Migrant Vulnerability in Tijuana: One Year Into the Pandemic

Migrant Vulnerability in Tijuana: One Year Into the Pandemic

Robert McKee Irwin, Global Migration Center, Humanizing Deportation, University of California, Davis; Juan Antonio Del Monte, Observatorio de Legislación y Política Migratoria, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte

 

Mounting Deep Rooted Issues

Beginning in March of 2020, with the onset of the global covid-19 pandemic, a series of measures were put into place at the US-Mexico border, which have had significant effects on the dynamics of border cities, such as Tijuana, and on the migrants in transit that arrive in or move through them, some coming from the south in hopes of crossing the border into the United States, others returning from the north, often through state mechanisms of forced displacement. A year ago, with strict shelter in place measures effectively shutting down much activity on both sides of the border, it was difficult to assess the gravity of the conditions presented by the pandemic itself and the measures being taken to control it on migrants at the border. Now a full year into the pandemic, and with a new administration in place in Washington, DC, that has promised more humane treatment of both immigrants living in the United States and newly arriving asylum seekers, there has been a surge of attention on the part of media as well as political actors, especially in the United States, to borders cities such as Tijuana, as anti-immigration activists have introduced a rhetoric of “crisis at the border” in order to thwart attempts at immigration reform being debated in the US Congress. The amplified attention on Tijuana has generated some reports that have been carefully prepared and well informed, and others that impart distorted or even false information. This assessment aims to concisely review the measures affecting migrants at the border, as well as the actions being taken by migrants in order to put forward a series of recommendations to ensure the safety and health of migrants, as well as the general public.

To be clear, there is not a crisis at the border. Instead, a range of problems have been mounting, gradually, over the past year, many rooted in troublesome conditions already in place prior to the covid-19 pandemic. As these problems have largely gone unattended, or at times been exacerbated, by both Mexican and US authorities and media, they have gradually grown more pronounced and more visible, especially in recent months. The change in administration in Washington, DC, and, hopefully, the gradual attenuation of the covid-19 pandemic, offer an opportunity to shift from policies aimed exclusively at deterring migration, with no consideration for ensuring the humane treatment of refugees and other migrants, to approaches that consider issues of human rights, public health, national security, and public safety from a binational perspective that does not neglect the health and safety of migrants who have fled their countries of origin.

Key Populations

Populations of migrants crossing or hoping to cross the US-Mexico national border in the region of Tijuana/San Diego can be best understood by separating them into two distinct categories: 1) migrants coming from the south with the hope of crossing into the United States, and 2) migrants being displaced from the United States and released into Tijuana. While there is some overlap between these groups, as we explain below, in general terms they represent two distinct flows, one moving northward, the other southward, and should be considered separately. In both cases, Tijuana has become a scenario in which the institutions and mechanisms of border control enhance a dynamic that traps and pauperizes the living conditions of people on the move.

The former group consists largely of migrants from Central America (principally the northern triangle nations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras) and Mexico (internally displaced by violence), and also Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and other parts of the world (in much smaller numbers). Undoubtedly some of them will attempt to cross the border undetected, probably with the assistance of coyotes; others aspire to apply for asylum in the United States. This latter group consists of several different subgroups that we can define based on when they arrived at the border. The first group is composed of migrants that have already initiated an asylum application in the United States through the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) and have remained in Mexico awaiting court dates (see below); these migrants have been in Tijuana for several years, many having travelled through Mexico with the caravans of late 2018. Another group of asylum seekers has also been in Tijuana for months or longer, but has been unable to cross the border, either because they had not yet begun their application process when the border was shut down due to the covid-19 pandemic in March of 2020, or because they arrived later on and have been unable to cross and demand to initiate an asylum application, even at unauthorized crossing points, since the US, also in March of 2020 implemented a Title 42 emergency order guaranteeing the immediate deportation of anyone caught crossing the border without authorization (see below). A final group includes those who have recently arrived at the border, perhaps inspired by news that the newly installed administration of President Joe Biden in the United States would be more welcoming of Central American immigrants.

