Violence and Immigration in Mexico: The Role of American Weapon Production
The border dividing the United States and Mexico has been a long standing topic of discussion in North American politics. This essay offers a unique analysis of the situation at hand.
This essay was written by Salomon Singer-Portnoy, a high school student from Southern California
Introduction: The U.S.-Mexico Border and Immigration
The border between the United States and Mexico spans 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico and for a long time has been the point of economic, social and cultural interactions between the two countries. For most of its existence, the border was not much more than what all borders are: a social construct. Scholars often like to think about borders as a social construct because they believe that they require interpretation. In his satirical dictionary The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce describes borders as “an imaginary line between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of another.” In the last century, however, the U.S.-Mexico border has changed due to various social and economic factors. Along with being a point of cultural exchange that benefits both countries, the border is now a heavily controlled area that reflects the dire conditions south of the border as well as the U.S. government’s view on immigration. Regardless of how one views the border, it is undeniable that it “has come to unite as well as divide the two countries” (Ganster & Lorey, p.1).
The creation of this boundary began with the end of an important moment for U.S. expansionism, the American invasion of Mexico. While in the United States it is referred to as the Mexican-American war, Mexicans know it as the “Intervención estadounidense en México,” which in Spanish means “American intervention in Mexico.” It lasted from 1846-1848 and was fought to a stalemate. In March 1847, Winfield Scott, commander of the U.S. forces in Mexico, occupied Mexico City and forced the Mexican commander, Antonio López de Santa Anna, to agree to terms to end the war. In 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo In total, the United States gained 525,000 miles of territory, making it the third-largest acquisition of territory in U.S. history. That land makes up roughly 14.9% of the current United States (history.com, 2022). In the end, Mexico ceded about 55% of its territory, “including the present-day states California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming” (The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848). In 1853, the border that we know today was delineated with the Gadsden Purchase, which added around thirty thousand square miles to the states we now know as Arizona and New Mexico (Ganster & Lorey, 30). Before these alterations were made, the land areas of the United States and Mexico were nearly identical. After the U.S. had signed the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819, its land area was 4,631,000 km². After its founding in 1821, Mexico’s land area was 4,429,000 km² (Rodriguez, 1997).
Since then, the border has evolved from being relatively open and mostly unregulated to becoming one of the most closely monitored international boundaries in the world. When speaking about the U.S-Mexico border, the most prominent issue that arises is immigration. Though many people focus on the small percentage of undocumented migrants that cross the border, “each year the border sees 250 million legal crossings each way.” Every day, “40,000 people travel from Tijuana to San Diego to work.” These numbers exceed the thousands that may cross the border illegally, fleeing their homes due to violence or economic insecurity and seeking safety and stability in the United States (Ganster & Lorey, p.2). Of the small percentage of migrants who complete the treacherous journey from their homes to the United States’ southern border, almost all seek asylum. Article 14 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (United Nations, 1948, as cited in Amuedo-Dorantes, et. al, p.2). The UDHR was drafted in 1948 after WWII in order to protect those seeking safety from conflict and persecution around the world. At the U.S-Mexico border, immigrants come from countries throughout Latin-America seeking asylum from oppression, economic instability, political corruption, and in many cases from gang violence.
In Mexico specifically, the amount of criminal violence has increased in recent years due to “the fragmentation of cartels, which has led to violent competition among splinter groups over existing drug trade infrastructure” (ACLED, p.2). The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these conditions and as gangs “vied over access to limited resources,” (ACLED, p.2) the amount of gang violence throughout Mexico surged which in turn caused an increase in asylum seekers. These asylum seekers are fleeing dire conditions in their home countries in search of a better life in the U.S. and yet many people view them as a severe threat to our national security. In the upcoming presidential election in the United States, both President Biden and former President Trump’s policies on immigration and asylum have been a focal point for many voters. While the presidential candidates’ views may generally differ, they both offer temporary, band-aid solutions to the issue of illegal immigration without ever addressing one of the root causes: gang and drug-related violence fueled by weapons produced in the United States. Though drug-related violence is not the main cause of immigration to the United States, it is a significant factor in the complex issue of immigration. When talking about immigration, it is necessary to take into account all of the factors that cause people to flee their home countries. This includes addressing the widespread violence often facilitated by weapons produced in the United States.
