The Mexican state also justifies its bordering role by portraying its southern border as a security risk while human rights advocates in and outside of Mexico have energetically documented and critiqued the treatment of Central Americans in Mexico (e.g., Knippen, Boggs, and Meyer, 2015). This has been part of a wider critical human rights movement in Mexico. Little has been written about the role of governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras in the arrival and asylum process at the U.S.-Mexican border. Here, we do not refer to internal conditions and policies that cause flight (e.g., policing and militarism), but only to the process of contention over U.S. border and asylum policy and practices. It is notable how weak and subordinate these governments are in the face of U.S. programs to expend money and propaganda in Central America to deter the flight of refugees (explicit in official language), as well as a modest expansion of the small (3,000 person) direct-admission refugee program in the region (Bersin, 2015; Edwards and Mohammed, 2016). Participant observation with immigrant advocates in Dilley, Texas (February, 2016) reveals some patterns about consular involvement with Central American refugees, although it is difficult to generalize. The Guatemalan consulate has largely been absent from the facilities. On the other hand, the Salvadoran consulate has actively supported efforts from legal aid organizations, instructing women to seek out the legal services offered in the facility. This serves as a counter narrative to the pessimistic vision delivered by CBP and ICE agents, who often urge people to sign their deportation order and not follow through on asylum claims. However, several incidents have shown the Honduran consulate to reinforce this narrative. A group of irate women approached the legal assistants at Dilley and complained that the Honduran consulate had instructed them that they had no legal recourse and should immediately sign their removals, adding not that bad,” and “it’s “together we can make it better!” (Personal Communication, Slack 02/11/2016). It should be noted that,
The Mexican state also justifies its bordering role by portraying its southern border as a security risk while human rights advocates in and outside of Mexico have energetically documented and critiqued the treatment of Central Americans in Mexico (e.g., Knippen, Boggs, and Meyer, 2015). This has been part of a wider critical human rights movement in Mexico. Little has been written about the role of governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras in the arrival and asylum process at the U.S.-Mexican border. Here, we do not refer to internal conditions and policies that cause flight (e.g., policing and militarism), but only to the process of contention over U.S. border and asylum policy and practices. It is notable how weak and subordinate these governments are in the face of U.S. programs to expend money and propaganda in Central America to deter the flight of refugees (explicit in official language), as well as a modest expansion of the small (3,000 person) direct-admission refugee program in the region (Bersin, 2015; Edwards and Mohammed, 2016). Participant observation with immigrant advocates in Dilley, Texas (February, 2016) reveals some patterns about consular involvement with Central American refugees, although it is difficult to generalize. The Guatemalan consulate has largely been absent from the facilities. On the other hand, the Salvadoran consulate has actively supported efforts from legal aid organizations, instructing women to seek out the legal services offered in the facility. This serves as a counter narrative to the pessimistic vision delivered by CBP and ICE agents, who often urge people to sign their deportation order and not follow through on asylum claims. However, several incidents have shown the Honduran consulate to reinforce this narrative. A group of irate women approached the legal assistants at Dilley and complained that the Honduran consulate had instructed them that they had no legal recourse and should immediately sign their removals, adding “it’s not that bad,” and “together we can make it better!” (Personal Communication, Slack 02/11/2016). It should be noted that,
south-texas-7-18-16.docx