Paco Alvarez: Could you give a brief summary of your investigation and its findings?
Tanvi Misra: I started looking into Border Patrol’s rescue operations. And the reason I did that was because it was surprising to me, even as someone who had covered border issues and immigration for a while, that the responsibility of emergency services along the border was diverted to Border Patrol in many border towns across the southwest border. And I guess what I was trying to find out was what that meant for migrants who were in need of rescue, or who were missing and who needed a search and rescue expedition. What happens when the responsibility of emergency services for migrants rests solely on a federal agency that’s main job is to chase after and arrest those migrants? What does that mean for the efficacy of those rescue operations? But what does that also mean for the position that migrants are put in when they need rescue, when it is a life and death situation? So that was the main sort of question that I started out with.
In terms of findings, I was able to get a lot of extensive interviews with Border Patrol, which were very revelatory in terms of how the agency thinks of its dual roles. They were very aware of the fact that they both have a mandate to “secure the border,” to chase after, arrest, and enforce immigration law. I found that was their primary mandate, that was the primary area where all of their resources went to, or were allocated to. And, what I also found was that, what kind of contested for those resources and for that attention was the rising humanitarian crisis at the border, which is the increasing death toll and the increasing number of migrant migrants who go missing and are never found across the border.
And so, my findings showed that, in fact, these were often dueling goals. And in fact, one goal, that is the goal of chasing after and arresting migrants often undermined the goal of then going after and giving them humanitarian care and rescue. The other way of putting this would be that these were goals that were sort of inextricably intertwined. The first one actually created the conditions for the humanitarian crisis that we see across the border.
So, one of my key findings was that there’s a large number of deaths that Border Patrol logs as Border Patrol related deaths. And these are migrant deaths that have occurred after migrants have come in contact with Border Patrol. And, this kind of shows or, supports exactly what advocates have been saying for a while, which is that the tactics, and the strategies that Border Patrol uses to chase after migrants endanger them further. So, you know, we found through FOIA documents and through Border Patrol’s own record keeping that migrants who try to run away from Border Patrol because they were scared of them often found themselves in danger, often ended up dying as a result of the physical and other types of danger that they found themselves in, as a result of being chased by Border Patrol. This was a direct consequence of that. And this was something that advocates, experts had been saying for a while.
I mean, it really goes back to the 1990s. The prevention through deterrence policy was formalized at the time by the Border Patrol. And that policy explicitly said that they wanted to make the border more dangerous so that migrants would find themselves in fatal danger and decide not to come. It would be enough to deter them. But what we’re seeing instead is that while that policy is still being implemented on the ground, what that’s leading to is just migrants finding themselves in more danger, more migrants dying and, having less recourse to rescue and less recourse to medical treatment and less recourse to the same level of emergency services that like, for example, a U.S. citizen would get.
Alvarez: You briefly touched on this, but how did you get started reporting on missing migrants and the Border Patrol’s response?
Misra: I started looking into this because I saw a lot of stories that were looking at the rescues themselves and kind of looking at how difficult it was to rescue migrants and what a great job Border Patrol was doing. But I didn’t see stories that matched what I was hearing from sources, which was that many people fell through the gaps and many people were not found, or that in many cases, the people who needed rescue were the people that Border Patrol had chased in the first place. So I knew that there was a gap in what we knew about this phenomenon and how the system was working together. And you know, what I wanted to do with this investigation was really trying to plug that gap, starting to find when you do create a system where this agency is in charge of rescuing migrants, the same agency that chases them, what ends up happening? I mean, even if you have the best of intentions, what kind of position does that create for migrants? What kind of circumstances does it create? And, what kind of humanitarian costs does that create? And so that is really the question I was trying to answer on what the gap that this was trying to plug.
Alvarez: Part of your reporting is based on reporting trips you took to Arizona, which included taking a tour of Border patrol facilities and also of the desert. What was that like?
Misra: Those trips were incredibly fruitful. I would say those reporting trips, I did a lot of pre-reporting beforehand, but the first of those trips, in particular, was really, really helpful. The two highlights from that trip were – I did a trek with the, it was, I think, like a 15 mile trek through the Cabeza Prieta [National Wildlife Refuge], which is down near the town of Ajo. It’s near the border. And that’s where a lot of migrant bodies have been found. That’s where a lot of migrant routes, smuggling routes, cut through that wilderness. And so, I accompanied a group of civilian volunteers. I mean, these were very ordinary people who were contractors and veterans and college students and, from time to time they would get requests from families of migrants who had not heard from their loved ones. They knew they were on their way to cross the border. And they wanted people to go search for them because they obviously could not do so themselves, being so far away. And so these groups of, like, volunteers would take up that mantle, they would take up those requests and try to search for people who were lost in the borderlands in that area particularly.
