Neighborhood Watch in the Desert? Techniques of Neutralization and Identity Frameworks to Better Understand Nativist Groups as Concerned Citizens and/or Vigilantes

Abstract

This article evaluates civilian border group activity in the U.S.–Mexico border region and how neighborhood watch and vigilante identities form through these activities. The paper uses re-conceptualized techniques of neutralization along with collective identity frameworks to assess actions and ideas of civilian border group members engaged in law enforcement practices. Using in-depth interviews and participant observation, the paper focuses on group members’ rationalizations that shape and/or affect their group identity. Main findings include how civilian border groups focus on filling cracks left by the perceived inadequate response from formal government law enforcement agencies. Revealing strategies and rationalizations used to justify the groups’ existence as a neighborhood watch, with less emphasis on their vigilante activities and identity, helps to fully understand how these group members form their identity. This identity of civilian border group members is fluid and changes with the role they assume. In some of their actions, they are vigilantes; in others, they resemble neighborhood watches.

1. Introduction

The U.S.–Mexico border region is a common focus when immigration is at the front of national conversations. In addition, the southern border wall continues to become longer, igniting conversations about immigration along the 2000-mile-long border. The focus of this paper is on non-state actors and how they reorganize security techniques, such as neighborhood watches, to shape their identity regarding immigration and border security. Additionally, these non-state actors use techniques to justify their actions. Using a recently developed and expanded model of neutralization techniques, this paper helps to better understand how non-state actors build and maintain their identity in the southern borderlands. Neighborhood watches have traditionally been thought of as an urban crime prevention tool. Applying the principles of neighborhood watch outside a traditional neighborhood is not common. Instead of preventing crime, the target is undocumented migrants crossing the border illegally, which is not common to apply a neighborhood watch frame. Within the paper, the term Civilian Border Group (CBG) refers specifically to groups and their members focused on securing the U.S.–Mexico border. Many in society view anti-immigrant groups as vigilantes, doing a job the government is tasked to do. The media portray their activities as being outside a legal framework. The focus the media puts on the group’s activities draws the public to speculate about the motivations behind these groups, particularly because of the race and ethnicity of those crossing the southern border. By focusing on one vigilante group in southern Arizona, this paper seeks to analyze their implementation of neighborhood watch techniques and vigilante ideals in the desert and how they rationalize their identities of being vigilantes or concerned citizens.

Many participants view their activities as engaging in neighborhood watches; in this case, that neighborhood is the Sonoran Desert. The larger society and media have labeled them as vigilantes. They develop strategies for the vigilante label to be more positive despite their and others’ actions. For example, Shawna Forde was found guilty of first-degree murder and was affiliated with the Minuteman Movement (Schabner 2011). Another example includes patrolling areas that are currently being patrolled by law enforcement officers, specifically, the border patrol. Neighborhood watches and vigilante identities have many actions and behaviors that overlap. In one light, these behaviors are described as vigilante and in another are seen as being neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watches work with local law enforcement, and in the case of these groups, the Border Patrol does not work with or endorse their activities. Allowing anti-immigrant group members to define their identity within their group and the actions they take will enable one to understand the anti-immigrant movement from the members’ perspectives. Identity in social movements is fluid and dynamic, allowing members to reshape their identity as needed. Many of the participants were active in a national movement and had to reshape their identity when the smaller movements became one of the few ways to continue their activity on the border. Many members use the concerned citizen identity to outweigh or replace the vigilante identity. Taking their negative identity and replacing it with a more positive identity is one way to reshape the narrative surrounding their activities. An additional way to reshape their identity is using rationalizations and techniques to justify their actions. The central question of this research is: How do Civilian Border Group (CBG) members’ rationalizations shape and/or affect their group identities?

2. Literature Review

Applying neighborhood watch practices and philosophy to civilian border groups has not been done before. The key outcome of neighborhood watches is crime prevention; in this case, the prevention of illegal crossings. Using protective strategies, a focus on neighborhood collective action puts the civilian border groups and their operations into context. Local volunteers are the most likely participants because they are motivated to prevent crime from occurring.

Neighborhood watches emerged in 1972 “involv[ing] citizens coming together in relatively small groups to share information about local crime problems, exchange crime prevention tips, and make plans for engaging in surveillance of the neighborhood and crime-reporting activities” (Rosenbaum 1986, p. 104). The involvement is a cooperation of local law enforcement officials helping to prevent crime. The passivity of watch, being able to not act, has led to the creation of citizen patrols who look for a more aggressive approach to surveillance. Prior to the development of formalized policing, patrols were seen as vigilantes, taking the law into their own hands to protect property or country (DuBow and Emmons 1981; Rosenbaum 1988). Patrols are created when a need is identified, such as the prevention of crime along the U.S.–Mexico border. Ranchers along the border created a citizen patrol group called the American Border Patrol to help detect the presence of undocumented migrants crossing the border illegally (Miller and Hess 2007). Other groups were active in many U.S. states, not just border states.