The Mechanics of Arms Trafficking
The contrast that exists between the difficulty of obtaining firearms in Mexico with the ease of purchasing large amounts of firearms in the U.S. is the reason that there is now a booming black market that supplies weapons to countless criminal organizations in Mexico. These organizations include but are not limited to the “Sinaloa Cartel,” the “Tijuana Cartel,” and “Los Zetas.” The weapons that are trafficked to these groups fuel violence, forcing people to choose between seeking asylum in the United States or staying home and facing persecution, poor living conditions, and the threat of death. In Latin America, organized crime groups obtain their firearms through a type of firearms trafficking referred to by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, or UNODC, as “ant trafficking.” The UNODC’s report titled “Global Study on Firearms Trafficking 2020” states that in “ant trafficking,” “many people transport weapons in small consignments to meet large-scale demand and reduce the risk of disruption by law enforcement.” “Ant trafficking” has also been observed in many other parts of the world besides the U.S.-Mexico border. In East Africa, firearms are trafficked at a much smaller scale across the borders of Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan by pastoralists who want to protect their herds. In Asia, “ant trafficking” is seen in the cross-border trafficking into eastern Nepal(UNODC, p.64).
The arms trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico and to other countries in Latin America is unique in that it involves multiple transactions at different levels before ultimately reaching the organized crime group that will use it to inflict violence. These groups will pay smugglers to bring them guns from pawn shops north of the border in states where regulations are either extremely loose or non-existent. These pawn shops are usually in Texas and Arizona, but sometimes smugglers will go as far as Florida, Arkansas and Minnesota (ATF, 2023, as cited in Jusionyte, p.8). In most cases, a single firearm will begin with a “buyer” who is a U.S. citizen without criminal history who has the ability to purchase a gun. In many cases these “buyers” are completely unaware of where the firearm will end up and are simply doing the job to make a quick profit. They buy the firearms and ammunition at a gun shop or show and bring them to “brokers.” A “courier” will then pick up the firearm and drive it across the U.S border (CBS News, 8:31). An intelligence program called “Project Thor'' run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or the ATF, concluded that the time between the purchase at a gun shop to an assasination attempt in Mexico could be less than a month (CBS News, 8:51). Arms traffickers have developed highly complex systems that make it very difficult to prevent the smuggling of weapons as well as to track a single weapon’s movement from one person to another. Once these firearms reach countries south of the U.S. border, the effect they have on communities across Latin America is immeasurable. The violence they create not only leads to massive loss of life but also causes widespread instability, forcing many to flee their homes in search of safety and stability.
The type of firearm that is trafficked south of the border also has an effect on the violence inflicted in Latin American countries. Obviously, any class of firearm that is trafficked is bound to take lives once being used by organized crime groups. However, it is becoming increasingly easier to acquire firearms with capabilities far beyond those of the usual assault rifle. One example of this is the Barrett M82, or Barret .50. While weapons more commonly used by organized crime groups such as the AK-47, AR-15, and variations of the pistol are already extremely lethal, the Barrett .50 poses a much greater threat. A .50 caliber weapon is capable of penetrating 0.9 inches of face-hardened armor steel plate at 200 meters 1 inch of rolled homogeneous armor at the same range and 0.75 inches at 547 yards (MCWP, p.184). These numbers show that military-grade weapons such as the Barrett .50 are capable of causing greater damage than the ordinary assault rifle.