The latter group consists of two categories of forcibly displaced migrants. The first includes formal removals, legally registered deportations, most realized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices. These immigrants may have been living for years or decades in the United States. Some may opt to sign voluntary removal forms expediting their repatriation, while others may fight their cases, often from immigrant detention centers located all over the country. Deported migrants are sent back to their country of origin; thus, any arriving in Mexico are Mexican citizens. The second group consists of migrants caught in border zones, most having very recently crossed the border, by Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents. While these migrants may be formally removed, most are currently being “returned,” a more informal process that does not involve immigration courts. And although these migrants are also normally sent back to their country of origin, the Title 42 emergency order has permitted that migrants from northern triangle nations be sent along with Mexicans back to border towns in Mexico.

US Programs Targeting Central American Migrants

The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program was launched in January of 2019, just two months after the arrival of the first contingent of migrants travelling in a series of large caravans from Central America that had overwhelmed migrant service organizations and institutions on both sides of the border. Since the unprecedented and large scale arrival of Haitians and Africans in 2016, US immigration authorities had begun using a metering list, which limited asylum applicants in Tijuana to predetermined number each day, as a way to both manage capacity and to deter asylum applicants. With the arrival of Central American caravans in November of 2018, the metering system was relaunched. Once admitted, asylum seekers were administered a “credible fear” interview, after which those with persuasive stories of being afraid of being subject to targeted violence upon returning to their homelands would be granted a later court date to plead their case with an immigration judge. However, rather than be released into the United States or held at a nearby immigrant detention center, under MPP they were returned to Mexico, and allowed to cross back to the US only for scheduled court hearings. At the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, all MPP cases were suspended and no new applications were permitted. Only in February of 2021 did the United States begin admitting a subset of MPP migrants whose cases were already in process at the time of the border closure. No new asylum cases are being opened through this program, which will eventually be phased out completely.

When the border was closed in March of 2020, the US Center for Disease Control authorized the use of a legal procedure known as Title 42, which makes possible an accelerated return of migrants detained upon having recently crossed the border without authorization. While this is a legal instrument of public health protection, it has functioned as a means of immigration control. Prior to its implementation, many migrants hoping to apply for asylum opted not to wait for their turn via the MPP metering system, instead crossing the border at unauthorized sites, and surrendering immediately to CBP agents. They would state their request to apply for asylum, which, assuming they passed a credible fear interview, would allow them to initiate their process. Those not qualifying would be deported back to their home countries. However, under Title 42, CPB agents began returning Mexican, Honduran, Guatemalan and Salvadoran migrants, including asylum seekers, immediately to Mexico. While these returns do not qualify as formal deportations, which leaves open the option for these same migrants to apply for asylum later, should these migrants choose to remain in Tijuana or other border cities, they end up waiting indefinitely, along with those enrolled in MPP and other asylum seekers who continue arriving. Until November of 2020, all Mexican and northern triangle asylum seekers were automatically deported back to Mexico; however, a lawsuit contended that it was illegal for the United States to put unaccompanied minors in danger in this way, and since that time children and adolescents travelling on their own have been allowed into the United States, and, when they qualify, put into the asylum application pipeline. The Biden administration has also been recently allowing some families with children picked up near the border by CPB agents to remain in the country to petition for asylum.

While the Title 42 program has been largely accepted in the United States as a valid means for controlling the spread of covid-19, its implications for migrants hoping to cross the border, including asylum seekers, as well as for the Mexican border cities where these migrants are left to wait, have been significant. Moreover, implementation has sometimes served to facilitate human rights abuses by CBP agents. For example, migrants who have been severely injured in crossing the border, have been deported and left to fend for themselves, even when some have had broken bones and been unable to walk. Several women who crossed the border while pregnant have given birth on US soil, and then been deported with their newborns to Mexico without being given the opportunity to obtain documentation they would need for a birth certificate, making these babies essentially stateless.

The Biden administration has made clear that it has no intention of admitting large numbers of asylum seekers any time soon, and has not discussed a date for revoking Title 42. Covid-19 vaccinations are becoming widely available in the United States, but the pace of distribution in Mexico has been much slower. And although rates of infection and hospitalization are currently much lower than they were just a month ago, without widespread vaccination, new flareups may occur at any time. And no plan has been announced to make vaccinations available to migrants in transit. Reports of widespread covid-19 infection among migrant minors who have arrived in the United States make it unlikely that US authorities will consider rescinding Title 42 in the near future.

