Migrant Coyotes and the Law: A Legal Commentary

[Description of Legal Commentaries and Student Contributions]

Summary

This commentary examines the role of coyotes—migrant smugglers—in U.S. immigration law and the lived realities of migrants who rely on them. While federal statutes cast all forms of migrant assistance as criminal, research and testimony reveal a more complex picture: coyotes are often lifelines, helping people navigate dangerous crossings, protect themselves from exploitation, and reach safety.

By contrasting the law’s blanket prohibition with the nuanced realities on the ground, the piece highlights the misalignment between policy and practice and suggests avenues for reform that balance enforcement with human rights.

Introduction

Every year, millions of immigrants pursue the grueling journey across the Mexico-U.S. border with hopes of securing better-paying jobs to send to their families in Mexico, reuniting with family members, or escaping the violence often driven by drug cartels.¹ Many understand the journey will not be easily navigable, and with few to no accessible legal pathways for most, many seek out coyotes. Coyotes are individuals who sometimes facilitate migrant’s journey across the Mexico-U.S. broder.² Their role extends beyond simply guiding migrats. They may lead groups on foot through rough terrain, arrange discreet transportation through hidden compartments in trucks, or coordinate bribes with police at cartel-controlled checkpoints.³ Some carry knowledge of when and where to cross to avoid danger such as animals or rough enviornments, and others pay off police or cartels to secure a safer passage.⁴ Protection can come in the form of shared food and water or finding shade to allow travelers to rest.⁵ While the media and legal policies often portray the relationship between smugglers and migrants as transactional relationship premised on criminal exploitation, research shows these relationships are far more complex. ⁶

Currently, U.S. federal laws and Texas statutes conflate dynamics between smugglers and migrants by not drawing a distinction between coercive trafficking such as human trafficking and non-coercive facilitations.⁷ Instead, immigrant smuggling is broadly characterized as the act of transporting or assisting immigrants.⁸ This broad definition encompasses many interpretations susceptible to criminal convictions. This can encompass a wide range of relationships and actions such as a cousin driving a family member to a border crossing, a neighbor offering a place to rest for the night, or a family friend connecting someone with a trusted guide. These acts, which can be rooted from kinship, solidarity, or humanitarian efforts, can still be prosecuted as criminal offenses under smuggling statutues thus blurring the line between exploitation and support. The overinclusion of the smuggling definition leads to risks of over-criminalization and constitutional infringements such as due process.⁹ This commentary explores how the statutory language used to define smuggling diverges from the legislature’s intended purpose, highlighting the disconnect with current enforcement measures.

My interest in this research stems from my own background. As a grandchild of immigrants, I was often reminded of where our family originates from. Growing up, I was never really told the story of how exactly my family immigrated to the U.S. but I was always reminded of my culture. My grandmother would always say “Si son fuertes, son inmigrantes.” which translates to: “If they are strong, they are immigrants.” However, as I began researching for this commentary, I wondered about the journey my grandparents took.

My maternal grandmother is from Monterrey, Mexico. She was the second youngest child of six children. She was twelve years old when she undertook the journey to cross the Mexico-U.S. border. Her father, my great-grandfather, wanted his family to move to the U.S. to escape the drug cartels and the violence they inflicted. My grandmother traveled with her parents, her siblings: Omar (Age 18), Antonio (Age 16), Maria (Age 15), Gil(Age 13), and Lala (Age 4). The family members, who had already migrated to the U.S. and found work as farmer laborers, told the family about employers looking for farm hands in the United States. When it came time to make the journey, they turned to their community to figure out how. My great-grandfather was friends with a man named Julio who would often come into their family-owned panaderia, and was often known as “the running man”. He was coined this nickname because he often smuggled migrants across the border. He had eaten at their restaurant, spoken to them for years, and even babysat my grandmother. My grandfather had spoken to Julio to ask for guidance. He agreed to help them cross. The coyote guided them through the rough terrain. He made sure they stayed together and unharmed for miles. My grandmother explained that they packed a months worth of food, but went through it in a week. They took photos, clothes, and heirlooms. They also took all of their money which was about $1,000 USD. When they passed checkpoints, Julio was very familiar with the place and was able to bargain wth the officials to give them deals on their bribes. Driving was not difficult, however, as they got closer to the border, they had to walk. While her older siblings kept up with the fast pace, her youngest sibling, Lala, struggled and slipped many times. Lala often cried and complained of the heat. My grandmother explained that she was always scared because she noticd they always had guns. When they neared the checkpoint, they had to swim across. My grandmother did not know how to swim, so she would cling on to her bagpack as a float. Her sister, Lala, was carried by her father. Once they entered into the U.S. they were met by a group of smuugglers who took them to their relatives in the states. Even when they entered in the U.S., Julio made sure to call them every month to ensure their safety. Once they crossed, they began working on the farms. It was all hand on deck, and the whole family lived on the farm in a barn. She said it was a pretty nice community as many workers were migrants from Mexico. My grandmother, who was twelve, picked strawberries while attending to her younger sibling who was four years old. Lala was still too young to work, so my grandmother would take breaks to entertain her. When she was about fourteen, my great-grandfather was offered a job at the ports in Brownsville, Texas. Her family was offered employment visas and eventually naturalized. Yet today, the very coyote who guided them could face up to 10 years in federal prison under current smuggling laws. His humanitarian efforts, the reason her family made it to the U.S. safely, would be erased by a legal system that sees only a crime, not the care or protection he provided.