The role of the citizen in policing as it applies to the border can be weak and uncertain. The U.S.–Mexico border is 2000 miles long and would be difficult to patrol primarily with government officers. If the civilian border groups were given policing powers or able to share power with law enforcement, the blurring of the citizen role with the police/official role may become difficult to distinguish. The activities straddle the lawful-unlawful balance, in one instance being lawful and the next unlawful. For example, patrolling areas for migrant activity or holding migrants they come across may be viewed as lawful and unlawful, respectively.

The concept of vigilantism may seem straightforward, but there is no one agreed-upon definition. In its classic sense, vigilantism refers to “organized, extralegal movements which take the law in their own hands” (Kenney 1987, p. 15). The vigilante is ever-changing, matching what is being studied more than a common definition. Vigilante “occupies an awkward borderland between law and illegality, and the veil of secrecy that cloaks much vigilante activity also provides cover for deception, so that it is by no means always what it seems or claims to be” (Abrahams 2008, p. 422). Abrahams (2008) describes vigilantism not as a thing unto itself, but rather a thing in relation to the phenomenon being used to label it. The need to apply the label of vigilante will be more powerful in relation to the act rather than a definition that is applied generically. There are actions that are completely legal yet perceived to be illegal, hence vigilante in nature. Vigilantism cannot exist on its own, but rather on the edges of state power and tends to be “more critical of the state’s actual performance than of the state itself” (Abrahams 2008, p. 423). Over the 30 years since the creation of civilian border groups, many people have participated in activities along the border. These activities include musters, which were gatherings of group members to “defend the border” and “holding the line” activities that required group members to line up at various known crossing locations of migrants to stop any unauthorized crossings (Doty 2007; Shapira 2013b). The current iteration of these groups is both constructive, adding to the discussion about border relations and issues with immigration reform, as well as destructive in their actions, based in racialized and nationalistic fervor.

Beyond constructing identity in a group, one must justify or rationalize their involvement. To mitigate one’s tendency to develop a deviant identity, techniques of neutralization may be applied. Sykes and Matza (1957) were among the first to study neutralizations. They put forth five techniques: denial of or blaming the victim, condemning the condemners, denial of responsibility, denial of injury, and appeal to higher loyalties. Since then, many researchers have continued studying and applying various techniques to neutralize participation in various behaviors. The theory itself never evolved until Kaptein and van Helvoort (2019) created a model to help better understand neutralizations and rationalizations by expanding the field of potential techniques from 5 to 12 categories with 60 sub-techniques. Their model starts with two categories. These are the denial of deviant behavior and denial of responsibility. Each of these categories has six neutralization techniques with five sub-techniques in each area. The focus of this paper is on techniques residing in the denying the deviant side of the model, with technique four (reducing norms to facts) and five (appealing to another norm). Within these two main techniques, there are four sub-techniques. These include the reduction to labels, the reduction in the immorality of accusers, the appeal to higher goals, and the appeal to rights (Kaptein and van Helvoort 2019).

Collective identity is at the core of understanding how and why members attach to a particular group. Collective identity is defined as “an individual’s cognitive, moral, and emotional connection with a broader community, category, practice, or institution” (Poletta and Jasper 2001, p. 285). A primary goal for movements is to change their identity, setting up who ‘we’ are versus who ‘they’ want us to be (Poletta and Jasper 2001). Creating a shared sense of ‘we-ness’ or collective agency ultimately creates an oppositional consciousness (Hunt and Benford 2004). Identity is fluid and relational. People may have multiple reasons why they join and still identify with a movement by enhancing the narrative and demanding recognition for their new identity. One can see that “activists construct, deconstruct, celebrate, and enact collective identities as strategies of protest” (Poletta and Jasper 2001, p. 294). Additionally, in previous versions of these anti-immigrant groups, the problem of the “free rider” was greater because of the size of the movement (Miller 1992). The current movement size makes it more difficult for participants to float through and not be active members on the ground.

