In the latest issue:

Consider the Hermit Crab

Katherine Rundell

Emigrés on the Make

Sheila Fitzpatrick

Autopsy of an Election

James Butler

Short Cuts: Harry Goes Rogue

Jonathan Parry

‘Cosmo’ for Capitalists

Stefan Collini

Kara Walker’s ‘Fons Americanus’

Cora Gilroy-Ware

So many ships and fleets and armies

N.A.M. Rodger

British Sea Power

Paul Rogers

Richard Holbrooke

Samuel Moyn

Four poems after Callimachus

Stephanie Burt

‘Your Duck Is My Duck’

Christian Lorentzen

On Paul Muldoon

Clair Wills

Leanne Shapton

Namara Smith

Antigone on Your Knee

Terry Eagleton

‘Parasite’

Michael Wood

Walter Pater

Elizabeth Prettejohn

Two Poems

Rae Armantrout

Diary: In Monrovia

Adewale Maja-Pearce

Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

For​ most of US history no one much cared that Latinos were entering the country and driving the economy of the south-west. In the 1920s the US introduced restrictive immigration laws but it didn’t have Latinos in mind: the perceived dangers were ‘inassimilable’ Italians and Eastern European Jews. During the Second World War the government laid on trains to bring thousands of Mexican labourers across the border to work on farms and ensure food security. In the 1950s the US started deporting Latin Americans who hadn’t arrived through official recruitment channels but this was mostly as a result of pressure from Mexico, where landowners were angry about workers being poached. US government-backed recruitment of Mexicans continued, and there were no limits on the numbers who could enter until a quota was imposed in 1965. In the 1990s the North American Free Trade Agreement threw Mexico’s rural economy into turmoil: migrant numbers rose dramatically and the Clinton administration began to militarise the border. The 9/11 attacks were used to justify even more fences and security personnel. Today the US-Mexico border is tightly monitored and in places absurdly fortified; it is patrolled by helicopters and night-vision aerostats.

Until recently the main gateway for Latinos was Arizona, where these fortifications were weakest. But in the last 18 months Texas has become the preferred destination. The number of ‘unaccompanied alien children’ arrested shows this clearly: in Texas last year almost 50,000 were cuffed by border patrol compared to 8000 in Arizona: total border crossings show a similar ratio. The nationality of those crossing has also changed: once almost all of them were Mexican; now equal numbers come from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico. The security deals agreed by the US and Mexican governments appear to have reduced the number of Mexicans who try to cross the border, but why are more people arriving from other Central American countries?

The end of a truce last year between the two most powerful Salvadoran maras – self-repatriating gangs originating in the US – is responsible for some of this increase. The region as a whole is racked by violence and ruled by repressive regimes. Washington has sponsored one military coup after another. George Kennan sketched out the programme in 1950, promising ‘coercive measures which can impress other governments with the danger of antagonising us’. In 1961 a strategy note prepared for Kennedy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised: ‘Latin Americans must … discard the philosophy that a corps of US-trained country personnel are dangerous to the indigenous governments.’ At the end of the 1970s the Sandinistas did away with the ancien régime in Nicaragua and, despite a CIA-backed rebel insurgency, a largely homegrown political arrangement survived, but Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have long been shell states with nothing to offer most citizens, economically or politically. Hundreds of thousands are leaving, and the shortest route takes them to Texas.

If you take Route 281 south from San Antonio, past the billboards (‘We buy ugly houses – call this number’; ‘AAA finance loans from $50-$1280’), you eventually reach Falfurrias, the largest place in Brooks County but still a one-horse town. The Dairy Queen burned down in May and the Walmart closed in July. Falfurrias once had a reputation as a hub for illegal gambling but this summer the gaming houses were raided and shut down. The town seems abandoned, apart from a border patrol station and a detention centre. The United States Border Patrol operates checkpoints on main roads many miles from the actual frontier. Falfurrias is 70 miles from the border and one of the inspection points is just outside town. If you’re an undocumented migrant this is where you leave the highway and walk for miles through the wilderness. More migrants die from thirst and injury in Brooks County than anywhere else in the United States.

