“These aren’t people. These are animals.”
— Donald Trump, May 17, 2018
This article was written in The Los Angeles Review of Books by my Mom, Dr. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, and her close colleague of over 30 years, Dr. Macelo Suarez-Orozco, Dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (GSE & IS). Although this particular article is about human rights violations against immigrant children, I am posting this because of my interest in how climate change affects border security, food security, and emergency preparedness in the U.S., particularly in the border states. “The effects of climate change go way beyond pure meteorological changes and have consequences for social and political processes worldwide,” says Jesus Crespo Cuaresma of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and a professor of economics at Vienna University of Economics and Business. “Acknowledging this evidence could take us closer to finding global solutions to the problem.” The Migration Policy Institute states the following: “The impact of climate change as a driver of human migration is expected by many to dwarf all others. Still, certain frequently repeated forecasts of the number of people who stand to be displaced by climate change are not informed by a complete understanding of migration dynamics. Displacement is almost always the result of a complex mix of factors: a combination of exposure to natural hazards, poverty-related vulnerability, and resilience (through adaptation) determine which regions and societies are most like to suffer negative effects of climate change.
Beyond these “push” factors, family and community networks, historical ties, proximity, and ease of access all help determine where people go if they move. The most significant mechanisms of displacement are sea-level rise, higher temperatures, disruption of water cycles, and increasing severity of storms.”
President Trump is right about one thing: there is an emergency; indeed we would call it a humanitarian catastrophe at the US southern border. It is also a demographic, political, and moral catastrophe. However, the chaotic “solutions” devised by former Attorney General Sessions and embraced by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security has brought us ever deeper into the unthinkable, Primo Levi’s “Grey Zone.”
Nine months after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reunite thousands of immigrant children taken from their parents at the border, the whereabouts of thousands of children remains unresolved. Some 15,000 migrant children are in government detention. That figure is growing by the day as the number of migrant families crossing southern border reached an 11-year high this February with “unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago.” The most recent Border Patrol data shows that 76,103 migrants were apprehended at the border — two thirds more than during the prior month. More than 40,000 were families travelling together. Children and newborns continue to be taken from their parents even as the Administration claims to have rescinded the order to forcibly separate migrant families.
America’s littlest desaparecidos, some of them still in diapers, crying inconsolably, begging and screaming for their mothers, wetting their beds, became so traumatized that they stopped speaking to their government-supplied caretakers. These motherless children began to give up and move inside their little selves, eventually accommodating to a cruel new world, bereft of tenderness and abandoned to caretaker strangers who were not allowed to touch them, lest they be accused of physical or sexual assault. Months later we have learned that many of these missing children will never be reunited with their parents. It is possible that some of these separated children will fill the emptiness of kindly American families seeking to foster or to adopt them. States have different laws on foster care and on adoption, and the judges who will decide the outcome often due so by sealing the case.
The chaos of parent-child separations — the missing records, missing parents, and missing children — echoes other historical traumas in the history of childhood in the United States: African slavery, for one, US government-run Indian boarding schools for another. The underlying rationale behind these government policies is that white, wealthy, and middle-class parents are deemed as more able, more intelligent, and more worthy than the migrant children’s parents who risked their lives to protect their children. Here lies the foundation for a dirty war against Latino migrants fleeing violence and extreme poverty to risk their lives to save their children.
These events bring to mind aspects of Argentina’s Dirty War during the military dictatorship when parents and their children, including infants, were confiscated from suspected “radicals” who were arrested and interrogated (sometimes to the death) as alien enemies to the neo-fascist order. During the Dirty War (1976-1983) some 500 infants and children were separated from their parents and given to right wing military families and their friends who could raise them as good Christian fascists. When democracy returned to the country in 1984 the biological grandmothers, led by the famous Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, in Buenos Aires sought the help of Professor Mary-Clare King, a UC Berkeley geneticist (now at the University of Washington, Seattle) to set up a Grandparents Index, and apply DNA matching to reunite them with their grandchildren.