In a documentary made by Vice News in 2023 titled How Mexican Drug Cartels Smuggle Thousands of Guns From The US, journalist Keegan Hamilton describes the Barrett .50 caliber as “a weapon of choice for Mexican Cartels.” The .50 caliber was used by the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most violent drug trafficking organizations in the world, during the capture of Ovidio Guzman, son of drug kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman. Hamilton states that “cartel gunmen used .50 calibers in a fierce firefight with the military” (VICE News, 1:46). According to the Mexican government, it is highly likely that these guns were produced in the U.S. and trafficked south of the border. The fact that the Sinaloa Cartel could compete with the Mexican military using military-grade weapons demonstrates the sophistication of these cartels' operations and serves as a haunting reminder of how easily accessible such lethal weapons are to organized crime groups.
Hamilton also interviews a member of the cartel who for obvious reasons remains anonymous. The cartel member has a vest on with three .50 caliber bullets, which are clearly larger than the bullets used in more common assault rifles. He explains that the bullets came from the U.S. because in Mexico “it’s too expensive” and because “everything comes from there” (VICE News, 1:05). The cartel member’s sentiment toward the acquisition of weapons like the Barrett .50 caliber and the ammunition it uses is representative of the gun trafficking network as a whole. As long as firearms are readily available just north of the border and the demand for the weapons continues to exist, this sentiment will not change.
Gun Control in Mexico and the U.S.
Living in the United States, gun violence is a deeply concerning issue that affects communities across the nation. In 2023, 43,163 people died in the United States from gun related injuries (AHCJ, 2024). Mass shootings are at an all time high and gun violence has now surpassed vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. (Gebeloff et al., 2022, as cited in Jusionyte, p.7). These alarming numbers have motivated people to urge their representatives to create reforms to restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms. However, the gun violence we see in the U.S. extends past our southern border. In her book titled Exit Wounds: How America's Guns Fuel Violence across the Border (2024), Ieva Jusionyte discusses the vicious cycle that occurs when weapons are illegally smuggled to south of the United States border and lead to a surge in immigration to the United States’ southern border. She explains that firearms play a major role in the activity of organized crime groups. Mexican drug cartels rely on firearms to assert dominance, engage in violent conflict with rival gangs and authorities, and to protect their territory.
Although owning a firearm is a constitutional right in both the United States and Mexico, the Mexican government regulates gun purchases and ownership far more closely. They regulate “how many and what type of guns and which citizens are allowed to have them.” This heavily restricts the circulation of weapons and ammunition within the country. For organized crime groups trying to obtain firearms for their operations, the main issue they encounter is the fact that there are only two gun stores in the entire country. In 2019, the Mexican “Secretariat of Defense opened the second store in Apodaca, near Monterrey, Nuevo Leon” (Jusionyte, 259). Before then, the only gun store was in the municipality of Naucalpan just northwest of Mexico City. In contrast, “in 2022, there were nearly 78,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States—more than all McDonald’s, Burger King, Subway, and Wendy’s locations combined, and twice the number of US post offices” (Everytown, 2023). The extreme gap in the number of gun stores in each country highlights how differently their governments view gun control. Mexico has only two gun stores which are limited to a much smaller demographic, while tens of thousands of gun stores in certain states in the U.S. can sell to almost anyone over 18.
In the VICE News documentary previously mentioned, Hamilton visited the gun store in Naucalpan and reported what he saw. He compares the inside of the store to the inside of a DMV in the U.S. and adds that “it might even be more bureaucratic.” Hamilton then explains that civilians, cops, and the national guard must all purchase their weapons at that store. In order to buy a weapon there, a background and mental health check are required, which involves multiple-week-long waiting periods. One detail that would completely shock some arm-bearing U.S. citizens is that as Capt. Manuel Esparza from the Mexican Marketing Department of Weapons and Ammunition explains, each person may not own more than one gun in their lifetime. On top of that, the law only permits the purchase of pistols not exceeding the .380 caliber (VICE News, 9:26). It is evident that the Mexican government is extremely cautious when it comes to gun regulation, so that organized crime groups cannot obtain lethal weapons that inflict massive amounts of violence. Unfortunately, their strict legislation is completely undermined by the U.S. government’s own legislation, which allows for the purchase of “AK-47s, AR-15s and pistols” (VICE News, 0:44). The ball is completely in U.S. lawmakers’ court when it comes to stopping the trafficking of firearms, yet no progress seems to be made.