In Falfurrias I met Lavoyger J. Durham, a large man with a deep voice who drives a big 4x4. He was born on the King Ranch – Texas’s best-known agribusiness, roughly the size of Cornwall – and he has been a cowboy all his life. In his home he has framed copies of magazines in which he’s featured: on the front of the Cattleman he appears on horseback lassoing a calf. He has managed the El Tule ranch, just outside Falfurrias, for 25 years. His grandfather, he told me proudly, signed up with Captain Leander McNelly, a Confederate officer and Texas Ranger, to ‘clean South Texas’ of ‘bandits’, most of them Mexican: McNelly’s militia hanged hundreds of people in the 1870s. But Lavoyger is now worried about the number of would-be migrants dying on south Texas’s ranches. He’s half Mexican himself – what would his grandfather have made of that? – and speaks fluent Spanish. On the way to El Tule, he gossips about the Bush family – ‘Barbara was at my second wedding but not, well … involved’ – and plays around with names for the borderlands that don’t quite hit the mark: the ‘catch me if you can’ zone comes after the ‘free nilly willy’ zone, and so on.

I asked him how many people had been found dead in Brooks County so far this year. He wasn’t sure of the exact number and phoned the sheriff. ‘How many dead people we got this year?’ The answer was 28. ‘Tell your daughter I love her.’ That the remains of 28 migrants had been discovered in just one of Texas’s 254 counties in a six-month period ought to be remarkable, especially given that the sheriffs estimate only 10 to 15 per cent of those who die are ever found. There are no figures on the total number of undocumented migrant deaths in Texas. Lavoyger himself has come across more than two dozen bodies over the years. On the ranch he showed me a clearing littered with half-rotten clothes, although these filthy coats and jeans in this macabre collection didn’t necessarily come from dead bodies; as Lavoyger explained, most of the dead are found without clothes, and usually it’s the local wildlife – vultures circling or coyotes playing with the bones – that point to their whereabouts.

So how does an undocumented migrant end up dead on Lavoyger’s ranch? After migrants cross the Rio Grande they make their way north, often on the 281 and often in a vehicle, until they leave the highway to avoid the checkpoints. The ground is treacherous. The arid landscape is littered with mesquite and cacti and almost unbearable in the summer. Minutes after you move off the roads hairlike spines somehow make their way into your legs and hands, and burrs attach themselves wherever they can. There are rattlesnakes. Fire ants crisscross the ground. Birds of prey, including the caracara – the Mexican eagle – fly between trees stripped by drought and fire. A border-crosser will usually have to walk through this terrain for days. Exhaustion or a minor injury will mean a migrant is often left behind; thirst usually does the rest. I imagine the last-minute stripping off of clothes is a confused reaction to dehydration, or perhaps it is just the heat, but it must be a terrible death.

In contrast to Arizona the Texas borderlands are privately owned, and so are the facilities where migrants end up if they get caught. The Karnes county ‘residential centre’, which houses women and children, is one such place. Karnes is run by the GEO Group, which describes itself as ‘the world’s leading provider of correctional and detention management’. In its white, bleached-clean waiting room the GEO Group’s management team is pictured in a pyramid of cheery mugshots. Sonia Hernandez Amaya, a Salvadoran woman who crossed into the United States without documentation, had been held in Karnes for more than a month. She fled El Salvador because her neighbourhood in the capital had become a place of anarchy, as so many have, with daily shootings. Gangs – particularly the two largest, MS-13 and Barrio 18 – had been tearing the city to pieces. Sonia swam across the Rio Grande with her three children – Josselyn, 10, Valentin, 9, and Moises, 3 – but they were picked up by the border patrol. If the border patrol misses them, women have a lower chance of making it through the wilderness because they usually have children with them; often they hand themselves in rather than attempt the journey. When I visited Karnes there were around 450 women and children in detention. The facility had a bad reputation; two women detainees had recently been on hunger strike. The management claimed that the inmates were treated with dignity: they were after all ‘permitted’ to clean their own detention centre in exchange for $3 a day.

The staff looked at and spoke to the inmates with disgust. The feeling, Sonia said, was reciprocal: she told me in a whisper that the guards were often violent and that one of the male staff had come to the cell of a fellow detainee two nights earlier and tried to force her into a sexual favour. The food was terrible: a mix of bad fish and bread. Her three-year-old was ill with diarrhoea but had been given only paracetamol. None of the women had been charged with any crime, and that goes for almost all of the 34,000 migrant detainees in the US. So why are they there? Once arrested by the border patrol, ‘undocumented aliens’, or ‘illegals’ as they are more often called, are detained while their asylum claims are investigated. They are usually offered bail, but most of them don’t have any money left after what they’ve paid for the journey.