Deportations Under Biden

During the final year of the Trump administration, even as asylum courts were shut down, deportations continued uninterrupted. Even as Title 42 and other extraordinary measures went into effect to control the spread of covid-19 across the US Mexico border and despite outbreaks of covid-19 in several different immigrant detention centers, US authorities not only continued to deport migrants to Mexico and other countries, but also aggressively implemented Title 42, returning over 500,000 migrants to Mexico between March 2020 and February 2021, according to CBP figures (rising from nearly 30,000 per month from March to September to over 60,000 per month from October through February).

One of the key components of Biden’s campaign platform was a comprehensive reform of immigration laws. Bills were introduced to both houses of Congress early in 2020 that include a number of proposals that would benefit noncitizen immigrants living in the United States, including a path to citizenship for many of them, as well as several different components designed to promote family unity, including greater judicial discretion to take into account family hardship in deportation cases, as well as new authority to senior government authorities to intervene in helping to permit reentry to the United States for previously deported family members. It remains to be seen which, if any, of these components will make it through a highly polarized Congress.

Nonetheless, early indications are that the Biden administration’s approach to deportation will be very different from that of both his immediate predecessor, as well as the one in which he participated as Vice President, that of Barack Obama. A pair of memos issued by senior Homeland Security indicate a revision of priorities that will focus attention nearly exclusively on national security, border security, and public safety, thereby sparing the vast majority of undocumented immigrants from immediate risk of detention or deportation, although it is unclear whether ICE enforcement actions will align readily with a sudden change in approach to agency priorities.

Migration Deterrence in Mexico

Much of Mexico’s activity to discourage migrants from reaching its northern border has gone unnoticed during the pandemic. However, it has come to our attention that some migrants, particularly non-Spanish speaking blacks from countries such as Haiti, Cameroon, and the Congo, along with non-Spanish speaking indigenous migrants, including many from Guatemala, have been misguided by Mexican authorities, who do not offer any interpretation services, and frequently treat them with hostility and a general insensitively to their needs. For example, some migrants have ended up signing documents giving them Mexican residency, which they are not interested in obtaining and may seriously complicate their cases for asylum in the United States. Others have ended up detained in southern Mexico, or granted permission to remain only in Mexican southern border states. In recent days, we have seen the revival of the operations on the southern border carried out by the National Institute of Migration and the National Guard that seek to discourage the flow of migrants to the north of the country.

Asylum Outcomes

Adjudications in asylum cases for migrants coming from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have been notoriously low in recent years. Asylum criteria in the United States are based on credible fear of persecution or the threat of violence due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Although many migrants from these countries apply for asylum basing their cases on threats made by organized criminal organizations, it may not be easy for applicants to document the threats, especially in a way that makes clear a link to membership in a defined group. There are obviously many other reasons why a case may fail, especially for migrants who are unable to obtain legal representation. Migrants representing themselves may make tactical errors, may have difficulty interpreting questions, and may also struggle to express their experiences in ways that align with US asylum law. The table below represents the outcomes of completed asylum cases in the United States for migrants from these countries. The decline in percentage of positive outcomes over these five years is especially notable. Furthermore, although this decline can be seen for all migrants worldwide whose cases have passed through US immigration courts, the aggregate worldwide numbers are significantly higher than those for any of these countries at any point in time. 

 

Data from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Syracuse University

The most recent figures are quite bleak, with asylum granted to only 16.9% of Salvadoran applicants, 12.9% of Guatemalans, 12.3% of Mexicans, and 11.1% of Hondurans, with MPP figures particularly dismal. The MPP program, which requires these migrants to remain in Mexico during the entirety of their court review process, makes it impossible for most to find legal assistance. While this program is winding down, prospects are still dim for the vast majority of these migrants. Even if immigration courts could be redirected back to Obama era protocols, success rates ranging between 15% and 30% are discouraging. As it can be noted, seeking to cross to the north, can often be turned into a forced return to the south.