My paternal grandparents shared an untraditional story. Before immigrating to the U.S., my grandparents were married, and my grandmother was pregnant with their first child. They were living in the outskirts of Matamoros, Mexico. On June 25, 1954, Hurricane Alice hit along the coast of northern Mexico and along the Rio Grande Valley. ¹⁰With heavy winds and rain, it produced one of the worst floodings in history.¹¹ The sudden, heavy runoff resulted in over fifty deaths, destroyed homes, and wiped out that year’s cotton crop.¹² Farmlands were left scarred by soil erosion, makinngn it difficult for communities in both Mexico and south Texass to grow food and crops.¹³ It was so severe, it was dubbed “Evil Alice” by Time magazine.¹⁴ A joint U.S.-Mexico project, allowed for those affected by the storm in Mexico to enter into the U.S. through work visas until the communities recovered.¹⁵ My grandparents worked on fields harvesting wheat in Texas. After a few years, they decided to stay in the U.S. and became naturalized after the birth of their third child.

Nearly all of my grandparents have passed, but their stories continue to inspire their children to reflect on their dedication to securing a better future for their family. In this commentary, I aim to highlight the current misalignment with smuggling laws with lived experiences from migrants and their complex relationships with coyotes. This analysis is drawn from my own family’s migration story and from individual narrativesshared in interviews conducted as part of the Journey Project. While these accounts are not intended to be broadly generalizable, they offer valuable insight into how migrannts avigate their journyes and how their realities oftn diverg from legal frameworks. I will begin by providing the legal frameworks that define and criminalize smuggling under both federal and Texas law, including statutory defintions, sentencing enhancements, and related criminal provsions. Following this, I will examine how these legal tools can lead to unintended or disproportionate consequences, particularly for individuals whose actions may be rooted in humanitarian intent rather than criminal exploitation. I will then draw on personal and interview-based narratives from the Journeys Project Financial Biographies, which serves as the foundation for examining how smuggling laws can produce unintended and disproportiante consequences. Finally, I will conclude by offering potential reforms aimed at addressing the disconnect between the legal defintions of smuggling and the lived realitiees of migrant experiences, particularly those that are acts motivated by humanitarian intent rathere than exploitive operations.

By acknowledging the variability of the migrant-coyote dynamics, lawmakers and policymakers can begin to draw clearer legal distinctions between exploitative smuggling operations and acts rooted iin caree or survival. In doing so, the immigration system can move toward reforms that offer protection rather than punishment for those aiding vulnerable migrants inhumanitariian contexts.

Legal Framework

“Migrant smuggling” (also known as “human smuggling”) is often referred to as “human trafficking” interchangeably.¹⁶ However, these are two distinct crimes with their own elements and penalties.¹⁷ Migrant smuggling generally involves consensual arrangements in which individuals pay to be transported across border, whereas human trafficking typically involves coercion, exploitation, force.¹⁸ While both are criminalized, they differ significantly in their legal definitions, elements, and penalties.¹⁹

This conflation of these two terms has been driven in part by the implementation of increasingly restrictive immigration policies and amplified media narratives which has blurred these distinctions.²⁰ Migrant smuggling is often tied to immigration and border enforcement while trafficking laws are tied to much broader contexts.²¹ However, as more attention has been focused on immigration through the lens of trafficking, this can obscure the nnuanced realities of migrants journeys and the motivations behind them.²²

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, federal law prohibits a range of conduct related to the unlawful entry and movement of migrants into the U.S.²³ This includes knowlingly bringing a person into the U.S. at a place other than a designated port of entry, trasnportating or harbooring undocumented individuals within the country, and encouraging or inducing a person to enter or reside in the U.S. unlawfully.²⁴ The statute also criminalizes consipiraccy or aiding and abetting any of these actiions.