As a United States citizen, one may wonder why, after so many deaths from mass shootings, so little has been done by the government. After all, it is reasonable to assume that nobody wants to continue seeing so much pointless violence and bloodshed. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 92% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans support background checks for private gun sales. Why then, has federal gun legislation fared so poorly in Congress? The answer can partially be found in lobbying, which is a common practice used to influence politicians’ decision making regardless of party affiliation. Professional lobbying groups on both sides of the gun ownership issue participate in heated debates before Congress in an effort to sway politicians (Jones et al., p.3). However, “the pro-gun lobby, widely acknowledged to be the more powerful voice in the debate, outspent the gun-control lobby by a ratio of 23:1 in 2011, or $5.5 million versus $240,00” (OpenSecrets.org 2012, as cited in Jones, p.3). The largest of the pro-lobbying groups is the National Rifle Association, or the NRA, “with over 5 million members and revenues in excess of $200 million/year” (Kortz 2013, as cited in Jones, p.3). Lobbying is not the only reason why the U.S. government has failed to pass legislation that has directly addressed the issues surrounding gun control. Representatives in states where most constituents are against any type of gun reform are far less likely to support bills that address the issue of gun control, regardless of their own view.
The U.S. government’s inaction has made purchasing and owning a weapon easier than ever. One prime example of this is the “gun show loophole,” which refers to individuals being allowed to purchase firearms without a background check. Federal law states that all people “‘engaged in the business’ of selling guns must be licensed, initiate background checks on all prospective purchasers, and keep records of all gun sales. However, no license is required for occasional sales” (Cole, p.1). This means that if a “buyer” attends a gun show in a state where background checks are not required for private sales, they can legally purchase firearms from unlicensed sellers without undergoing any background check whatsoever. This loophole has significantly contributed to the ease with which individuals can acquire guns, which has allowed firearms to fall into the hands of those who would otherwise be unable to obtain them due to criminal records or mental health issues. In the case of firearm trafficking, most “buyers” are people who are selected for the job specifically because they have no criminal record or mental health issue so that the purchase can be made from any licensed dealer. With the “gun show loophole,” a “buyer” could purchase a firearm from an unlicensed seller even if they would usually fail a background check administered by a licensed seller.
Mexican Drug Cartels, and the Lives Taken by U.S. Produced Firearms
As unfortunate as it may be, many people immediately associate Mexico with drug-related violence. Mainstream media and TV shows such as Narcos: Mexico portray the country as being full of cartel activity and corruption, somewhat overshadowing its rich history and culture. However, shows like Narcos do have some truth to them. By definition, drug trafficking began in 1914 when the U.S. and other countries began to regulate and later outlaw trade in psychotropic substances such as heroin, cocaine and opium. Like in any other instance when a product is banned, an illicit, or black market for the trade of psychotropic drugs was created. In 1919, five years after the implementation of prohibition with the Volstead Act, Mexican smugglers developed networks for trafficking alcohol into the U.S. (Shirk & Wallman, p.9). Before the 1970’s, the U.S. received most of its heroin from Italian and French organized crime groups. In the early 1970’s, “France managed to shut down the ‘French Connection,’ the pipeline through which the opium processed in France was delivered as heroin to the United States.” This caused a huge increase in Mexican heroin production and by the mid-70’s Mexico was “the largest heroin supplier to the United States” (Shirk & Wallman, p.9). This period marked the beginning of the drug trafficking networks that exist to this day.