And I feel like while that the specifics of that particular trek did not end up in my story, it was so helpful to get a visceral and physical sense of walking through that landscape, and being able to see the remains of camps that migrants had rested in, the belongings they had left behind. And more so than anything, just how difficult it is to traverse that landscape. I mean, this group had walkie talkies and GPS and we had hiking gear and enough rations and we had Pedialyte and like, rehydrating fluids and rozen water. And we were only going to be there at most, like, one whole day. And, even with that, there was someone in our room that had a medical episode. We were very behind schedule. We didn’t get lost, but we, because of the medical episode – these were people who did it often. So I think what it was, all of it was to show, it was for me as a city person definitely one of the most, like, physically demanding reporting experiences and experiences, I would say generally.
As a reporter, it was really helpful for me to get a sense of what it feels like for a body to be experiencing that climate and that environment, and it is incredibly grueling. And while that day particularly, you know, the specifics of it did not make it into the story. I think it really informed how I wrote it, and it really informed my understanding of what someone who’s walking through it for days without any of the stuff that we had without any gear or whatever, might have gone through, like, even be able to imagine that somewhat better than I would have otherwise and be able to translate it for readers. So that was one really important aspect of the reporting experience.
The second was being able to do an hours long briefing with Border Patrol and see their central control area, which I mentioned in the story. And it was really interesting the, the contrast between walking on the ground and sort of talking to people who, navigated those areas without much, you know, with maybe like, either, just their cell phone, and like laminated maps, people who lived in – locals who lived in that area – versus the extent of the technological, prowess that this agency had at its disposal, was really, really something to see.
And I will also say, you know, the interviews that I got during the briefing that were, you know, almost all on the record, were really, candid, which I found, you know, well, very candid and I think really give us a sense of what, well, a certain type of culture and outlook that the agency has that might explain how their strategies are implemented or explain why, they see, you know, the work that they’re doing in certain ways versus others. And so I think, for me, it was really important to do those interviews and get that on the record because, what I was trying to show ultimately was a system and how all of its various cogs work together, and how like individual intentions or good intentions may not really detract from the fact that the system is still putting a lot of pressure on migrants or the system is working a certain way to the, to the detriment of migrants. And, those interviews are very, very important. And I’m honestly very thankful to the, agents, for speaking to me with such candor because, I’m glad I was able to document how they’re conceiving of the work that they’re doing, the humanitarian, so-called humanitarian work that they,say is important to them, as well as their law enforcement mandate and how those two kind of connect.
Alvarez: You kind of touched on this, but were there differences between what you experienced and volunteers were telling you compared to what Border Patrol was sort of showing you and telling you?
Misra: One thing I will say is, you know, when I’m going out and I’m doing my reporting, I’m both extremely open to different points of view – because I found that sometimes when I do have preconceived expectations and notions, I tend to very quickly be surprised. And so, you know, I wanted to approach the Border Patrol agents with an open mind and, and listen to what they were saying and really take what they’re saying at face value. And I think everyone wants to believe that they are good people and have good intentions and so approach whatever problem they’re facing with, you know, what they think are good intentions. And I think everyone is human and everyone has faults. And you know, how those things kind of collide with systems that they’re a part of is is really interesting to me.
So, when I was on these reporting trips, I think I was seeing a lot of differences, on the ground, I mean, with what everyone was saying. For example, like, the patchwork of volunteer groups that do the rescues don’t, are not always on the same page about their strategies, they’re not always on the same page about – I didn’t elaborate too much on this in the story, but everyone has their own agendas and sort of ways of doing things. There’s sometimes some infighting between some of the rescue groups and they don’t always get along with each other because – could be because of what they did or like, who they wanted to go out and rescue or what credit they claimed or could be because of funding. I mean, everyone is vying for very scarce resources. So there’s a lot of politics, that kind of go on that certainly I was not aware of while having talked to some of the advocates remotely. And it was good to kind of see on the ground how people approached each other, how they saw each other. And, you know, I made notes of those, not everything was relevant to the story so it didn’t make it into the story. But, I did take note of a lot of those little internal dynamics and things like that.