These offenses fall under the category of migrant smuggling which is distingushed from human smuggling by the migrant’s general consent to the journey and the focus on unauthorized bordeere crossing, rather than coeerecion or exploitation. ²⁵ Federal penalities vary depending on the conduct, intent and resulting harm.²⁶ For instance, if the conduct was committed for “commercial advantage or private gain”, a person can receive up to 10 years of imprisonment.²⁷ Conversely, if there was no financial motive, they can receive up to 5 years.²⁸ Additional enhancements of up to 10 years may apply if the offense involves transporting 10 or more individuals at once, is committed as part of an ongoing commercial enterprise, poses a life-threatening health risk, or endangers the lives of the migrants being smuggled.²⁹

Most notably, the statute includes a narrow religious exemption which allows individual working for bona fide nonprofiit religious organizations are exempt when their assistance is porivded as part of official missionary work.³⁰ However, this exemption does not apply to others who may act out of humanitarian concern and without religious affiliation. In those cases, the law does not differentiate between financial motivations and compassion.

Critically, under § 1324, a migrant’s consent to be transported or harbored is not a defense. In other words, the law does not consider whether the migrant agreed to the assistance.³¹ Instead, the focus is on the actions of the person providing aid.³² Similarly, any form of payment, regardless of the amount or purpose of it, from the migrant to the smuggler assisting them can satisfy the element of “financial gain”.³³ Even if the payment was merely to cover travel costs or essentials, it would be considered. ³⁴This broad interpretation contributes to the overly broad nature of the statute which includes individual’s actions, while technically unlawful, may not reflect the exploitive conduct the law is intended to deter.

Texas Penal Code § 20.05 makes it a crime to knowling transport a person with the intent to conel them from law enforcement.³⁵ The statute also criminalizes actions such as inducing, encourgaging or guiding a migrant to remain in the U.S. in violation of law.³⁶ Unlike federal law, the Texas statute does not require proof that the conduct was for financial gain.³⁷ This sgnnificantly broadens its reach, making it more aggressive than federal law in the scope of conduct it penalizes. ³⁸ Because the focus is on an individual’s intent to conceal or facilitate unlawful presceence, the statute can apply a wider range of situations.³⁹ This includes those that may be considered “smuggling” such as picking up a family member from the border with tinted windows.⁴⁰ Under Texas law, criminal liabiiligty can attach to such a situation even where the assistance provided is without malicious intent.⁴¹ The statatute itself does not mention anything about familial relatioins, humanitairna aid, or coerced participatioin, however, as I will later illustrate, its broad language has been applied to cases involving family members, friends, and others whose primary motive was to assist rather than exploit.⁴² Texas’s approach risks encompassing conduct that, while is technically unlawful, is different from the commercial or exploittive smuggling operations the public often associates with this crime. ⁴³

Both the federal and Texas smuggling statutes paint with a overly broad brush, often assuming that anyone who facilitiates a migrant’s journey is engages in violent, exploitative or smuggling-like conduct.⁴⁴ Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324 was enacted by Congress as part of a comprehensive anti-human amuggling law aimed at curbing illegal immigration.⁴⁵ It’s stated purpose was to target those who knowingly help people cross into the U.S. illegally or assist them in remaining in the U.S. unlawfully.⁴⁶ Specifically, it was towards circumstances involving organized smuggling operations.⁴⁷ While the federal law does consider motivation and intent when determining penalties, neither it nor Texas law meaningfully distinguishes between exploitation and compassion. ⁴⁸Legislative discussion around both laws emphasize stopping organized, dangerous trafficking-like networks, but the language surrounding both laws encompasses far more conduct. ⁴⁹

This overinclusivity creates two distinct risks for migrant communities. First, it exposes individuals who have no connection to organized smuggling groups to severe criminal penalites. Second, it can deter migrants from turning to trsuted individuals, forcing them to rely on unknown individuals seeking to exploit them or potentially lead them to dangerous situations. These statutes intend to protect migrants, but instead, they increase their vulnerability while punishing those who only aid them through the perilous journey.

