been shut down, and the 1-800 number is a mess."
"That is beyond unacceptable," the senator declared, just days before a key milestone for the law that led to the Social Security Administration (SSA). "On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve. That's precisely what this legislation will do."
As Sanders' office summarized, the bill aims to defend Americans and their benefits by:
The bill is backed by 20 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and several organizations, including Social Security Works, Alliance for Retired Americans, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Sanders introduced the bill on the same day that he joined former Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley, U.S. Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—a co-sponsor of the new legislation—for a Protect Our Checks town hall, hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent "openly bragged about plans to use a back door to privatize Social Security and hand the benefits of working families over to those folks on Wall Street," Wyden pointed out. "Trump's so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance, big consequences for American seniors and families walking on an economic tightrope."
The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans passed and the president signed in July is expected to strip Medicaid and other key assistance, including food stamps, from millions of Americans in the next decade.
Wednesday's town hall also featured testimony from Social Security recipients, including Judith Brown, who explained that "at 37, I became disabled. It was devastating, because I was a young mother to two sons [that] are on the autism spectrum."
"When my sons needed additional medical support, I was able to get care for them because of their Social Security benefits. Without those benefits, we would have been homeless on the street," Brown continued. "Social Security has always been there for us over all these years. Right now, this administration is bent on stripping us of our benefits that we paid into during our working years... We cannot allow this to happen. Social Security must be protected and expanded. Our entire existence is on the line, and we must fight to protect Social Security."
Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Saryn Francis said that "Republican tariffs are driving up prices at the grocery store, their bills are raising the cost of healthcare and electricity, and they've even found time to hand out more tax breaks to billionaires, and now they want to mess with Social Security, and we are not going to let them take that away from us."
Francis noted that "this weekend, with over 50 events across the country, Americans are rallying in a massive effort to support Social Security and calling on congressional Republicans to stop threatening what hardworking people have earned and need to survive."
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said one jourtnalist. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
Using terminology that's all too familiar to the U.S. public—and treated by the for-profit health system as synonymous with those who are entitled to less care—the Israel Defense Forces on Tuesday released an "in-depth review" of widespread reports that Israel has killed hundreds of people in Gaza so far through its deliberate starvation policy.
The military claimed the analysis found that many Palestinians who have died of malnutrition so far had previous illnesses.
"Most 'malnutrition' deaths were due to severe preexisting conditions," said the IDF in a post on social media. "The expert review concluded that there are no signs of a widespread malnutrition phenomenon among the population in Gaza."
The fact that a number of people who have died had health conditions before Israel began bombarding Gaza in October 2023—decimating its healthcare system, among other civilian infrastructure—is hardly a surprise, said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said Grim. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
The IDF and its top military funder, the U.S. government, have persistently denied that Israel is intentionally starving Palestinian civilians with its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review' abto determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
As the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has warned that famine is now unfolding in Gaza, experts have called the starvation crisis that's killed at least 235 people "entirely man-made," and Amnesty International has gathered extensive testimony from healthcare workers and civilians describing how Israel is using starvation as a "weapon of war," the Trump administration has continued to claim that any malnutrition in Gaza is the result of Hamas "stealing aid."
Last month, even IDF officials were forced to admit previous claims that Hamas was stealing humanitarian aid deliveries could not be verified.
With that claim debunked, the "in-depth review" focused instead on dismissing the starvation victims themselves.
The IDF presented the case of 4-year-old Abdullah Hanu Muhammad Abu Zarqa, who had a genetic disease that caused "deficiencies, osteoporosis, and bone thinning."
It also posted on the social media platform X the medical records of a 2-year-old named Abed Allah Hany Muhamad Abu Zarka, which showed the toddler had hair loss and rickets—a bone disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. The document showed he had a "positive family history of similar cases" and was shared in the apparent hope that disclosing the information would tamp down outrage over Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid.
"I can't understand how anyone thinks 'We're only starving the SICK kids to death' is any kind of justification, even if it were true?!" said New York Times columnist Megan K. Stack.
The in-depth review, which Israel said verified "only a few cases" of starvation, came weeks after the Times appeared to bow to pressure from the Israeli government and media after it reported on Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old who was born with cerebral palsy and had also been suffering from starvation. Israel claimed the use of photos of the toddler in media coverage was misleading because outlets like the Times didn't disclose al-Mutawaq's previous medical condition, and the Times issued an editorial note pointing out his diagnosis soon after.
The editors' move provoked outcry from progressive observers, who called the addendum "ghoulish" and "depraved."
One noted that an institution that took pains to "clarify" that "some portion of Nazi death camp victims had preexisting conditions" would rightly be accused of denying the impact of the Holocaust.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review,'" one critic asked Wednesday, "to determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
"If implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the Associated Press said.
Israel has reportedly discussed pushing the Palestinian population of Gaza to another war zone in South Sudan.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Israeli leaders had been engaged in talks with the African nation and that an Israeli delegation would soon visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up "makeshift camps" for Palestinians to be herded into.
"It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the AP said.
Like Gaza, South Sudan is in the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis caused by an ongoing violence and instability. In June, Human Rights Watch reported that more than half of South Sudan's population, 7.7 million people, faced acute food insecurity. The nation is also home to one of the world's largest refugee crises, with more than 2 million people internally displaced.
On Wednesday, the South Sudanese foreign ministry said it "firmly refutes" the reports that it discussed the transfer of Palestinians with Israel, adding that they are "baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy."
However, six sources that spoke to the AP—including the founder of a U.S.-based lobbying firm and the leader of a South Sudanese civil society group, as well as four who maintained anonymity—said the government briefed them on the talks.
Sharren Haskel, Israel's deputy foreign minister, also arrived in South Sudan on Tuesday to hold a series of talks with the president and other government officials.
While the content of these talks is unclear for the moment, the Israeli government is quite open about its goal of seeking the permanent transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to other countries.
In addition to South Sudan, it has been reported that Israeli officials have also approached Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway state of Somaliland, all of which have suffered from chronic war, poverty, and instability.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with the Israeli TV station i24 that "the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there."
Though Netanyahu has described this as "voluntary migration," Israeli officials have in the past indicated that their goal is to make conditions in Gaza so intolerable that its people see no choice but to leave.
Finance minister and war cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly discussed the objective of forcing 2 million Palestinians out to make way for Israeli settlers, said in May: "Within a few months, we will be able to declare that we have won. Gaza will be totally destroyed."
Speaking of its people, he said: "They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places."
Contrary to Netanyahu's assertion, international bodies, governments, and human rights groups have denounced the so-called "voluntary migration" plan as a policy of forcible transfer that is illegal under international law.
"To impose inhumane conditions of life to push Palestinians out of Gaza would amount to the war crime of unlawful transfer or deportation," said Amnesty International in May.
Israeli human rights organizations, led by the group Gisha, explained in June in a letter to Israel's Defense Minister, Israel Katz, that there is no such thing as "voluntary migration" under the circumstances that the Israeli war campaign has imposed.
"Genuine 'consent' under these conditions simply does not exist," the groups said. "Therefore, the decision in question constitutes explicit planning for mass transfer of civilians and ethnic cleansing, while violating international law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The plan to permanently remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip has received the backing of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to turn the strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
The U.S. State Department currently advises travelers not to visit Sudan or Somaliland due to the risk of armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. However, the United States has reportedly been involved in talks pushing these countries to take in the Palestinians forced out by Israel.
After Israel announced its plans to fully "conquer" Gaza, U.N. official Miroslav Jenča said during an emergency Security Council session on Sunday that the occupation push is "yet another dangerous escalation of the conflict."
"If these plans are implemented," he said, "they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction—compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."