With Border Patrol too like, I do think that some of the agents that I spoke with were very convinced and very certain that they were doing the right thing, they were doing the humanitarian thing. For their claims, because a lot of them were very, very directly relevant to the story I had to be – because they’re a federal agency with almost unlimited resources, some of which comes from our taxpayer dollars – I wanted to be really, really vigilant about fact checking and the way that I did that was not just by finding contradictions within what they were saying within the same conversation, but also, finding documents to back up those claims that they were making. And so a lot of that work was done through the FOIAs that I got and the files that I obtained through my other sources that were internal CBP documents. A lot of what they said that made it to the piece, like I was able to fact check through those internal documents and be able to check them on – the claims that they made about the efficacy of this program, for example.
Alvarez: Much of the article focuses on the experiences of two Guatemalan migrants who were lost in the desert, as well as the people who helped find them. How did you get in touch with them? How did you initially reach out?
Misra: There were a few families whose stories I had come across up through just, you know, reporting on the ground and meeting with advocates who work with these families, but also monitoring Facebook groups and things like that. There are a few families I can come across with stories that really felt like they got to some of the core problems I was trying to get answers on. With this family, what was particularly interesting to me about the two boys and their aunt and uncle was that their aunt and uncle really wanted to tell their story. And they were a big part of the story as well. And, and I think that, like, well, to tell the story, was really important to me. I came across them really through, because they had filed a complaint to another organization about their experience with Border Patrol. And, you know, I knew that they had spoken to a key Border Patrol agent. And so they had those connections.
The second thing that sort of confirmed to me that they were central to the story was the fact that I could get a 360 view on one operation through their story. So I knew, like after I got in touch with them, that their story would give me kind of a window into how different parts of the machinery worked. And, and that’s how, you know, through I was able to contact them through – I think I reached out on WhatsApp, you know, through again, the organization that had helped them filed the complaint. And they immediately responded. And they really wanted to be a part of the story. So that’s how I got in touch with them.
But I think what was more challenging, as it is often with stories about immigrants, is to maintain a relationship long term for a story and to really maintain expectations. And I think that was something that at times became very challenging for me. Because I don’t like to let people down and this kind of investigation takes a long time. And so, I think I, you know, try to make sure that I’m keeping them in the loop at all times and, you know, making sure that I’m as transparent as I could be. Then also obviously being mindful of their time and their experiences and their, you know, relationships with, with each other, but within their families as well. So that I’m not, you know, I’m minimizing how – I do think a lot of journalism can be very extractive. And I didn’t want to be disrespectful, and I didn’t want to be, I guess, like, I didn’t want to overlook their needs and their interests throughout. I mean, they had things going on on their own, and I wanted to be mindful of that. And so some of those moments were moments where I had to kind of, you know, recalibrate my relationship and the way that I was communicating with them and things like that. But, I’m happy to say that, like, I was able to sustain that relationship over a long period of time. And I still have been speaking especially to the aunt who’s in the story, and, you know, basically I was able to weather those challenges that kind of arise when you’re kind of keeping in touch with sources over a long period of time, especially sources who are not media savvy. And I was able to maintain that relationship, which I’m very honestly honored to do, to be able to be in touch with this family and then also, really lucky to be able to do and happy that that is how it turned out. So that’s one thing, that’s how I came in touch with them.
With the other side of – the Tohono O’odham family, that was a really interesting experience as well. My second reporting trip focused mainly on spending time with this family and learning about their experiences, which were so specific. Right? Being, living on a reservation that is at the border and having to be at the nexus of this, like, sort of tussle between Border Patrol, migrants and also other volunteers were coming in to do searches and rescues and other locals who are not from the Tohono Nation. So their perspective on this was really interesting. And I came to them through the family that I was, the two boys that had been rescued with their help. I reached out to them. At first I talked to one member of the family, then I talked to another, and they were really open and were really welcoming, which was – I’m always kind of surprised when sources are so, welcoming. And I try to be really careful of that trust. And so, you know, they were incredibly welcoming and they welcomed me to their home and wanted to show me around.
And even after I was done with the reporting, I was spending time with them and learning about sort of their experiences and how they rescued this family or these two young boys, they wanted to show me their, you know, sort of cultural aspects of their life. They were having sort of a festival, a rodeo festival that was going to be going on that weekend. They wanted me to stay for that, which was really lovely. And I would love to do that. But I was on a deadline, so I had to get back and, I told them that I would, I would try to do it, the next time I visited, not on the clock.