Actions Taken by Migrants

In late February of 2021, as news spread that some MPP applicants as well as unaccompanied minors were being admitted to the United States to pursue asylum claims, migrants began setting up camp at border entry ports across northern Mexico, including that known as El Chaparral in Tijuana (commonly referred to as PedWest on the US side). The camp at El Chaparral, whose current population is estimated at close to 1000 migrants, including large numbers of women and children, has been growing, with new arrivals pitching tents, supplied by community organizations, daily. The situation is disquieting as the migrants are exposed to climatic conditions, have no access to running water or toilet facilities, and while they have established their own security protocols supported by a few organizations with a very strong influence among the migrants (see below), may be vulnerable to harassment or assaults by criminal groups or Mexican governmental authorities. Mexican authorities have so far not indicated that they will shut down the camps, and have even suggested that they may fence off the area, which would both keep the camp from growing and also offer limited protection to those staying there. However, local migrant service providers can recall instances in the recent past in which authorities have dismantled migrant tent cities and other informal encampments, sometimes by violent means.

The visibility of the migrants and attention they have attracted in global media has generated a torrent of public debate about them, not unlike that provoked by the hypervisibility of the caravans of late 2018. The large encampment of fatigued migrants, including many men, women and many children, has offered compelling visuals for both right and left wing commentators, inviting portrayals of a mounting invasion of migrants likely to bring crime and disease across the border, and accusations of inhumane treatment of refugees abandoned by both US and Mexican governments as they try to find security from severe threats of violence.

Misinformation

Based on monitoring and observations carried out over the past week, it is clear that the migrants are living in highly precarious conditions, and that misinformation prevails throughout the camp. Neither major international bodies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, nor Mexican public authorities have made any notable effort to establish public health or safety protocols within or around the camp. Our assessment of the situation is that migrants would be well advised to seek safer shelter. To date there has been no active dialogue with any US officials, and there is no palpable political pressure in the United States to quickly open the border to large numbers of asylum seekers during the pandemic, most especially to migrants, like those in the camp, who are actively ignoring public health protocols.

The vast majority of sources representing local humanitarian organizations in Tijuana to whom we spoke have indeed assessed this camp as representing an avoidable health and safety risk for migrants who inhabit it. Some local migrant service organizations have sought to explain the situation to the migrants and have encouraged them to relocate to safer lodging options, but the migrants have not taken heed, insisting that they believe only their presence at the border will persuade the Biden administration to let them cross and grant them asylum promptly.

Meanwhile, another group of organizations has been actively persuading the migrant community gathered at El Chaparral that a highly visible presence at the border will pressure the US government into allowing them to cross. Members of these organizations, some of whom have gained trust by themselves camping among the migrants, seem to be encouraging the migrants to remain camped at the border by offering them tents, supplies, food, and sometimes questionable advice. For example, some migrants have reported that one of these organizations has misled them to believe that once the border opens up and everyone gets across, they will provide legal representation for every family. At least one of these organizations is widely distrusted among migrant service organizations in Tijuana. It has been accused in recent years of mobilizing migrants into political action and, in doing so, of callously putting them at risk of harm, and even of turning in migrants who have challenged them to Mexican immigration authorities for deportation.

Multiple local activists who work year round with migrants in the border area have expressed alarm that these organizations may be complicit in spreading misinformation among those in the camp. Several believe that what may have started out as a grass roots social movement by migrants has largely been coopted by organizations that may have their own hidden political agendas.

Moreover the camp’s exposure seems to be inviting exploitation by organized crime. Some migrants have been assured by coyotes to whom they have paid exorbitant fees to get to the border that once they arrive they will be able to apply immediately for asylum, which is all they need to do to gain admission to the country. This scenario obviously contrasts with that presented by Title 42, as well as the statistics on Central American asylum cases presented in the table above.

More alarming, there are reports by migrants of coyotes entering the camp and asking migrants for information, such as names and addresses of family members in the United States. There have also been cases of migrants leaving the camp to meet with coyotes, and not returning. Several cases of kidnapping of migrants who had been living in the camp have been confirmed by Mexican authorities. There is no doubt that this large concentration of migrants invites incursion by smooth talking human smugglers and criminal predators (see below).

Migrants have also reported being told by people dressed in uniforms and representing themselves as Mexican government agents that they should remain at the border as the US is on the verge of admitting more migrants, and the only way to be assured entry is to remain nearby. It is not clear what institution these agents represented, or whether their credentials were authentic.