Since then, drug cartels and organized crime groups have evolved significantly. One aspect of their operation that since their beginning has facilitated the violence they inflict is the “complicity of government and law enforcement personnel” (Shirk & Wallman, p.11). Immense levels of corruption throughout the country have allowed these criminal organizations to thrive. Officials often ignore illegal activities or actively participate in them, allowing the cartels to do as they please. This corruption undermines legislation set up to fight organized crime and worsens the violence, as cartels continue operating without fear of interference from law enforcement or government agencies. The widespread corruption exacerbates a cycle of violence and instability within the country which is made possible in the first place by weapons produced in the U.S.
In 2006 the Mexican government declared a war on the cartels. Since then, the country has seen more than 360,000 homicides (CFR, 2022), a number that portrays the severity of the violence bolstered by U.S. produced weapons. Mexico’s most recent election was the deadliest in its modern history as 37 candidates were assassinated (Reuters, 2024). Though it is impossible to confirm, it is likely that a majority of the weapons used in those assassinations were not purchased in Mexico, but rather smuggled from the U.S. In the presidential race, violent crime was a top issue as those against the administration at the time used the evocative statistics to fight for political change. Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s next president, could implement various strategies to fight organized crime, such as strengthening law enforcement agencies and increasing their presence. Even then, her job is easier said than done when one takes into consideration that Mexico is on the receiving end of an “iron river” (DeLay, 2013, as cited in Jusionyte, p.8) of smuggled weapons.
Policy Analysis and Recommendations
The trafficking of firearms in such a highly organized manner is becoming easier as the various networks of smugglers become better at what they do. On top of that, the ease with which a military-style semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15 or an AK-47 can end up in the hands of organized crime groups is of very little concern to most U.S. politicians. This inaction is a clear reflection of the United States’ policies on gun control and can be described on two different levels. On the domestic level, politicians are afraid to increase regulations on firearms in their respective states because they would face severe backlash from their constituents and risk losing their position. On the other hand, politicians either are unaware or refuse to acknowledge the cycle of arms trafficking, violence, and immigration plaguing countries throughout Latin America and eventually our southern border. There is an obvious paradox that is created here: the U.S. government's hands-off approach to gun laws facilitates the trafficking of weapons south, which among other factors contributes to an increase in asylum seekers fleeing the violence fueled by these very firearms. Politicians will then complain about the increase in asylum-seekers and even base a majority of their campaigns on restricting immigration, while ignoring one of the contributing factors to the problem. This vicious cycle leads to more instability and violence in Latin American countries, further affecting the U.S immigration system. The relationship between the two countries is often described using this simple yet accurate phrase: “While people and drugs come north, guns flow south.”
Because they are the ones directly affected by the issue, Mexico has taken action in the form of a lawsuit against American weapons manufacturers. In August of 2021 the Mexican government filed this lawsuit “at the federal court in Massachusetts for ‘their contribution to the epidemic of gun violence’ and ‘overall destabilizing effect on Mexican society’” (Jusionyte, p.9). The lawsuit was against manufacturers of weapons that had been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. After decades of suffering from the violence caused by these weapons, the Mexican government finally decided to take action against the actors at the root of the issue.
The U.S. can take notes from Mexico’s gun control policies. Addressing this issue will first require tighter gun laws in the U.S., which would make it harder for weapons to be purchased by buyers at the top of gun trafficking chains. The “gun show loophole” must be patched, meaning that no gun can be purchased without a background check. At the federal level, the minimum age for purchasing any class of firearm should be raised to 21 and all assault style weapons should be banned. These proposed changes and others like them have been introduced as bills in Congress, but politicians are yet to pull the trigger on any of them. As long as they continue to receive financial support from powerful lobby groups like the NRA, there will be no change. Even with widespread support from voters on both sides of the spectrum, U.S. representatives continue to prioritize their political interests over the safety and well being of the people voting them into office. The trafficking of weapons produced in the United States to Mexico continues to fuel violence and instability in the country, contributing to the flow of immigrants seeking refuge in the U.S. The need for strict legislative action is urgent, and politicians must set aside their partisan agendas. By imposing stricter gun regulation they will not only protect their own communities, but also reduce the number of asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.