The immigration court in San Antonio is at 800 Dolorosa Street, just across from Central Texas Detention Facility, a formidable concrete box also run by GEO. Inside the court rounds of hearings determine whether the migrants can remain in the US. Many of the hearings are conducted by video link. A barely audible, low-definition video feed connects the judge with a room in the detention centre. The women sit in three rows of four or five, wearing ill-fitting, standard-issue T-shirts. They wait patiently to be called to a single chair in front of which there is a camera. They are then asked to explain to the court why they entered the US, which usually means recounting stories of serious violence. All of this is done through an interpreter, who is also struggling to hear. Next comes a fuller, formal hearing, known as a ‘credible fear’ interview, at which the migrant’s asylum claim is determined. The women have no access to representation unless they can barter for it and it falls to legal aid agencies to advocate on behalf of those who can’t pay but there aren’t enough pro bono lawyers to go around. There’s always a lawyer representing the federal government. The judge when I visited was a soft-spoken, seemingly kindly woman from Ohio who nonetheless rattled off standardised questions and usually concluded that the woman in question could be bailed until her next hearing at the price of a few thousand dollars.

Not long ago detained border-crossers in southern Texas who could post bail were released directly from detention centres; now they are dumped at San Antonio bus station with a brown folder of official documents and an electronic ankle bracelet. Inside the folder is a piece of paper that entitles them to a ticket or book of tickets. One young man I met had tickets for a series of eight buses that would take him from San Antonio to New York, where he was to stay with a distant relative. He couldn’t speak or read English. Migrant-support volunteers spent a good forty minutes deciphering, then translating and transcribing his route for him. He would have to wait nine hours before the first bus left. If he made it, he will by now be attending immigration hearings in New York and growing accustomed to the ankle bracelet.

Sister Pam Buganski is co-head of the South Texas Human Rights Centre. The centre has a tiny office in Falfurrias; when its three-person staff aren’t repairing water stations in the wilderness – vandalised by locals who look less charitably on migrants – they are helping the authorities respond to distress calls. The sheriff’s office gets regular cellphone calls from people who are stranded and dying or from the friends who’ve left them behind. When the sheriff doesn’t have the manpower, or the inclination, to search, STHRC fills in. ‘They’ll say things like “We left him under a mesquite tree next to a fence,” well there are probably a million mesquite trees so it isn’t much help,’ Buganski told me. There aren’t enough signal towers in south Texas to enable accurate triangulation so the odds on finding those who call are long. Earlier this year Buganski and a group of volunteers got word that someone had given more detail about his whereabouts than usual, and seemed to be on a private ranch where the owners were prepared to give the volunteers access. They searched for the lost person, racing against the sunset. They never found the caller, but came across three other bodies before darkness fell. ‘That shows you just how many are out there dying without anyone knowing.’

Most of the dead are never identified. There’s often no autopsy performed and DNA testing is rare. In Brooks County the final resting place for unidentified border-crossers is the Sacred Heart Cemetery in Falfurrias, well tended and adorned with plastic flowers. In 2013 researchers from Baylor University in Waco identified a corner of the cemetery where funeral companies had dumped the bodies of undocumented migrants. They exhumed a mass grave containing 110 bodies, some buried only four inches below the surface. Corpses had been interred in bin liners, or with no covering at all. The grave wasn’t marked. Last year another exhumation was performed in a different corner of the cemetery. It was the same story: 52 bodies. All over Sacred Heart there are little mounds crowned with metal plaques: ‘unidentified human remains 629667’.

The Rio Grande narrows at Laredo. From the north bank you can see people fishing, or pretending to fish, on the other side of the river. There are three bridges: two in the centre of the city and one on the outskirts for heavy vehicles. Wading or swimming across the river is a way into the US for those who can’t get a temporary visa. Fifteen people had already drowned there this year and I watched the body of a young man being dragged out by Mexican authorities after a fisherman saw it floating downstream. A pair of red and black boxer shorts and a tattoo – ‘Efrain’ – were all there was to go on. The only other way to cross is the railway bridge, which is always busy. I saw a huge train of freight trucks – Kansas City Southern, Union Pacific, Swift – rumble by at a snail’s pace on its way to Mexico.

In November 2014, announcing an executive order on immigration reform, Obama pledged to expand an existing programme known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which currently allows for those who entered as children and who have been in the US since July 2007 to get a two-year reprieve; a new programme would extend a similar provision to those who are in the US illegally but whose children have US citizenship. The Republicans claim that Obama wants to let in Latin American migrants because they are future Democrat voters. But his proposals still haven’t come into effect and are being challenged in the courts. Despite his recent rhetoric, he has presided over the greatest incarceration of children in American history. He has also promised more men with guns on the border. Die-hard Republicans can’t recognise an ally when they see one.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.