The main struggle with collective identity within a movement is boundary work. This consists of presenting an antagonistic relationship, us versus them, in-group and out-group, to construct a sense of who the group members are and are not (Hunt and Benford 2004). Once these boundaries are set, members “maintain and enforce those boundaries” (Hunt and Benford 2004, p. 443). There is no single identity, maintaining the fluidity of identity and constant changing due to external pressures (Poletta and Jasper 2001; Hunt and Benford 2004; Shapira 2013a). Collective identity is formed through interactions with allies, those opposed to the movement, bystanders, and audiences such as the media, or others who encounter movement members (Hunt and Benford 2004). While building a collective identity through a social movement, resources can become scarce and movement size and energy will be affected (Jenkins 1983). The lack of resources can affect how members feel about the efficacy and future of the movement. Ultimately, framing is the negotiation of the collective identity of the group and will affix to the group’s overall message and ideology.

3. The Spectacle in the Desert

Civilian border groups are neither new nor extraordinary. Upon the creation of the U.S.–Mexico border, local farmers and citizens banded together to protect their property. It was not until the 1980s and 1990s that the call to protect the border expanded to include non-border residents. These efforts helped to create a spectacle that would eventually cause others concerned with immigration to take note and move their organization to protect the Southern border (Doty 2007). Many nativist groups portray Mexicans as “swarthy, impoverished hordes” trying to take over or invade the United States (Henderson 2011). They characterize those who cross the southern border as Mexican or OTM—other than Mexican (Bonner 2005) who should be feared for their potential dangerousness.

Two main vigilante groups emerged in 2005. The Minutemen Civil Defense Corps and the Minutemen Project produced what Chavez calls “a spectacle in the desert” (Chavez 2008). The spectacle is meant to draw attention to the border and the issue of illegal immigration and migrant crossings. The main purpose for calling everyday citizens to the border was to draw national attention to a perceived lack in border security, reduce the number of apprehensions by Border Patrol in the area, and influence the US Congress to act on immigration (Chavez 2008). Shapira (2013b) and Doty (2007) both explore the creation and spectacle produced by these groups in the desert of Arizona. The disbanding of these national groups due to a fracturing of ideologies made way for splinter groups to emerge from the previous groups’ membership. These groups developed an expanded definition and identity of their role in the southern border region. The focus of this paper is on a group created after the dissolution of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps.

Determining when watching crosses the line to vigilantism, Shapira (2013b) and Doty (2007, 2009) illustrate the complex and fluid nature of members’ identities. Shapira shows the complexity of belonging and how more than one identity can emerge or exist depending on the situation (Shapira 2013b). These identities are tied to political identity and movement identity (Shapira 2013a). Doty includes popular sovereignty to focus the conversation on the people and how vigilantes are standing up for what is right (Doty 2007). Popular sovereignty implies some relationship with the law and the state and allows for the complexity of this relationship between the state and civilian actors to be better understood (Doty 2007). Elcioglu (2015) applies Doty’s popular sovereignty to the 2010s incarnation of anti-immigrant groups and applies the motivations of the “soldiers” as an extension of the Border Patrol. These “soldiers” are the members of the anti-immigrant movement groups. Hence, bringing the complicated identities of patrollers and protectors to create a grey area of watch and vigilante.

4. Materials and Methods

Using in-depth interviews and engaging in participant observation, it was possible to speak to members of civilian border groups and learn about their experiences and ideologies (Lofland et al. 2004). Data collection occurred from October 2010 to November 2011. After receiving IRB approval, a snowball sample was used to recruit participants and allow each respondent to recommend another member for an interview. There were nine participants willing to sit for an in-depth interview. The sample is small because no new referrals were received. Members of these groups tend to be skeptical and weary of outsiders joining their movement or talking with them. Several members of the civilian border groups were fearful their message was going to be distorted, or their identity would be made public, and they feared for their safety. The members interviewed were not racially diverse: all appeared to be white. Six were men, and three were women. Two of the interviewees, Joan and Jack, were prominent members of national organizations. The interviews lasted an average of 45 min and took place at a location convenient for the respondent, including restaurants, office meeting rooms, places of business, and a hotel lobby.

All the participants were middle-aged adults. Many members had previous military experience, varying across all branches of the armed forces. The women involved held organizing positions, Joan being a prominent member of a national organization and Sally being an organizer for the local organization in Arizona.

The size of the sample is small yet offers a lot of information. Since the dissolution of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), supporters in Arizona have been trying to find new ways to stay involved. The smaller groups continue the mission of the larger groups. Large musters described in Doty and Shapira’s work are a relic. The common activity for the newer smaller groups is maintaining the technology, tracking, and camaraderie of the few active members locally able to participate. They share their videos and pictures online to engage the larger audience, while locally only a few are active.