The Reality of Migrant-Coyote Relationship

This legal framework presented by both Texas and federaling smuggling statutes creates a presumption that all forms of smuggling are exploitative and inherently criminal.⁵⁰ However, firsthand accounts reveal a different reality. It is one shaped by necessity, trust and unofficial networks of assistance. This type of relationship is what I refer as “consensual aid” where there are certain situations in which migrants knowingly accept help from individuals they trust. This can be family members, friends or those straight from their community. This relationship differs from those that are driven by profit and coercion, yet still fall into the current statutory language.

Generally, immigrating legally into the U.S. can be difficult because eligibility for a Verified International Stay Approval (visa) is often rigorous.⁵¹ For instance, obtaining legal counsel for such proceedings could be costly.⁵² However, based on the narratives shared with the Journeys Project, the process for obtaining a visa and even the basic understanding of how it works was unknown to many migrants.⁵³ In the narratives collected through interviews of migrants revealed that many if not all migrants enter the U.S. using a coyote.⁵⁴ A respondent to an interview regarding their journey stated “It is impossible to get a visa. You need someone in the United States that will sponsor you. Even if you could get a visa, it is more expensive to pursue the process legally. It is really not that difficult to just cross the border.” ⁵⁵ While this perspective reflects the conditions at the time of that migrant’s journey, increased U.S. border enforcement and the growing control of drug cartels have since made crossing far more dangerous, leading many migrants to view hiring a coyote as a necessity for navigating the route safely.⁵⁶

The first step for many migrants is to find a coyote that is reliable.⁵⁷ Many migrants seek out those who have been recommended by friends or family. Some of these coyotes are from similar migrant communities or surrounding municipalities.⁵⁸ Migrants often know the family members of these coyotes which further adds to their reliability.⁵⁹ Another key feature is whether the coyote charges their fees after a successful crossing or asks for part or all of the fee upfront.⁶⁰ Many migrants recognize that if they ask for fees before the journey, these are unreliable and should be avoided.⁶¹

Contrary to belief, coyotes compete for clients by adjusting their services to tailor to clients based on physical demand, exposure risks, and costs.⁶² For example, cheaper services often involve more grueling journeys through tough terrains, which is only accessible to younger and fit migrants.⁶³ The more expensive services offer quick sprints and hiding in vehicles.⁶⁴ Therefore, these services are shaped by a migrant’s circumstances and needs rather than criminal exploitation.⁶⁵

The journey itself is often more organized by coyotes with their connections and expertise. Groups of migrants will often travel together under the guidance of four or five coyotes jointly.⁶⁶ The narco control of these routes makes it impossible for migrants to travel, but if sanctioned to do so, they are allowed to pass for a bribe.⁶⁷ Usually, buses are used to signal that they are sanctioned to travel because they are guided by coyotes.⁶⁸ Some participants described encounters at multiple police or military checkpoints, where an official will collect money from each passenger for passage, however, some coyotes will negotiate for a reduced price for passengers.⁶⁹ They also recounted being taken to narco-approved safe houses near the U.S. border where they waited until it is safe to cross.⁷⁰ Interviewees testified that the coyote will send a scout to monitor border patrol activity, and once deemed safe, the coyote will guide their groups across the Rio Grande by foot, traveling for about three days through rough terrain. ⁷¹ Most migrants said that they prepared in advance by bringing liters of water and food, but others are not and run out of water.⁷² However one interviewee mentioned that some coyotes are resourceful and will guide their group to natural water source or heavily shaded areas to replenish their resources.⁷³ In this context, the coyote is more of a guide and survival expert.

Upon crossing the border, coyotes do not merely abandon migrants in the U.S. They guide them to safe houses in major cities such as San Antonio or Houston where they can contact their family members, shower, clean their clothes, eat, and wait. Once coyotes are paid, the migrants are free to leave.⁷⁴ While this journey is not safe, a coyote is not always typical villain in an organized cartel seeking to exploit vulnerable migrants, but rather they are a guide vouched for by reliable sources. However, both the federal and Texas statutes fail to distinguish coercive trafficking from consensual aid which are situations where trust family members, friends or those who are from their community facilitate movement out of necessity or survival, without coercion or abuse.

