51茶馆

November 17, 2016

Just who are the millions of 'bad hombres' slated for US deportation?

Luis Gómez Romero, 51茶馆

In an with CBS鈥檚 60 Minutes, United States president-elect Donald Trump highlighted some campaign promises that he actually plans to keep. Among others, he confirmed that he will build his on the Mexican border and deport .

If the United States is serious about kicking out the 鈥溾�� from Mexico and Latin America, then it鈥檚 important to ask: who, in fact, are these people?

In Trump鈥檚 apocalyptic worldview, they鈥檙e a hoard of Latino 鈥済ang members鈥� and 鈥渄rug dealers鈥� with 鈥渃riminal records鈥� who are invading America. But analysis reveals that image is far from reality.

What鈥檚 in a name?

First, Mexico and Latin America are not the only sources of immigration to the US. In fact, the US than coming to it, and have since overtaken Mexico in flows of recent arrivals. also now comprise a significant share of undocumented immigrants in the US.

Still, in his third presidential debate, Trump used Spanish to depict undocumented migrants as wicked lawbreakers. The perverse effect of the 鈥渂ad hombres鈥� quip is the vilification of Latinos in our own language 鈥� albeit with such humorously bad diction that it sounded more like bad hambres 鈥� 鈥渂ad hunger鈥�.

This bigotry is the hashtag version of an old and ugly American tradition. As early as 1829, Joel Poinsett, America鈥檚 first ambassador to Mexico, as an 鈥渋gnorant and debauched people鈥�. The supposed moral and intellectual ruin of Mexicans was the predictable outcome of the 鈥渃onstant intercourse鈥� of Spaniards with 鈥渢he aborigines.鈥� That is, Mexico鈥檚 mestizo origins were the cause of the country鈥檚 backwardness.

 

 

In Poinsett鈥檚 view, whereas Spanish settlers were 鈥渁mong the most ignorant and vicious鈥� of Christian Europeans, Mexico鈥檚 native people were 鈥渢he very lowest class of human beings鈥�. Poinsett鈥檚 racist generalisations established the foundations of current US stereotypes about Mexicans and Latin Americans.

Meeting the bad hombres

Given the unsavoury foundations of some Americans鈥� suspicion that Latin American migrants are violent criminals, it鈥檚 urgent to understand precisely what sort of migrants Donald Trump may deport. We can do so by examining the record-breaking undertaken by the current American administration.

Barack Obama has actually tried to focus immigration enforcement on convicted criminals, and Trump鈥檚 approach is, to some extent, a continuation of these policies. But Obama also intended to build political support for revising immigration laws that aimed at creating for illegal migrants in the US.

The Obama administration estimated by 2013 that were living in the US.

This figure is not limited to undocumented migrants. It includes those with greencards (for legal permanent residency) and those with temporary visas. Nor is it limited to those found guilty of serious crimes; it also includes people who have been convicted not of drug trafficking or gang activity but of theft and other non-violent crimes.

 

 

So it would be a mistake to assume that the key priorities of immigration enforcement are terrorism suspects and convicted felons. In 2015, 59% of the people America deported 鈥� 鈥� were convicted criminals, while 41% were removed for immigration violations such as overstaying a visa. apprehended at the border are also included in this number.

So the claim that three million undocumented migrants living in the US are dangerous criminals is unsubstantiated 鈥� and irresponsible.

The tide of history flows back to the US

Still, hundreds of thousands of deportees are actual criminal offenders. The stereotypical Latino offenders that primarily obsess Trump and his ilk are gang members and drug dealers: Mexican cartel bosses, Salvadoran . Scary stuff, right?

Maybe, but a nuanced historical analysis shows something nativist US politicians are less keen to publicise: that American anti-Communist foreign policies implemented in the 1980s played a major role in fuelling these criminal activities.

Ronald Reagan in 1982 that those who embraced communism ran against 鈥渢he tide of history鈥�. Reagan thus committed himself to lead a 鈥渃rusade for freedom鈥� against the communist evil. Under his watch, the US was meant to deliver 鈥渇reedom and human dignity鈥� across the world.

Mexico and Central America were crucial battlefields. In 1979, the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front overthrew Anastasio Somoza鈥檚 dictatorial government in Nicaragua.

Reagan immediately offered financial and material support to anti-Sandinista forces called the Contras, including by ordering the CIA in Nicaragua鈥檚 harbours and deploying funds obtained by selling weapons to Iran, which were then embargoed.

Critical to today鈥檚 reality, the US also channelled its assistance to the Contras through traffickers who had been indicted on drug charges. A 1989 lead by then-Senator John Kerry, revealed an appalling complicity between the US government and Latin American drug traffickers. The report found, for example, that the Department of State paid over US$806,000 to renowned drug traffickers, including Honduran drug lord Juan Ram贸n Matta-Ballesteros.

At the same time, in El Salvador, the US was also embracing a military junta that in 1979 had overthrown president Carlos Humberto Romero, offering its leaders substantial military and economic aid in order to prevent 鈥溾��.

As El Salvador鈥檚 dictators violently repressed political criticism and opposition, peaceful political groups metamorphosed into leftist guerrilla forces called the Farabundo Mart铆 National Liberation Front (FMLN).

In May 1980, FMLN leadership met in Havana, Cuba, establishing themselves as US enemies. With US guidance in tactics learned from Vietnam, the Salvadoran army brutally suppressed the FMLN Communists. According to , this strategy involved, along with bombings, occasional civilian massacres.

This US-sponsored violence in Nicaragua and El Salvador soon spread to and , in part due to geographic proximity and in part because as all these countries have historically been characterised by marked social and economic inequality.

What does all of this have to do with the gangbangers and drug lords of Trump鈥檚 imagination? Decades of war left thousands of . Many of them eventually migrated to the US and, parentless and penniless, joined what family the streets had to offer: criminal organisations such as Los Angeles鈥� Mara Salvatrucha and 18th Street gangs.

Latino drug traffickers and gangs are hence an important legacy of the Reagan administration.

 

 

Time for resistance

John Forsyth was US Secretary of State from 1834 to 1841. In 1857, he noted in a that 鈥渢he hybrid races鈥� of the American continent would 鈥渟uccumb to and fade away before鈥� the 鈥渋nstitutions鈥� and 鈥渟uperior energies of the white man鈥�.

The current president-elect of the US has ominously based his immigration policies on this tradition of thought, a problematic position further compounded by a general American failure to understand the historical causes of the immigration-related problems Trump seeks to address.

The time for Latin America to resist bigotry and racism has thus arrived. In this task, we must not resort to nationalist discourses that merely mirror, from the other side of the looking glass, the stereotype of evil gringos who hate bad hombres.

Rather, Latin American responses to racism should draw both from humanism and an accurate knowledge of the past, as well as of human rights and international law.

Two positive steps we could take are addressing the countries鈥� own while respecting rights and due process, and treating with dignity the Central American immigrants who cross into Mexico each year.

Like it or not, history and geography have now made Mexicans the vanguard of resistance, and the world will be watching.

, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory,

This article was originally published on . Read the .

Main photo: The border of the US and Mexico at San Diego, in California. Credit:

UOW academics exercise academic freedom by providing expert commentary, opinion and analysis on a range of ongoing social issues and current affairs. This expert commentary reflects the views of those individual academics and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy positions of the 51茶馆.