In addition to the nine in-depth interviews, three days of fieldwork were conducted in the Sonoran Desert—in southeast Arizona—on a total of six “missions” with an Arizona-based border defense group and their Search and Rescue Team. The fieldwork took place in October 2011. These missions provided the opportunity to talk and interact with 19 additional members in the field. The members introduced themselves to me using their names and call signs, some only giving their call sign. A call sign is a type of nickname common in military settings. The missions took place in a remote area about 35 miles north of the U.S.–Mexico border; the Baboquivari Mountains were to the west, State Route 86 was to the north and Sasabe Road, SR 286, was to the east. The focus of this research centers on different activities typified by the missions they embark on.

The first mission was to place two game cameras in the desert and replace the memory card and batteries in the existing cameras. The cameras were painted in desert camouflage and were motion-activated to capture movement over the course of two weeks. The Search and Rescue Team (SART) led the mission of reconnaissance and routine maintenance of equipment. The purpose of the cameras was to determine the routes migrants took through the desert. The team posts these videos of migrants and drug smugglers on YouTube and passes information on to the Border Patrol.

The remaining missions were conducted over two days during a muster—an assembly of like-minded individuals—focused more on tracking migrant activity than replacing batteries and memory cards. The first of these missions was a drive into the desert to place an additional camera. The second was a drive through the desert to determine if there was migrant activity. The third mission of the day was a drive into the desert and a short walk to locate any migrant activity. The fourth mission was at night to identify undocumented migrants moving during the evening hours. The final mission was on Saturday morning and consisted of an approximate four-mile hike through the Brawley Wash following migrant tracks to determine where they led. While on these missions, many informal discussions were held with the guides who were members of the Arizona-based group. Discussion topics included immigration, politics, and other social issues, and their involvement with the local group. The researcher was open about their disposition and reiterated the desire to understand their ways of thinking about immigration and immigrants; doing so did not seem to hinder their discussions. For example, the researcher was open about their non-citizen status and being present in the U.S. on an F-1 student visa.

The following analysis focuses on the key question of the research: how do CBG members’ rationalizations shape and/or affect their group identities? Analyzing their actions, rationalizations, and ideas, the distinction becomes blurred and the role CBGs play becomes more complex than a simple label of vigilante can encompass. Presenting how members view, rationalize, and discuss their organization as a neighborhood watch is followed by an analysis of their perceived vigilante actions.

Having a vigilante identity does not infringe on group members’ ability to create a counter narrative to the identity placed by society. Their identities can be interconnected and therefore cannot be understood using a single frame, vigilantism. Competing identities exist in all movements, including the anti-immigrant movement. Jack looks at the group as abiding by the law and supporting law enforcement. The following section focuses on how members rationalize their identity as legitimate, setting up the duality of their identity as vigilante and law-abiding watchers.

Many actions by CBGs are focused on the identity or label given by the media, activist groups, and politicians. These labels are as varied as the individuals within the movement. To better understand these complex identities within the movement, understanding their main goals is a must. CBGs focus their activity on surveillance and detection. The group has moved on from previous types of monitoring as reported by Doty (2007) and Shapira (2013b). They no longer “hold the line” by actively patrolling a specified area. Instead, they conduct “missions” to focus their surveillance using technology and fewer volunteers. There are occasional musters, but they are no longer of the same size or impact found during the height of the previous movement in 2005–2010.

5. Results

5.1. Constructing Their Activities as Neighborhood Watches

To understand how group members may rationalize and identify themselves within the movement, one must first situate themselves theoretically. One identity members have applied to their actions is neighborhood watch. The rationalization that best fits this identity is the appeal to rights or laws, rules, agreements, and promises (Kaptein and van Helvoort 2019, p. 1270). Examples of such rationalization include following the law, having a legal right to engage in the activity, and seeing it as their moral duty to protect their country from migrants crossing the border illegally.

Civilian Border groups (CBG) were designed by the founders to be a civilian extension of Border Patrol. This sentiment is echoed several times with thoughts such as “We’re just an extension of them [Border Patrol] as a volunteer group but we have a lot of respect for the Border Patrol” (Stan) or Sally saying:

We were trying to give them assistance, that is all we ever wanted to do. We don’t make arrests. We don’t stop people. We don’t encounter them. We never want to put our people in danger. All this time and in the 10 years since the Minutemen started, there has never been an incident with any of our people getting injured.