The use of DNA to identify the Argentine children who had been separated many years earlier by Argentina’s state-sponsored terror and returned to their natural parents and grandparents is reminiscent of the Trump administration’s scrambled attempt to meet a federal judge’s order to reunite thousands of children and parents who had been forcibly separated after crossing the border in search of asylum. The administration was forced to admit it had no records to link several hundred children who had been separated from their parents. Alex Azar, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, proposed to use DNA to match separated children to their parents. But by this time the parents of some 200 separated children had already been deported to Central America. The DNA detour was a diversion that led to nothing more than the “Wow!” exclaimed by Dr. Azar in response to the many ordinary Americans who had signed up to help in the DNA reunifications.
The Argentine Dirty War is an extreme example, but it began with a declaration of a state of emergency by Mrs. Perón in November 1974 who was leading a civilian government that was besieged by rampant inflation, corruption, and violence by university students, unions, and leftist organizations. She gave the military a free hand, and General Videla responded with his Proceso — the violent junta-led system of torture and extrajudicial murder — which dissidents renamed “the Dirty War.” The majority of people who were disappeared and killed by the military state were young people. The Dirty War was primarily a war against youth and young adults who were not seen as citizens but rather as dangerous activists and dissidents — “aliens.” The word “animals” was also applied to them.
While United States is in no imminent danger of becoming a dictatorship, the totalitarian tendencies of an increasingly authoritarian President is worrisome. The US rendition of dirty war is not a war against internal aliens, as in Argentina, but a dirty war against migrants and refugees seeking asylum. The President’s attempt to declare a state of emergency at the southern border is politically and morally perverse.
The real emergency is from the other side of the southern borderland. Mass migrations of desperate asylum seekers coming mostly from the Northern Triangle — El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — are fleeing astronomical homicide rates. And yet, this political and economic instability did not arise in a vacuum. It is the legacy of decades of US intervention and exploitation of what used to be called the “banana republics,” run by ruthless dictators, supported by US foreign policies since the mid-20th century. The result was revolutions, massacres, and ethnocides — “small wars and invisible genocides.”
The real emergency is the miserable deaths in the desert of thousands of Latino migrants forced to take extreme risks to escape poverty, violence, and terror at home. Some migrants sent their older children alone praying that the United States is still the land of open arms. But the arms that greeted them carried automatic military rifles.
At the southern border, an archaeology of misery and death is being excavated. Left behind are the remnants of backpacks, fragments of letters, photos, Bibles. Human remains are scattered across the divide. Next to sunbaked human bones are bits and pieces of clothing, a soiled pair of shorts, a T-shirts in shreds, a sandal, discovered and collected by forensic anthropologists. Thanks to their ghastly work we know the so-called terrorists and rapists of Trump’s imaginary died of thirst, of heat stroke, of hypothermia, of rattlesnake bites, of vultures preying on moribund bodies.
The desolate and silent deaths at the border are manufactured by an immigration policy of deterrence by death, a barbaric approach that purposefully channels ever more desperate migrants to cross the most forbidden areas of extreme danger and high risk. For two decades this policy has turned the rugged terrain of southern Arizona and Texas into a killing field. It is an early 21st century adaptation of the Roman damnatio ad bestias (“condemnation to beasts”), a form of capital punishment in which the condemned was executed by wild animals. The US “deterrence strategy” to make the border impassable was first outlined in a July 1994 planning document: “Border Patrol Strategic Plan: 1994 and Beyond.” This document is heartbreaking, and constitutes what the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) would declare a crime against humanity.
A longer wall at the southern border with Mexico is yesterday’s answer to yesterday’s problem. By 2017 the undocumented population from Mexico fell by 400,000 for the first time in the last half-century. Mexican migrants constitute less than half all undocumented immigrants in the United States. Over the last seven years, more undocumented people have entered the United States — by a ratio of nearly two to one — via airplane and other legitimate ports of entry than as “entries without inspection,” or crossing undetected via the border.
