By Stephanie Leutert

For the past 25 years, the Border Patrol has tracked migrant deaths along the US-Mexico border. For nearly the same amount of time, it has also faced criticisms that it failed to capture the true number of migrant deaths in its tally. This article focuses on these undercounting criticisms and asks two questions: (1) How many documented migrant death cases are left out of Border Patrol’s official data? And (2) what factors lead to the Border Patrol’s migrant death undercounting? In particular, the article focuses on three South Texas counties: Brooks County, Kenedy County, and Maverick County. To answer the research questions, this article relies on comparative data analysis. In particular, it compares two person-level datasets: the Border Patrol’s dataset on migrant deaths from 2009 to 2017 and county-level records from the Brooks County Sheriff’s Office, the Kenedy County Sheriff’s Office, and Maverick County Justices of the Peace over the same period. It then attempts to match each county-level record to a recorded death in the Border Patrol’s dataset. Using this process, the article quantifies migrant death undercounting in South Texas, highlights geographic and temporal trends, and tracks the uncounted cases’ specific characteristics. From 2009 to 2017, this comparative data analysis confirmed that the Border Patrol was undercounting migrant deaths across the three South Texas counties. Specifically, the article finds that the Border Patrol failed to include 139 cases, which totaled 19 percent of the counties’ 749 recorded migrant deaths during the study period. This undercounting ranged from 16 percent in Brooks County to 24 percent in Maverick County and 29 percent in Kenedy County, with fluctuating rates over time. The uncounted cases also had specific characteristics. In particular, they were more likely to be skeletal remains, lack an identification, and be discovered by an external entity. These characteristics highlight the various factors behind the Border Patrol’s undercounting, such as issues with the Border Patrol’s migrant death definition, inconsistent data collection from external entities, and the agency’s low prioritization of migrant death tracking. To address and remedy the Border Patrol’s migrant death undercounting requires tackling each underlying factor. First and foremost, this article recommends that the Border Patrol fully train its agents on the agency’s migrant death definition and ensure consistent and standardized outreach to external entities. Further, it recommends that the Border Patrol improve its migrant death count’s accuracy through additional operational changes. These proposed changes include making “accurate migrant death counts” an official objective for the Border Patrol’s Missing Migrant Program, prioritizing a two-way information-sharing process with county-level officials, retroactively including missed migrant deaths in the official count, and publishing more detailed person-level data on migrant deaths.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 277-289

By Courtney C. Siegert, Molly A. Kaplan, Nicholas P. Herrmann and M. Kate Spradley

This paper details the structural and resource challenges in Texas related to identifying migrant decedents, investigating their deaths, repatriating them, and adhering to legal and ethical requirements in addressing this humanitarian tragedy. While actors working on migrant decedent investigations in Arizona can map and provide accurate counts of migrant deaths, this is not yet possible for Texas cases. Texas’ mixed Medical Examiner/Justice of the Peace medicolegal system suffers from fragmentation across county jurisdictions, lack of resources, and minimal access to investigative tools for transnational families. These challenges produce a landscape where unidentified presumed migrants may structurally disappear (e.g., buried in temporarily marked graves as unidentified persons with no investigation or case tracking). The article highlights the work of Operation Identification (OpID), a humanitarian project formed to assist border counties with recovering, identifying, and repatriating migrant decedents. OpID’s extensive community outreach and collaboration with governmental and nongovernmental partners in the United States and Latin America have improved practices in some Texas counties. However, systemic change is still needed to address this humanitarian disaster. The article proposes that presumed migrant decedents be managed using a disaster victim identification (DVI) approach, which prioritizes identification, rather than how and why someone dies. It also proposes the establishment of regional Migrant Identification Centers (MICs) to streamline identification and repatriation efforts, while ensuring compliance with Texas law by Justices of the Peace (JPs). Centralization, the article argues, can lead to more accurate counts of migrant deaths and lay the groundwork for greater resources. The article also supports increased access to national databases including the National Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) and the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). It argues that transnational families of missing persons be afforded expanded access to investigative tools (e.g., NamUs)

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 257-276

By Molly Miranker

This paper explores how qualitative information may be used to enhance understanding and inform recommendations for improved accounting of migrant deaths along the Texas-Mexico border. While border crossing related deaths affect jurisdictions throughout the US’s Southwestern border states and Northern Mexican states, Texas has unique challenges that merit specific examination. In short, the management and investigation of unidentified migrant decedents in Texas is severely fragmented and often noncompliant with Texas Criminal Code Procedure. I explore a way to improve accounting of migrant deaths leveraging qualitative information, local newspaper articles from South Texas and Northern Mexico, by using descriptive summaries coupled with Sankey Diagrams and a programmatic technique, qualitative spatial representation (QSR). QSR enabled me to identify under-recognized stakeholders (South Texas locals, Mexican consulates) and under-supported counties (i.e., those with migrant deaths that do not share a border directly with Mexico). I found that local English-language newspapers obscured the prevalence of migrant deaths and that their narrative tone of “business as usual” normalized the occurrence of such deaths. The Spanish-language articles better represented the diversity of agencies and individuals that were involved in the various aspects of migrant remains management and forensic investigation, most notably residents of South Texas themselves (or situational participants who first found the remains) and Mexican consulates. Finally, I noted that the collaborations among Texas counties and between Texan and Mexican jurisdictions, when they were described in the newspapers, highlighted that the phenomenon of migrant deaths penetrates beyond the dividing line of the Rio Grande/Río Bravo River. Migrant deaths must be accounted for in a way that reflects a regional experience in which people may perish as far as ~100 miles into Texas’ interior. Considering these observations, I have two policy recommendations. First, the Office of the Texas Governor should establish funds distinct from the Operation Lone Star program for the management of unidentified human remains. Currently, grants through the Operation Lone Star Program are the only funds available in Texas to support identification of migrant decedents. However, this program is explicitly designed to further border security operations in the state of Texas, which can contradict efforts around recovery and identification. The documentation and forensic investigation of the unidentified deceased can be eclipsed or neglected under the larger deterrence aims of Operation Lone Star. Second, to improve accounting and increase documentation of migrant deaths, a Regional Identification Center should be established in South Texas. Not every county in Texas has or has access to a Medical Examiner’s office, including the means to transport and pay for autopsy or other forensic services. The Center would provide training, store extra equipment such as mobile refrigerated morgues, and hire personnel to inventory cases, and report information to the state (e.g., vital statistics) and to foreign consulates. A Regional Identification Center would counteract the challenges highlighted in the local newspaper summaries and QSR by decreasing the isolation of counties experiencing migrant deaths and serve as a documentary and communication hub for stakeholders in Texas and Mexico.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 204-225