Many members of civilian border groups share Fred’s sentiment, “most of the people I have met are very patriotic in a sense that they want law and order in the country.” He sees those who are actively working or gathering knowledge about the issue as patriots, who, if given the opportunity, would like to see laws enforced. Many members have strong ties to the area. They either grew up in the area or moved there before 2000 and established businesses and families. Their sense of neighborhood extends into the desert because they have a sense of belonging to Arizona and the United States. This expansion on the definition of neighborhood adds to the layers of their activities and perceived motives. Neighborhoods are thought of as urban spaces with close-knit or potentially close-knit communities. Members see the importance of expanding their reach to better protect the larger community.

One important facet of neighborhood watches is their partnership with law enforcement agencies. In the case of CBGs, the law enforcement body is the Border Patrol. When they decide where they are going for their mission, the team leader calls Border Patrol to inform them of their position in the desert. Stan says:

We tell the Border Patrol where we’re goin’. We don’t go out there and then they get surprised that we’re out there. We let ‘em know where we’re goin’ and how long we’re gonna be there and so it’s they, we don’t work independently of them. We’re just an extension of theirs. A volunteer group extension.

CBGs see themselves as an extension of the Border Patrol, a volunteer cadre. This perception runs counter to the official statement by Border Patrol. This partnership is largely one-sided as the official position of the Border Patrol is:

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), United States Border Patrol does not endorse or support any private group or organization from taking matters into their own hands as it could have disastrous personal and public safety consequences. The Border Patrol strongly encourages concerned citizens to call the U.S. Border Patrol and/or local law enforcement authorities if they witness or suspect illegal activity. Securing our nation’s borders can be dangerous. Interdicting narcotics and deterring and apprehending individuals illegally entering the United States requires highly trained, law enforcement personnel. (Email from Customs and Border Protection, April 2011)

The members of various CBGs believe they are helping Border Patrol and are strict with their missions. They see what they are doing as “more or less a neighborhood watch, where you are observing and reporting” (Fred). The mission has expanded to include “training, instead of the old days where you sat in the car and just reported; now we can get out on foot and go to other areas.”

Fred continues explaining what their search and rescue group does:

Then during the day or night we can sit at strategic points and observe and if we see a group call them in to the Border Patrol. And a lot of times the groups will walk on, they will run, some of them are so tired or sick or thirsty or cold that they will stop and we will stay with them until the Border Patrol gets there.

Along with Fred—one of the more active members of the search and rescue team—Steve reiterates that “all we do is sit there, observe and report what we see kind of like a neighborhood watch org, they just report crime or whatever. You know that’s pretty much what we do.” Steve also points out that “we will also help anyone who is in distress, is lost, been left behind, don’t have any water or food and they are injured we help them.” Steve believes reporting to Border Patrol is important and their team “will stay with them [migrants] until Border Patrol arrives. They might get up and run because we cannot detain them, we might follow them that way we can continue to report their position to Border Patrol, but you know that is what we do.” Knowing the laws and maintaining a presence within the boundaries are important. Additionally, offering aid to a migrant in need lends credibility to their search and rescue operations. However, credibility is shaken when help is only to aid in the apprehension of the migrant.

CBGs do not inform Border Patrol of the location of their cameras in the desert. CBGs hand over any video where migrant activity or drug smugglers are captured in the desert and the general location of the area, but not the exact coordinates. Fred discusses how they choose where to put the cameras to carry out their surveillance. He says:

There are some you know for the trails we put the cameras out and take them down. Other ones we go out and scout for trends of how they are travelling. What will happen is Border Patrol works areas for a month or two months, so it will divert the traffic, and we will go out and look at where the traffic is going.

The search and rescue teams are always scouting for new locations, especially when the cameras are not catching any movement. Sally touts the success of the cameras and the ability to keep their members safe by saying:

The cameras were doing phenomenal work where we didn’t actually have to have personnel out there. And yet, cause we knew there were people out there, they send them on a different trail because their intel. They were starting to use all the things we were using, the GPS, they were using the cell phones, they were using all of the technology, the thermals that type of thing, they were using those things as well. They up dated their people, we have to be smarter than them, we can’t just continue to be stagnant and continue to do the same old same old. That is when we split off from Minutemen Civil Defense Corps.

Civilian border group members see what they are doing as helping Border Patrol detect migrant activity in places Border Patrol may not have the manpower to watch. Sally informs us that Border Patrol stay on the main roads or well-traveled roads but “back on these little, small trails, they can’t get up into those, they don’t have enough personnel to watch those little trails that are coming through it because they change periodically and then you can set Border Patrol there and they [migrants] would just move to another trail.” Detecting the movement of migrants in the desert is the purpose of both CBGs and Border Patrol. Sally describes how CBGs missions come to be: “we’re finding out that we have people saying if you call us and let us know so we can set up cameras so we can set up cameras to find out where the activity is.”