But, you know, I feel like those two families ground the story into and and help me explain what this can look like from the perspective of two families from very different geographical areas and very different experiences, but that end up in the same sort of space, subject to the same systems, on two sides of that, and one was able to help the other out. And I think that’s what makes the story kind of remarkable. It’s a rare, I think, success story at least from a purely human standpoint. I would say like the relationship, they were able to strike even though it was temporary under the conditions that they were in, to me offers a glimmer of hope. Or I guess offers a way I think people can build solidarities across a lot of difference. And I think that aspect of the story points to that, and I’m glad that that was in there.
This beat can be very gloomy and this can be extremely difficult to report. And there’s a lot of like, you know, death and a lot of suffering often that we have to report on and you have to document those things, of course. But I think the way that these two families interacted in the story really helped contrast that with moments of just how people build solidarity without necessarily having the same language and how they talk about these issues, that and these systems that they’re part of. And I think that was really crucial to the story, and I’m glad it’s in there.
Alvarez: Obviously a lot of the people you talked to, specifically the migrants, but also their families and the families that you talked to – they’ve experienced a lot of trauma, like getting lost in the desert. What sorts of things do you try to keep in mind when you speak to people who have gone through a traumatic experience?
Misra: Yeah, I think there’s a number of different things. I think one of the things is that I’m, I and I think this is a tough one for a lot of reporters and journalists is like, you cannot be in control of that all the time, and you cannot get what you want all the time. And that’s okay because the person comes first. Because they’re a person and they’re doing being. And so that’s I think the bigger sort of bigger picture to keep in mind. I have definitely let go of stories before with sources were too traumatized to sort of carry on or change their minds and things like that.
But when I’m doing that story and I’m doing those interviews, I think there’s a few things. I mean, one, I try to be really transparent, as I said, like, I try to explain what the process looks like, what it might require of them, that this may not be a one time thing. I may have to go back and ask them the same question and again and again and again and that has no bearing on their own experience. It’s just a part of the process. It’s got nothing to do with them.
I also try to offer a lot of choices, you know, where do they want the interview? How do they want it done? Do you not want me to be on camera? Do you want someone present like a family member or an advocate or something that often puts people at ease? I try to reiterate the aspects of the process that they do have control over. You know, if we want to stop, we can stop at any point. You want to reschedule? We can schedule at any point. If they’re uncomfortable, they should tell me and we can figure something out. I tried to try to, try to say that everything is a conversation. You know, nothing is set in stone. I don’t want to impose anything on them.
I feel like one of the biggest things about trauma, informed reporting, is that these are people who’ve had a lot of choices taken away from them. And, you know, throughout the experiences that they experienced and often after even when they sort of arrived at relative safety and they’ve never really been often not been able to process those experiences. So sometimes that’ll happen while you’re doing these interviews. People will feel emotions that are difficult. And in those cases, you just have to give them the space and time to feel those emotions. I think in other cases, things happen where people are not no longer comfortable or they might get angry at certain aspects of the process that they don’t understand or certain questions. This has happened not in this particular story, but in a prior story where having to go back and ask a certain question, you know, that someone I was reporting on, who was in a difficult situation feel like I didn’t, you know, and I had to go back and explain again. I was like, this is not to do with you. I’m just asking the questions that I know other people would ask. And, you know, just having a conversation again and again and having to reassure them.
I think at the same time, one thing that I never want to do – advocates and sometimes family members will often be like, oh, if you talk to a reporter, things will change, like your situation will be 100% different, it will be better. And I try on my own and never promise something like that because that’s not something I can do. I never agree with or promise any kind of positive change because that is not something I can ensure or guarantee. And I think setting those expectations both of, like, what the process will look like and the logistics of it. Like how many questions, how much time, you know, what kind of questions, where it might end up, who will read the story. All of those are important, but I think so is like the expectation of what comes after. And so setting those up, like, upfront, rather than like halfway through the process or towards the end is always better because then the person doesn’t feel like they were lied to or they were misled in any way. And that is not a feeling that you want to give someone who’s been traumatized. So I think those are most of the things I do. I mean, honestly, throughout it, I kind of defer to the person on what they need and what they need to be able to talk to me, but also if they need not to talk to me anymore, I try to respect that decision because I think that’s what trauma informed reporting is. It just puts the person’s experience and their needs first.
I think there’s often this thing that I was told in journalism school and that I think a lot about like – Should you be a human first? Or should you be a reporter first? And I think trauma informed reporting shows that you have to kind of do both together. And that has trade offs on both sides. You know, that’s just something that you have to live with. So, that, that I think would be those are some, I don’t know if I’ve missed anything, but those are things that came to mind.