As cross-border migration from Mexico declined in 2012, Central Americans began their exodus to the United States. From 2016 to 2018, the number of families from Honduras and Guatemala apprehended at the southern border almost doubled, rising from 23,067 to 50,401 for family units from Guatemala, and from 20,226 to 39,439 for Honduras during the same period. Migration from El Salvador tripled between 2013 and 2016, with more than 27,000 family units and 17,500 unaccompanied children apprehended at the US Southern Border in 2016. Overall the number of families seeking refuge shot up again, with Border Patrol agents detaining 136,150 children and parents during the first five months of this fiscal year “compared with 107,212 during all of fiscal 2018.”
There are many reasons for the rapid kinetic expansion of migrants fleeing from the Northern Triangle. In Guatemala, the source of most recent border crossers, environmental malfeasance and land tenure clashes in the Western highlands, engenders violence. Furthermore, depressed prices in global markets for Guatemalan commodities are pushing farmers northward. Climate change and severe drought in El Salvador has resulted in food insecurity for millions, while deforestation has left Honduras more vulnerable to Hurricanes. Hurricane Mitch left more than 11,000 dead and displaced more than 2.5 million Hondurans in 1998 before governments or the media understood the dangers of global warming. According to a study by Brown University School of Medicine, nearly a half-million adults age fifteen or older living in Honduras experienced post-traumatic stress disorder in the wake of Hurricane Mitch. It was then that Hondurans first migrated in significant numbers to the United States.
But above all, war and terror are behind the humanitarian catastrophe. The United States has a long history of involvement in the dirty wars south of the border. John Chatsworth’s research enumerates 41 occasions of United States-led regime change in Latin America and the Caribbean between 1898 and 2004. As Jeffrey Sachs has noted, “violent, extra-constitutional overthrows of Latin American governments by the United States through a variety of means, including wars, coups, assassinations, electoral manipulation, acts of provocation” has led to a giant humanitarian crisis.
State terrorism in Central America killed more than 200,000 civilians in Guatemala and more than 75,000 in El Salvador in recent decades. Likewise what is driving the most recent cycle of Honduran migrants across the US border is the residue of the violent military coup in 2009 that overthrew Honduras’ democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. The coup was financially supported by the US Department of State.
In each of these countries the institutions of society — including schooling, healthcare and the rule of law — has been decimated. Nothing about the so-called push-pull causes of Central American migrations competes with the decades of unending civil wars, drug wars, death squads, and military coups — most, if not all, initiated or supported by the United States.
As a young man for Central America put it, “we are here because you were there.”
The current US administration’s fabricated hysteria about brown terrorists, gangsters, rapists, and drug addicts using small children as human shields is cynical theater. In the coliseum of sadism that our immigration policy has become, desperate migrants are thrown to the lions for the insatiable rapaciousness of the professional haters.
Trump is right — there is a crisis at the border. But it is a humanitarian crisis. Medieval walls and cages are inimical to a humanitarian response.
Zero Tolerance / Zero Competence / Zero Transparency
As families continue to arrive at the southern border seeking mercy and shelter, they find chaos, cruelty, and incompetence in the name of the administration’s policy of “Zero Tolerance.” In fact, there was no blueprint, no action plan, and no thought given to implementing the administration’s decision. Zero Tolerance was the brainchild of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, famously dubbed a “Dumb Southerner” by his boss, President Donald Trump. Both men are avid practitioners of race baiting, but Trump envisions himself as a self-made, sophisticated global corporate capitalist, whereas Jeff Sessions is nothing more than a “white cracker” — a cantankerous Southerner who still grieves “the night they drove old Dixie down.”
Sessions described brown brothers and sisters arriving from across the border as inhuman aliens, a position that echoes his lifelong fury at the civil rights movement for our African American citizens. Sessions’ dedication to racial supremacy goes back to his years as Alabama’s attorney general, when he was known for demeaning his Black associates as “boys” and his deep hostility to civil rights workers. He perfected the art of harassing black voters and oversaw the executions of mentally and cognitively disabled people. In a move of Pharaohic cruelty, Sessions claimed that parents who fled to the US with their children “were scarcely better than human smugglers secreting contraband. ‘If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you,’ he said. ‘That child will be separated from you as required by law.’”