The outlook of these members alludes to an identity of helping Border Patrol monitor the desert for migrant activity. CBGs look to be a preventative force in the desert, hoping to deter migrants from crossing. Their objectives are to always follow and maintain the law, and to follow any directions provided by the Border Patrol. Their views as a neighborhood watch organization are not without criticism, and moving forward, the group will need to contend with the perceived racist nature of their patrols by being present in the southern U.S., monitoring a border where people of color cross.

5.2. Redefining the Label Vigilante

The second main identity group members contend with is that of the vigilante. The main rationalizations or techniques used to justify their presence in the borderlands include: reduction of the norm to labels, the immorality of the accusers, and appealing to higher goals (Kaptein and van Helvoort 2019, p. 1269). These rationalizations allow members to continue believing their actions are right, even if outsiders label them as deviant. First, to illustrate the rationalization of the reduction of the norm to labels, one focuses on the language used. CBG activity is interpreted by many as vigilante in nature. When confronted with the label of vigilante, Jack offers his take on the label and definition.

Well there are two definitions of vigilantes. If you go to Webster’s or Merriam Webster’s dictionary the first definition is I believe is an angelic one, a do-gooder. To me the vigilante who goes out and picks up all the trash from the curb because the city doesn’t sweep the streets, who randomly opens doors for people, carrying their groceries in both arms out of the store there is your angelic vigilante. Now that is the type of vigilantism the Minuteman Project is engaged in if you want to refer to us as vigilantes, thank you for the compliment. That being said, people who use an activist movement to veil sinister intentions or motives they make the second definition of vigilante. Sinister people from the dark side of the community.

(Jack)

Rejecting the label of vigilante seems to be the norm and preferred way of viewing their local group. Steve explains that “we just report what we see to law enforcement. If they do something about it great, if they don’t well, they don’t.”

Joan refers to “the president [George W. Bush] himself [telling] us to be vigilant and report any suspicious activity. You just leave the e or the a out of the vigilante, and you have vigilant it is not a bad word.” Joan sees their mission as noble and should be respected because they are bringing to light a wrong they feel needs to be righted. The labels others put on the group have consequences, not only in how they view their own local group, but on how others view their local group. Joan is a business owner, and she knows that she has:

I lost a few customers, you know with Mexican heritage that simply thought we were vigilantes and Mexican haters and didn’t understand. I also gained a lot of people and then of course we had those people who would come up to Chris and I and would say to him, we support you but we cannot come up in the open we have to do it silently. And that to me is the greatest sorry, I mean if you believe in something stand up and let it be known. That is the way I was raised and that is what I expect of everyone else.

Sally approaches the label of vigilante differently. She says:

Yeah, we are vigil and that means we are constantly vigilant. We don’t want to be you know passive. We don’t want to sit back and say oh my oh my it’s a terrible thing. We want to take the assertive action. It doesn’t mean we confront these people cause we don’t. We don’t ever put anybody in danger.

She sees what their local CBG are doing as positive, following the law and simply aiding Border Patrol in the apprehension of undocumented migrants or drug smugglers. She contends that “we are just ordinary citizens who have had enough. That is what we are and we just want to say if our government won’t step up and do it then we are the people, we are the government, the people are the government,” (Sally) and if that is viewed as vigilantism then so be it.

The previous excerpts illustrate how members are likely to redefine or repurpose the vigilante label to justify how their actions and presence are different from mainstream vigilantes. Changing definitions or reading into various meanings of vigilante helps to shape their identity and steer away from a vigilante identity toward a more palatable identity.

A second set of rationalizations focuses on the immorality of those accusing them of being vigilantes. Society tends to view all nativist or anti-immigrant groups the same way. There is diversity between the groups in terms of extremism, such as actively hunting migrants to advocating for the laws to be enforced; however, society views these CBGs as vigilante and racist in nature due to the focus on the southern border. When groups behave in a manner that is racist or violent, this action may create a false impression for others. CBGs present themselves as fighting “the good fight” to try and deter or distance themselves from other more extremist groups. As Jack says:

I got the Mountain Minutemen, I got that taken off the border. That is the group that put out the video “How to Kill a Mexican”; showing someone it is a parody, but it looked real. He also claimed he was a trainer for people wanting to go to the border and do observation. He said it was a training film, [but]what you [did was you] shot a Mexican immigrant coming across the border and bury his body in the desert and pile rocks on it.

