And in a dramatic step, intended primarily to discourage undocumented migration, the Trump administration declared two military buffer zones along the US-Mexico border. Less than a month later, the first buffer zone—labeled the “New Mexico National Defense Area”—was announced. That’s because it stretches an incredible 101 kilometers—roughly 63 miles. In early May, officials declared a second military zone, this one outside of El Paso, Texas. This new zone reaches 274 kilometers (180 miles) deep into territory that was previously under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior.
These military districts are intended to protect our national security. They reawaken dangerous wartime laws, like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. US Attorney Ryan Ellison emphasized the importance of these zones, stating, “The New Mexico National Defense Area is a crucial installation necessary to strengthen the authority of servicemembers to help secure our borders and safeguard the country.” This feeling underlies the administration’s belief that these actions are necessary to deter illegal migration across our southern border.
In coordination with the newly established zones, Pete Hegseth, a prominent figure in the administration’s border security strategy, warned potential migrants about the consequences of crossing into these areas. He stated, “You can be detained. You will be detained,” indicating the serious nature of the enforcement actions taken by US troops and border patrol agents. Hegseth continued to stress that the military would increase the level of violence they would apply. Their goal is “100 percent operational control” of the border.
Even with these strong provisions, litigation has already been launched. Last week, Chief US Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth threw out trespassing charges against dozens of migrants arrested inside the military zone. This ruling opens Pandora’s Box regarding the legality and enforceability of the military zones themselves.
Their creation has sparked a fierce nationwide debate. Our people strongly opposed for national security and human rights reasons. Supporters argue that these measures are necessary to protect the nation’s people. Proponents and critics alike warn that they will lead to widespread human rights violations.