But Sessions was likely more a two-bit player: he wanted to prove his stuff by suggesting a plan, if not a coherent policy that he knew would resonate deeply in the reptilian brain of his boss. The President’s atavistic war cries — “animals” invading the country — struck a powerful cord with his adoring, jingoistic followers. In dehumanizing the poorest and most vulnerable among us, the President revealed a total gap in compassion, once a core American value (“There but by the grace of God go I.”).
The administration’s Zero Compassion policy was in plain sight again in the sinister semiotics “I REALLY DON’T CARE. DO U?” logo scribbled on the First Lady’s jacket — no matter to whom it was addressed: to the President, the news media, or to the confiscated and caged children. Her attempts at conversation with the children were robotic and banal. “I’m here to learn about your facility,” Melania Trump said as she received a briefing about the work of Upbringing the New Hope Children’s Shelter. She asked the directors how she could “help these children be reunited with their families as quickly as possible.” Rogelio De La Cerda Jr., the shelter’s program director, told the First Lady not to worry as the separated children were “in a safe environment, free from abuse.” We have heard nothing more on the topic from the First Lady who soon after left for an African safari — effortlessly transitioning from petting caged children to petting caged animals.
Last summer a New York Times headline announced that “Four Military Bases Prepare to Hold 20,000 Children.” This is the ghost yet to come. The new military bases were for a new generation of child migrants, not for the “lost generation” of children who may never be reunited with their parents and are being kept in a hodge-podge of detention centers, abandoned buildings, and tent cities furnished with cages but no children’s books. Trump’s mouthpiece, Fox news, referred to cages as if they were a normal way to house children. The right-wing media suggested that “hygiene” was the most important concern, and that cages allowed custodians to clean them with hoses. Meanwhile dozens of adult migrants and young children faced acute medical emergencies. For millions of Americans, the hullabaloo about containing brown migrant children and youth in cages was much ado about nothing. It was a simple case of their President fulfilling promises to his anti-immigration white constituency.
Soon enough the children in cages begin to smell like all caged animals: proof, for him and his followers, that “shit-hole” nations south of the border were sending their garbage, their refuse. Meanwhile, Trump, a famed germophobe, washed his hands of any responsibility. He declared, “Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. They can’t. If we had a Wall, they wouldn’t even try!”
This is an unambiguous example of a grim truth — that words can kill. The confiscation of children is necessary, the administration claims, for their own safety. The primal cries of babies and toddlers begging for their mamas and papas has kept a great many Americans awake at night, even as professional hate-mongers like Ann Coulter warn President Trump not to be fooled by child actors. We are told that these children are being cared for in so-called “tender age” shelters before being transferred to foster care homes, and from there to upright families eager to resocialize them into “real” Americans.
With Zero Transparency, the devils-in-the-details are coming out in slow, harrowing detail. In the immigrant camps rape and sexual abuse was rampant. Children and youth were handcuffed, assaulted, and drugged with powerful antipsychotics and sedatives. According to data from the US Department of Health and Human Services, “178 of the complaints were against staff at the shelters — in particular, youth-care workers who escort the children everywhere they go. The complaints range from inappropriate romantic relationships between children and adults, to touching genitals, to watching children shower.”
The purposeful use of children to punish the parents is not new. Violently separating children from parents, caging children, abusing them, mocking them, placing them with families sympathetic to the “regime” are all signature moves of dirty wars past and present.
While the specter of fascism — chants of “Jews will not replace us,” spikes in hate crimes, the return of anti-Semitism to broad daylight — has been rightly registered, it is the tactics of state terrorism perfected in dirty wars south of the border that most resemble the current dirty war on immigrant children. The danger we are facing in America today is not a Holocaust, but rather a 21st century version of the dirty wars Argentina, Brazil, and Chile experienced in the 1970s–1980s. We know, because he has told us so many times, that President Trump admires strength and power, especially “macho men.” We could laugh this off, but it would be a terrible mistake. What is happening in front of our eyes is a vulnerable democracy entering stage 4 cancer, as we incrementally move toward a dictatorship by election rather than by a coup d’état.