The violent actions of one group that wants to appear as a neighborhood watch group can lead to a label of vigilantism in the eyes of the public. The public has made judgments on these groups based on many factors, one being the news stories generated by anti-immigrant groups. These more extreme groups draw attention to the vigilante label, putting their actions above the law. It is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to help police prevent crime from occurring and may not include actively seeking violators. Actively seeking migrants or drug smugglers, while dressed in pseudo-military clothing, being armed, and conducting missions in the desert is a main reason their actions are viewed as vigilante. Many people believe CBGs are fighting a just cause, and many more see CBGs’ actions as racist and potentially violent. Members may see those who are labeling their group as vigilante as being hypocrites, biased, unfair, or malicious because of their lack of involvement and understanding of the migrant movement across the southern border. By re-routing the “blame” to a larger group, local CBP group members can rationalize their involvement because of the lack of knowledge or fairness put forth by the public, including the media.

A final rationalization against a vigilante identity appeals to higher goals. Here members see their efforts as doing the job the government will not or cannot do. Stan says he does not “go out looking for illegals coming north to give them food and water. I go out looking to stop them coming north, and if they’re thirsty and hungry I always carry extra water and extra food with me, I don’t deprive them of it, I will always take care of them.” Stan’s outlook and willingness to help has the appearance of altruism cloaked within vigilante activities.

Problems occur when members make statements like:

Of course we haven’t killed any Mexicans yet. We haven’t killed any south Americans yet. We haven’t shot anybody yet. We have not even pulled out guns yet against anybody because we have very very strict rules when people carry guns. Most of the people have a CCW [concealed carry weapon] license and they have to go through a course so we are very very adamant about everything being followed by the law.

(Joan)

The use of the word ‘yet’ in this type of statement can move some to think, if given the opportunity, someone could be killed. The statement does not help the group’s image of not being vigilante. Knowing you have armed members in the desert with the express purpose of locating migrants to hand over to the Border Patrol leads to a situation that could turn violent under the right circumstances. Group members understand their involvement can be dangerous and work within the framework of the law to protect themselves first and others second.

The fact that someone might be killed in the desert or while surveilling a situation addresses the issue of armed patrols. Steve says “we will all be armed for our protection… now we carry rifle and body armor at times, we didn’t used to” but as the potential violence in the border region escalated, CBGs feel safer if they are armed. Joan clarifies, “we were carrying weapons, Arizona is an open carry state, and we are also quite aware that this was not an undangerous commitment we were doing.” She continues her justification by stating, “they [Border Patrol] realized we were only spotting and reporting, that we were the eyes and the ears of the Border Patrol.”

Much about the issue of vigilante action is the protection of society from those who have broken the law—in this case, immigration law. Jack sums this up by stating:

If we are going to start pandering to those who have broken our laws and we are going to start selectively enforcing the laws well that means we all have carte blanche to what laws we are going to respect and which laws we are going to disrespect and how dare you try and enforce the law against me, you are not enforcing the law against him or her, but you want to enforce another law against me.

Many members believe vigilantes would not need to exist if the government was doing their job. Steve says if “the government or whoever is supposed to do their job” were doing it, our group would not need to exist in the capacity of desert patrols. He continues by saying CBGs do not “go that far at all. Nowhere near.” He is referring to extralegal violence that is often associated with vigilante activity.

In summary, vigilantes work outside the law, are not mainstream, and cause many to see them as unnecessary. Many of the group’s actions are vigilante in nature and have racist undertones. A greater awareness of why their existence or operations are justified aids in the construction of logical arguments to destroy or weaken the anti-immigrant movement.

6. Discussion

The research question at the beginning of this paper was: how do CBG members’ rationalizations shape and/or affect their group identities? Drawing on the works of Doty and Shapira, there is a need to see these groups as more than simply vigilante, but rather as complex individuals with varying identities depending on the role they perform. Adding another layer to analyze group members’ identity formulation lies in the use of rationalizations to justify their actions, thus legitimizing their identities. Labeling these members as vigilantes is insufficient because their law-and-order focus includes safety for themselves, their families, and their country. The complex interchange of identities with the racial overtones of policing the southern border allows for a variety of perceptions to arise. Many scholars have been critical of the vigilante aspect of this identity (Chacón and Davis 2006; Navarro 2009), while others focus on the complexity of group members’ identity (Doty 2009; Shapira 2013b). Comparing the current study with the work of Shapira and Doty notes the evolution of the movement. Shapira and Doty were able to observe and participate at the height of these movements, whereas the current study comes in after the dissolution and fragmentation of the minuteman movement. These previous movements likely had a larger “free rider problem” than the newer iterations due to member participation. The members still feel frustration with the perceived lack of enforcement of immigration laws by federal law enforcement. Civilian border group members are less involved and use different techniques to monitor migrant traffic in the desert. The current version of the anti-immigration movement uses technology to track movement in the desert instead of people sitting and waiting to apprehend migrants crossing the desert.