Much of these stories echoes my own family’s history that likewise includes stories of often misunderstood realities migrants face in their journeys across borders. For example, my maternal grandmother crossed the U.S.-Mexico border with the assistance of a coyote. Her coyote, was a trusted family friend. She would speak about this man as if he was a part of her family. He ate with my grandmother’s family often, and would sing along side them at church on Sundays. This was not exploitive, but instead, an essential resource for my family seeking safety and opportunity for a better life. Had he not guided my grandmother and her family, she believed they would not have made it safely and together. By contrast, my paternal grandparents entered into the U.S. through a joint humanitarian work program, designed to aid those who were affected by a devastating hurricane, rather than through a clandestine arrangement. While their path was lawful and facilitated by the government, it served the same end as my maternal grandmother’s journey. They both sought a safe passage toward orrportunity. They are different but they reflecs how migration is hinged upon survival rather than criminal exploitation.

Misalignment Between Law and Reality

Current federal and Texas statutes treat all instances of migrant smuggling as if they involve the same level of exploitation or coercion, even though the law already covers those harmful scenarios⁷⁵. These statutes fail to distinguish between those acts and invididuals enganged in “consensual aid”. By not acknowledging these differences, the laws risk imposing the same severe punishments on individuals acting with humanitarian efforts in a similar manner as those who deliberately exploit migrants.

Addtionally, these laws overlook the important distinction: not all facilitations occurs through exploitative or coercive means.⁷⁶ For example, in some cases it might be similar to my maternal grandmother’s journey which was arranged and guided by a trusted family friend. This was consensual aid that served as the means to reach opportunity and safety. While these types of relationship represent a small portion of all smuggling cases, they do exist, and should be treated differently from those that are harmful.⁷⁷ Under both the federal and Texas law, the same severe penalties apply to those offering shelter or paying off a migrant’s debt to traffickers.⁷⁸ By failing to recognize the differences, the statutes risk improper convictions and disregard the reason for such statutes: protecting migrants and U.S. citizens. ⁷⁹

And yet, the reality migrants experience demonstrates that the migrant-coyote relationship may be built on reliability, responsibility, and mutual survival.⁸⁰ While coyotes are viewed as criminals to U.S. laws, they at times operate as vital resource for migrants who seek to navigate the treacherous journey.⁸¹

Another consequence is that these laws can undermine joint U.S.Mexico initiatives that aim to provide humanitarian relief such as temporary migration or work visas.⁸² By criminalizing all forms of migration assistance, these staututes risk discourgaging cooperation and detering individuals and organizatiosn from acting out of compassion.⁸³

This misalignment can discourage migrants from pursuing lawful immigration processes because doing so might expose those who aided them.⁸⁴ In addition, broad enforcement fosters distruct between migrant ccommunities and government agencies, reducing cooperation in both criminal and humanitarian initiatives.⁸⁵ Without statutory or judicial reforms to differentiate these situations, migrants will remain vulnerable which prevents the wholereasoning for implementing these statutes.

Reform

To addresss this misalignment, one potential solution is to challenge the Texas stautes under the doctrine of federal presumption.⁸⁶ Preemption is the constiitutioinal principle that prevents states from regulating areas of the law that are reserved exclusively for the federal government.⁸⁷ Immigration enforcement has long been recognized as one such federal power, and when a state law duplicates or conflicts with federal law, they can be struck down. ⁸⁸

Preemption could serve as a solution because the federal smuggling statute, while still broad, but is narrower in scope as it distinguishes the severity of penalties based on intent.⁸⁹ By contrast, the Texas law capes a wider range of conduct because of this omission.