Many of the local activists with whom we spoke were disturbed at the amount of misinformation circulating through the camp, and especially the unrealistic expectations cultivated among the migrants of rapid positive resolutions of their asylum cases just as soon as they are allowed across the border.

Health and Safety Concerns

Public health protocols, such as maintaining healthy distances and sanitized living spaces, cannot be managed easily in a large encampment. And even though there is a tent sponsored by the Baja California State Secretary of Health, with medicines and paramedics on site, migrants have reported multiple cases of severe illness within the camp, although it is not clear whether these are cases of covid-19 or other ailments.

In addition to the dangers posed by human smugglers, mentioned above, local observers are particularly distressed at the presence of criminal gangs with ties to Central America patrolling the area and apparently declaring it their territory, making palpable the threat of assault, extorsion, kidnapping, and rape, and are especially concerned at the dangers faced by children, including adolescents. While no cases of attempts by these gangs to assault, recruit or otherwise harm the migrants has been documented, there is no doubt that they represent a constant threat.

Conclusions and Recommendations

While the problem of mass deportation is ongoing, the issue of the growing numbers of asylum seekers requires concerted attention and collaborative organization from US and Mexican authorities, as well as cooperation from international and local organizations.

While we reiterate that we have not observed any crisis at the border, we have seen worsening conditions for migrants, some of which could be addressed immediately, and others which call for longer term thinking.

We recommend several concrete actions:

US and Mexican authorities:

• Should visit Tijuana and other border cities in order to meet with migrant representatives, local authorities and leaders of key civil organizations in order to assess the situation, and produce short and long term plans for managing asylum applications at the border
• US and Mexican authorities should make joint efforts to communicate whatever information is available about timelines and procedures for allowing new asylum applications to migrants waiting in border cities as soon as possible
• Should develop a joint plan to ensure the safety of all migrants waiting in Mexican border cities to initiate asylum processes in the United States

US authorities:

• Should reduce deportations from the interior as much as is legally possible until the pandemic subsides and Title 42 is lifted
• Should institute policies to ensure humane treatment of seriously injured undocumented border crossers detained by CPB officers and subject to Title 42 removal
• Should institute policies to ensure the issuing of birth certificates to any infants born while in the custody of immigration authorities
• Should set a plan for gradually admitting asylum seekers to the US, prioritizing the most vulnerable migrants, including unaccompanied minors and also those subject to immediate threats of violence from criminal organizations, as well as those who have been waiting longest to apply for initiate asylum application processes

Mexican authorities:

• Should make a concerted effort to persuade, but not force, migrants to shut down the border camp at El Chaparral, and relocate to Carmen Serdán or find other safe lodging arrangements
• Should make efforts to ensure that conditions in the migrant encampment are as safe and sanitary as possible
• Should implement training in all government agencies serving migrants and refugees that emphasize helping migrants find solutions and treating all migrants with respect and dignity
• Should make translation services available to non-Spanish speakers at all agencies serving migrants and refugees
• Should ensure that temporary visas and work permits are made available to all migrants in Tijuana and other border cities who are in process for applying for asylum in Mexico, or awaiting the opportunity to claim asylum in the United States

Civil organizations at the Tijuana border:

• Should be discouraged from providing tents to migrants, and instead offer their assistance in helping migrants find secure lodging, and expert legal advice
• Should seek cooperation with international organizations to inform migrants of legal options for applying for asylum, and of data on timeframes and outcomes

The United Nations Refugee Agency and International Organization for Migration:

• Should lead an information campaign on the official procedures to request international protection among migrants that inhabit at the camp on El Chaparral
• Should, in collaboration with US and Mexican authorities, and bodies trusted by migrants such as church organizations, legal aid groups, and charitable associations, print flyers, film informational videos, and offer workshops to potential migrants and migrants in transit all along the migrant trail, in Central America and throughout Mexico, so that migrants may be adequately informed of what awaits them at the northern Mexican border, and also to let them know of other options that may be available to them in Mexico or in other countries
• Should work with US and Mexican authorities to locate funding and developing logistics for vaccinating migrants in transit against covid-19

View and download this Policy Brief