The identity of the active members varies, with some of them being vigilant throughout the year even without a muster call and those who show up when a muster call is made. This change in movement structure has additionally changed those who are involved. Many of the members who were a part of the current study were self-proclaimed patriots, here to do the job the government was not doing. The members are a mix of young and old, dedicated and not ready to give up. The CBG’s numerical growth is slow due to reduced excitement regarding immigration. The rise of social media use and online participation has created a drop in civilian border patrol participation in the desert. The monitoring and posting of videos have decreased greatly, with 2023 being the last video posted to their YouTube channel.

The use of rationalizations to support their efforts in the desert helps to legitimize the movement to outsiders. Using the four sub-techniques of neutralization, as expanded by Kaptein and van Helvoort (2019)—the reduction to labels, the reduction in the immorality of accusers, the appeal to higher goals, and the appeal to rights—one can see how group members are able to further counteract their involvement and identities. Using language to shape their movement by claiming to be vigilant and upholding the law by conducting their activities is one way to defuse a vigilante label. Appealing to the higher goal of doing the job the government is not doing focuses their attention on the inaction of the respective government agencies. They do understand how the Border Patrol is not staffed to the levels they want, and they see the broader government as the reason for this lack of staffing. They rationalize their actions within legal frameworks and appeal to rights, the legality of upholding U.S. law as any citizen patriot would. Their final neutralization sub-technique is calling out the immorality of their accusers. Focusing attention on the hypocrisy or bias of those labeling their actions as vigilante can center on their patriotism as a superior action to those not acting to secure the borders.

The results further indicate that the two perspectives, neighborhood watches and vigilantism, are not mutually exclusive, but rather speak to different actions and ideas. The data points to a hybrid (or fragmented) identity that uses vigilante action and ideas in concurrence with neighborhood watch tactics. At the root of the fragmented identity is how government-based police agencies, such as the U.S. Border Patrol, do not endorse civilian border patrols. Until a legitimized working partnership between these agencies and CBGs are created, members of the CBG organizations will stand at the edge of legality. While the findings are based on a small group in the southwest region of the United States, members share both vigilante and neighborhood watch identities. They are concerned citizens patrolling their neighborhood’s border (like urban neighborhood watch groups) while still adhering to classic vigilante ideas and actions. One could refer to these groups as crack fillers, seeping into areas they perceive need support and pursuing their mission to secure the border. Members see their actions as just, considering they perceive the government is not performing the job they are tasked to perform on the southern border. This perception further refutes the negative identity of vigilante because their actions are perceived as just by the neighborhood watch system more than vigilantes.

These groups will continue to exist in a state of unlawfulness if they work outside of existing legal structures outlined and executed by the Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of the research is to expose the many identities CBG members have regarding their role in combating illegal immigration. The fluid and dynamic nature of their identity speaks to a complexity within their ideological understanding of immigration within the U.S. context. There are members who seem more compassionate, while others appear militaristic and racist. The vast difference between the members becomes lost when a singular label is applied, essentially wiping away the individual identities found within these groups. The moderate voices in these groups may help to address overtly racist members from taking their group to the extreme.

7. Conclusions

Presenting anti-immigrant civilian groups as both vigilante and neighborhood watches aids in understanding the complexities of these two identities. This research is unique in applying civilian-based anti-immigrant groups as neighborhood watches and not just as vigilantes. While society may view the actions of anti-immigrant groups as vigilante, the group members do not see their actions the same. Viewing their actions as helping do the job the government is not doing adds to the larger literature on these anti-immigrant groups. Analyzing the participant’s views on their role in patrolling the Sonoran Desert expands the understanding of the role these anti-immigrant civilian groups have within society. Using rationalizations to redefine the label of vigilante allows for group members to continue their actions without the burden of the label vigilante. The findings add to the literature on how anti-immigrant groups rationalize their focus on the southern US border and the people coming across. Focusing on anti-immigrant groups after the surge of the mid 2000s adds to the literature on anti-immigrant groups. Further research could focus on the post-COVID movement of anti-immigration in Arizona and other border states.