Recently, the Fith Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas issued an opinion recognizing that immigration enforcement is a “federal power”.⁹⁰ However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he plans to appeal, leaving it as an open possibility that the state ccould continue to enforce its law.⁹¹ If unsuccessful, it would allow for a more uniform, federally-guided approach to smuggling enforcements.⁹²

Another solution involves amending statutory affirmative defenses such as duress or necessirty for individuals aiding in migrant travel that deos not include exploitation or coercion.⁹³ For example, had the coyote that assisted my maternal grandmother’s family been barred from arguing that his actions where based on trust and safety rather than profit, he would have faced years in a federal prison.⁹⁴ Without his help, my family might have been forced to attempt the journey alone with no guidance and no knowledge of how to survive such a journey.⁹⁵

Lastly, the most effective solution is to expand lawful opportunities fro migrants to obtain visas.⁹⁶ Historically, programs that are humanitarian or temporary work visas show that accessible legal pathways are possible.⁹⁷ This would reduce the demand for shady operations by offering realistic and attainable means of lawful entry.⁹⁸ As my paternal grandparents’ experience illustrates, migrants with legal status can avoid reliance on informal, risky arrangements. empowering the legal standing of migrants simuntaneouusly weakens control of thos who seek to exploit individuals with the needs to make the journney, but without the legal authorization.

Conclusion

These realities demonstrate the complexities of smuggling and the law’s failure to accotn for thm. My grandmother, a twelve-year-old-girl who was guided across the border by a trusted family friend, represents a form of consensual aid that current statutes risl treating the same as organized, exploitative smuggling operations. Conversely, my paternal grandparents entered through a humanitarian program which srves as a example of how accessible legal pathways can remove the need for exploittive smuggling operations. In both cases, the people who helped them were not criminals seeking to exploit, but trusted allies who provided guidance and safety.

Today’s legal framework from smuggling leaves little to no room for these real-life situations. My family was not the first and will not be the last to seek out such assistance. By generalizing all forms of assistance with exploitation and coercion, these laws criminalize every relationship that has been formed in each migrant’s effort to survive.

To recognize and honor the reality for those who came before us, and those who continue to do so, we must prod for legal reform that would reflect these stories. Unless we do so, these laws will continue to generalize all smugglers, leaving those who act out of humanitarian compassion to face similar criminal penalties as those who act with malice.

Notes

¹ Rising Border Encounters in 2021: An Overview Analysis, Am. Immigration Council, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/rising-border-encounters-in-2021/; Adam Isacson, Five Migration and Security Trends at the U.S.Mexico Border, WOLA (Nov. 12, 2024), https://www.wola.org/analysis/five-migration-and-security-trends-at-the-u-s-mexico-border/#:~:text=These%20include%20rough%20treatment%20from,acknowledge%20an%20apparent%20opposition%20victory (“These include rough treatment from U.S. and Mexican migration officials; family separations; kidnappings for ransom in Mexico; assaults and theft from criminals and corrupt officials in Mexico; racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ discrimination; squalid living conditions; denial of urgent health care; and increasing migrant deaths on U.S. soil.”). ↩

² Extended Interview: A Human Smuggler, PBS: Frontline World (Apr. 3, 2008), https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/mexico704/interview/smuggler.html (describing the safety precautions and responsibilities of a human smugger). ↩

³ See generally Kim Wilson & Anargiros Z. Frangos, Henry J. Leir Institute for Immigration & Human Security, Coyotes, Tandas, and a Quest for Closure: Conversations with Recent Immigrants from Puebla, Mexico (Jan. 2023) available at https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.tufts.edu/dist/5/7316/files/2023/01/Coyotes_Tandas_And_A_Quest_For_Closure.pdf. ↩

⁴ Id. ↩

⁵ Id. ↩

⁶ See BBC News, BBC Investigates Violent Cross-Channel Migrant Smuggling Gangs, (YouTube, Aug. 5, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDEpDTHxvQQ. ↩

⁷ Human Trafficking & Migrant Smuggling: Understanding the Difference, U.S. Dep’t of State (June 2017), https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/272325.pdf (providing awareness in the key distinctions between human trafficking and migrant smuggling). ↩

⁸ Id. ↩

⁹ Id. ↩

¹⁰ 60th Anniversary of Hurricane Alice and the First 24-Hour Hurricane Track Forecast, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (June 25, 2014), https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hurricane_blog/60th-anniversary-of-hurricane-alice-and-the-first-24-hour-hurricane-track-forecast/#:~:text=On%20June%2025%2C%201954%2C%20Hurricane,storms%20named%20Alice%20in%201954. ↩

¹¹ Id. ↩

¹² Id. ↩

¹³ Id. ↩

¹⁴ Id. ↩

¹⁵ Id. ↩

¹⁶ Id. ↩

¹⁷ Id. ↩

¹⁸ Id. ↩

¹⁹ Id. ↩

²⁰ Id. ↩

²¹ Thi Hoang, Questions of Intent: Where mixed Migration and Human Trafficking Overlap, Mixed Migration Centre (Dec. 6, 2022), https://mixedmigration.org/questions-of-intent-mixed-migration-human-trafficking/#:~:text=Before%20exploring%20these%20two%20concepts,a%20migrant%20or%20refugee's%20journey. ↩