The pseudo-terrorist tactics of the current US administration are veering at dizzying speed into those of the Argentine Dirty War, of General Videla’s Proceso. Approximately thirty percent of the dissidents disappeared in the Proceso were women. Some were abducted with their small children. In perhaps three percent of the abductions, women were pregnant, or became so while in detention, usually through rape by guards and torturers. Pregnant prisoners were kept alive until they’d given birth. “The regime’s depravity reached its outer limit with pregnant detainees,” Marguerite Feitlowitz, then a Harvard professor, wrote in her groundbreaking study of the Argentine nightmare, A Lexicon of Terror. One former detainee told Feitlowitz, “Our bodies were a source of special fascination. They said my swollen nipples invited the ‘prod’” — the electric cattle prod, which was used in torture. “They presented a truly sickening combination — the curiosity of little boys, the intense arousal of twisted men.” Sometimes the mothers were able to nurse their newborns, at least sporadically, for a few days, or even weeks, before the babies were taken from them and the mothers were “transferred” — sent to their deaths, in the Dirty War’s notorious nomenclature. Baby thefts arose partly from the military’s collusion with retrograde sectors of the Catholic Church, which gave its blessing to the transfers of “terrorists,” but not to the murder of unborn babies or young children.
Children — whether in the dirty wars of the Northern Triangle, or in our detention camps — always inspire totalitarian fantasies of molding the citizens of the future. The Argentine junta wanted to define and create “authentic Argentines.” The children of “terrorists” were seen, Feitlowitz explained, as “seeds of the tree of evil.” Perhaps through adoption, those seeds could be replanted in healthy soil. Baby-theft cases provided one small loophole to the amnesty laws: parents who were judged in court to be guilty of having adopted — or “appropriated” — the children of the disappeared while knowing the truth about their origins could be prosecuted.
Until his death, General Videla defended the kidnapping of young dissidents and the confiscation of their infants and young children. He explained: “There was no other alternative [to the disappearances] … It was necessary to eliminate a large group of people who could not be brought to justice nor [openly] shot either.” “The women giving birth, who I respect as mothers, were militants who were active in the machine of terror … Many used their unborn children as human shields.”
The very same rhetoric against adult migrants using their children “as human shields” has been used by the Trump administration, echoing the words of a Latin American terrorist dictator who was finally convicted of grave humans rights and crimes against humanity.
President Trump was eventually forced by the courts to replace the separation of parents and children with a policy of detaining entire families together. But alas, the legal time limits on the detention of minors led to thousands of children still being kept in tents, cages, and even in old Walmart stores run by a mix of government and private agencies. Chaos remains the shiny coin of the current regime. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that he had no idea how many children have been taken (by train, bus, and plane) to New York City shelters run by Christian charities sympathetic to the regime. In a moment of moral clarity, three airlines outright refused to host the travel of separated children accompanied by US federal agents. American Airlines took an especially strong position.
The progressive American media has noted parallels between what is happening today with political refugees and traumatized migrants with the Holocaust. Letters to The New York Times by survivors of the Holocaust who are re-traumatized by the current events articulate the horrific parallels. One of these letters to the editor from a child Holocaust survivor shared her memory of screaming as she was put on a train to England to escape the Nazis making the point that any child ripped from the family under any circumstances will certainly be traumatized for life. We found uncanny parallels between these experiences, the Argentine dirty war, and the current treatment of migrant children at the US-Mexico border.
Zero Tolerance is based on the confiscation and separation of migrant children while their parents are either detained or sent back to Central America. Private charities have been implicated in the adoption of taken children by respectable white Christian families, who are tasked with turning child immigrant “animals” into “real Americans.” The current dirty war on immigrant children is not a new story but part of the history of childhood in the American South under slavery, and to this day among poor Black tenant farmers who had their children removed or recycled through foster homes. There are yet other parallels in the history of Native Americans who have had their children confiscated and sent to government-run boarding schools where they were forcibly “socialized” to adapt to Anglo- and white America.
Our history is riddled with hidden tortures and violent separations of families that were later described by sociologists as “broken.” Today’s torture is the separation of children from parents. Too many of these separations will be permanent. We are being made complicit in this political and moral catastrophe.
© 2019 Los Angeles Review of Books. All rights reserved.