²² Id. ↩

²³ 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (1) (A-B) ↩

²⁴ Id. ↩

²⁵ Id. ↩

²⁶ Id. ↩

²⁷ Id. ↩

²⁸ Id. ↩

²⁹ Id. ↩

³⁰ 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (1) (C) ↩

³¹ See Hannah Hamley, The Weaponization of the “Alien Harboring” Statutte in a New-Era of Racial Animus Towards Immigrants, 44 Seattle L.J. 173, 193-194 (2020) (arguing the Harboring statute diminishes these efforts to: “(1) harass and prosecute nonprofit organizations and good Samaritans who offer assistance to immigrants; (2) coerce immigrants and their families and friends into complying with the government’s demands; (3) strip DACAmented individuals of their deferred action status; and (4) initiate deportation proceedings.”) ↩

³² Id. ↩

³³ Id. ↩

³⁴ Id. ↩

³⁵ Tex. Crim. Stat. § 20.05 (2024). ↩

³⁶ Id. ↩

³⁷ Compare Id. with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(C). ↩

³⁸ Id. ↩

³⁹ Id. ↩

⁴⁰ Id. ↩

⁴¹ Id. ↩

⁴² Id. ↩

⁴³ Id. ↩

⁴⁴ Id. ↩

⁴⁵ Title 8 U.S.Code § 1324 – Bringing In and Harboring Aliens, Eisner Gorin, LLP, https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/harboring-aliens#:~:text=Title%208%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%201324%20%2D%20Bringing%20in%20and%20Harboring%20Aliens&text=For%20many%20people%2C%20America%20represents,statute%20in%20more%20detail%20below (giving a brief overview of the statutes and its origin). ↩

⁴⁶ Id. ↩

⁴⁷ Id. ↩

⁴⁸ See Sens. Ossoff, Blackburn Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Crack Down on Human Smuggling Across Southern Border, Off. of U.S. Sen. for Georgia Jon Ossoff (Nov. 14, 2024), https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-blackburn-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-crack-down-on-human-smuggling-across-southern-border/#:~:text=In%20May%2C%20Sen.,Sens (focusing on the introduction of a bill aimed at need protecting victims and stop human smuggling organizations). ↩

⁴⁹ Id. ↩

⁵⁰ See Thi Hoang, Questions of Intent: Where mixed Migration and Human Trafficking Overlap, Mixed Migration Centre (Dec. 6, 2022), https://mixedmigration.org/questions-of-intent-mixed-migration-human-trafficking/#:~:text=Before%20exploring%20these%20two%20concepts,a%20migrant%20or%20refugee's%20journey. ↩

⁵¹ David J. Bier, Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible, CATO (June 13, 2023), https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible; see generally Emily Ryo, Beyond Legal Deserts: Access to Counsel for Immigrannts Facing Removal, 101 N.C.L. Rev. 787, 819-825 (2023) (citing language barriers, lack of legal counsel and overall gerographic networks as reasons for why it may be difficult to seek legal pathways). ↩

⁵² Id. ↩

⁵³ Kim Wilson & Anargiros Z. Frangos, Coyotes, Tandas, and a Quest for Closure: Conversations with Recent Immigrants from Puebla, Mexico, Henry J. Leir Institute for Immigration & Human Security (Jan. 2023) available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZvO0YLfCmGV353cLRTjjY7StsrzYPBto/view. (discussing with an interviewees about the practical possibility of immigrating legally). ↩

⁵⁴ Id. at 4. ↩

⁵⁵ Id. ↩

⁵⁶ Id. ↩

⁵⁷ Id. at 5. ↩

⁵⁸ Id. ↩

⁵⁹ Id. ↩

⁶⁰ Id. ↩

⁶¹ Id. ↩

⁶² Id. ↩

⁶³ Id. ↩

⁶⁴ Id. ↩

⁶⁵ Id. ↩

⁶⁶ Id. ↩

⁶⁷ Id. ↩

⁶⁸ Id. ↩

⁶⁹ Kim Wilson & Anargiros Z. Frangos, Financial Biographies of Migrants in the United States,, Henry J. Leir Institute for Immigration & Human Security (Nov. 2023) available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OmO2Vg6RlkbMBGxftqFk2T2xud-iP0M-/view. ↩

⁷⁰ Id. at 9. ↩

⁷¹ Id. at 13. ↩

⁷² Id. at 9-10. ↩

⁷³ Id. at 14. ↩

⁷⁴ Kim Wilson & Anargiros Z. Frangos, Coyotes, Tandas, and a Quest for Closure: Conversations with Recent Immigrants from Puebla, Mexico, Henry J. Leir Institute for Immigration & Human Security (Jan. 2023) available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZvO0YLfCmGV353cLRTjjY7StsrzYPBto/view. (discussing with an interviewees about the practical possibility of immigrating legally). ↩

⁷⁵ Elizabeth A. Solis, Migrant Vulnerability to Human Trafficking: A Decade in Review, 17 McNair J. 51, 55 (2024). ↩

⁷⁶ Human Trafficking & Migrant Smuggling: Understanding the Difference, U.S. Dep’t of State (June 2017), https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/272325.pdf (providing awareness in the key distinctions between human trafficking and migrant smuggling). ↩

⁷⁷ Id. ↩

⁷⁸ Id. ↩

⁷⁹ Id. ↩

⁸⁰ Kim Wilson & Anargiros Z. Frangos, Financial Biographies of Migrants in the United States,, Henry J. Leir Institute for Immigration & Human Security (Nov. 2023) available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OmO2Vg6RlkbMBGxftqFk2T2xud-iP0M-/view. ↩

⁸¹ Id. ↩

⁸² Council and AILA submit Comments on the Biden Administration’s Final Rule Restricting Access to Humanitarian Protections at the U.S./Mexico Border, Am. Immigration Council (Nov. 8, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/advocacy/council-and-aila-submit-comments-biden-administrations-final-rule-restricting-access/ (commenting that changes to laws for additional border security could affect asylum seekers by wrongfully returning them to harmful and dangerous situations). ↩

⁸³ Id. ↩

⁸⁴ David J. Bier, Why Legal Immigration Is Impossible for Nearly Everyone, CATO Institute (June 13, 2023), https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible. ↩

⁸⁵ Id. ↩

⁸⁶ Alejandra Aramayo, Federal Preemption and State Authority to Deter the Presence of Unlawfully Present Aliens: An Overview and Issues for the 119th Congress, Congress.Gov (May 6, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48525. ↩

⁸⁷ Id. ↩

⁸⁸ Id. ↩

⁸⁹ Id. ↩

⁹⁰ Dan Katz, Fifth Circuit Blocks Texas from Enforcing Immigration Law, Legal Battle Continues, Tex. Public Radio (July 6, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11321.web.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20held,context%2C%20see%20this%20CRS%20report.; https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2025-07-06/fifth-circuit-blocks-texas-from-enforcing-immigration-law-legal-battle-continues. ↩

⁹¹ Id. ↩

⁹² Id. ↩

⁹³ See Rabin Nabizadeh, What is the Difference Between Duress and Necessity?, Summit Defense Criminal Lawyers (Apr. 18, 2025), https://summitdefense.com/san-jose-criminal-defense-attorney/difference-between-duress-and-necessity/#:~:text=For%20a%20defense%20of%20duress,the%20threat's%20immediacy%20and%20severity (“The necessity defense is an affirmative defense invoked when a person commits a crime to prevent greater harm. Unlike duress, which involves human threats, the necessity defense deals with situations where natural or situational pressures compel someone to break the law.”); But see Model Law Against the Smuggling of Migrants, U.N. Docs. (Oct. 2010), https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Model_Law_Smuggling_of_Migrants_10-52715_Ebook.pdf (“There may be situations where smugglers deliberately abuse or misuse the asylum process (for example, by lodging fraudulent asylum claims) as part of their modus operandi for enabling illegal entry, transit or residence.”). ↩

⁹⁴ Id. ↩

⁹⁵ Id. ↩

⁹⁶ Muzaffar Chishti, et. al, Rethinking the U.S. Legal Immigration System: A Policy Road Map, Migration Policy Institute (May 2021), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/rethinking-us-legal-immigration-road-map. ↩

⁹⁷ Id. ↩

⁹⁸ Id. ↩