How Cartel Turf Wars Turn Border Crossings Into Death Zones For Migrants

Treks to the border appear somewhat safer for migrants in areas controlled by a single cartel.

A counterintuitive pattern has emerged along the U.S.–Mexico border. Undocumented migrants face their greatest dangers not necessarily where cartels are most active, but where they’re fighting each other for control.

Research analyzing 4,945 migrants who used smugglers and were forcibly returned between 2015 and 2019 shows a surprising trend. Border regions under the firm grip of a single drug cartel can show lower levels of visible violence compared to areas where multiple criminal organizations are battling for dominance. But that relative “calm” comes at a brutal price. Migrants still face extortion, threats, and forced payments to cross through cartel-controlled territory.

When those criminal monopolies fragment and turf wars erupt, migrant crossings become far more dangerous. The dangers aren’t always bullets flying. Instead, migrants experience a cascade of compounding hazards: abandonment by smugglers in the desert, getting lost when routes suddenly change, extreme heat exposure, lack of water, physical assaults, and drowning.

The study, which examined border crossings from 2015 to 2019, suggests three reinforcing ways risk rises when cartels fight for territory.

Three Ways Cartel Wars Harm Migrants

First, predation and extraction likely spiral out of control. When a single cartel dominates a corridor, they operate like a mafia protection racket. Smugglers pay their fees, follow the rules, and move people through established routes. But when rival groups compete for the same territory, migrants face multiple checkpoints, each demanding payment. Kidnapping and extortion become tools of warfare. Without a dominant power enforcing even informal rules, opportunistic violence flourishes.

Second, smuggling networks collapse under the chaos. The underground infrastructure that moves people across the border depends on coordination between scouts, drivers, safe houses, and guides. Cartel conflicts shred these networks. Routes that worked last week become far riskier routes this week. Smugglers abandon their clients to avoid rival checkpoints or active firefights. Migrants get stranded in unfamiliar territory without food, water, or directions.

Third, crossings get rerouted into deadlier terrain. To avoid areas of active conflict, smugglers push migrants into more remote, harsher environments. Desert crossings in summer heat. Treacherous river passages. Mountain routes prone to falls and exposure. Areas where getting lost means rescue is unlikely or impossible.

These three forces work together, turning an already dangerous journey into something far more dangerous. Researchers found that even after controlling for migrants’ age, gender, education, employment status, and the intensity of U.S. border enforcement, crossing through contested cartel territory measurably increased their risk of experiencing multiple hazards.

Where Danger is Highest: East vs. West Border Patterns

The geography of risk along the border tells a story about power and violence. Eastern border cities, particularly in Tamaulipas state, consistently showed the highest danger levels. Cities in Baja California and Sonora, which were largely under Sinaloa Cartel influence during the study period, showed lower average risk.

Statistical clustering analysis naturally separated border cities into three distinct groups based on their risk profiles. Eight cities in the western border region formed a low-risk cluster. Fourteen cities in the eastern region formed a higher-risk cluster. One city was so dangerous it stood alone as an outlier with unusually high risk.

This pattern isn’t random. Tamaulipas has been plagued by violent turf wars between the Gulf Cartel, Los Zetas, and their splinter groups throughout the study period and beyond. In contrast, western corridors saw relatively stable Sinaloa Cartel influence, with notable exceptions in Tijuana where conflicts intensified after 2014.

The comparison shows a surprising pattern at the heart of criminal governance. Stable cartel control doesn’t mean safety for migrants. It means predictable exploitation rather than chaotic violence. Migrants still pay extortionate fees, face threats, and navigate dangerous terrain. But the presence of a dominant criminal power creates a system, however brutal, that functions with less visible bloodshed than all-out war zones.

How Researchers Tracked Cartel Control and Migrant Risk

Researchers used data from the Survey on Migration at the Northern Border, which interviews migrants who have been deported by U.S. authorities. The study focused specifically on people who hired smugglers for their crossing attempts, since these individuals are most directly embedded in cartel-controlled corridors.

To measure the dangers migrants faced, researchers created a Risk Index tracking nine hazards: extreme temperatures, abandonment by smugglers, lack of food or water, getting lost, falls, drowning, animal attacks, physical assault, and asphyxiation or vehicle-related incidents.

The study, published in Social Forces, also analyzed homicide data from Mexico’s statistics agency for the six border states. Firearms make up a large share of homicides in cartel-linked violence, and most victims are men, making male homicide rates a reliable proxy for cartel violence. Homicide rates and archival work were used as practical proxies for shifts in criminal control.

To understand which cartels controlled which territories and when conflicts erupted, researchers conducted extensive archival work, reviewing local newspapers in each border state, investigative journalism from outlets like Insight Crime and Animal Politico, and consulting specialists who study Mexican organized crime.

Measuring Violence and Vulnerability

The data revealed a troubling connection. States where multiple criminal organizations actively fought for dominance showed substantially higher homicide rates compared to areas with stable control.

But the violence wasn’t just a statistic. It directly translated into increased dangers for migrants. Even after controlling for age, sex, education, employment status, and the intensity of U.S. border enforcement, migrants crossing through contested territories faced measurably higher risks. During the study years, policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols and tougher enforcement shifted crossings toward more remote areas, which smugglers and cartels exploited.

Gender, Age, and Vulnerability at the Border

The research also found which migrants face the highest risks beyond just the geography of their crossing. Women experienced more hazards than men, consistent with extensive prior research documenting high rates of sexual violence and gender-based abuse during migration. Indigenous migrants also faced elevated dangers, as did older individuals and those who were unemployed before their journey.

Interestingly, the intensity of U.S. border enforcement was also linked with increased migrant risks. Higher numbers of apprehensions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection corresponded with more reported hazards. This fits the well-documented “funnel effect” where intensified enforcement pushes crossings into increasingly remote and dangerous terrain.

What makes someone vulnerable during a border crossing is never just one thing. It’s the intersection of who you are (your age, gender, resources, Indigenous identity), where you cross (contested cartel territory versus stable control), and what enforcement you encounter (how militarized the U.S. side is).

A Surprising Pattern: Why One Cartel Can Mean Less Violence

The most counterintuitive finding challenges basic assumptions about criminal violence. Areas under stable criminal control sometimes show less visible bloodshed than contested zones.

This doesn’t mean single-cartel territories are safe. A dominant criminal organization can impose order through intimidation and selective killings rather than constant warfare.

As Charles Tilly argued, groups often “make war” to “make states”: rivals fight, then a winner imposes order to keep profits flowing. Cartels can act the same way.

When that criminal monopoly fragments, the “war-making” phase returns. Multiple groups battle to establish dominance, and migrants become collateral damage. Routes that were dangerous but navigable under cartel control become war zones where the rules keep changing and violence is unpredictable.

Border enforcement policies have inadvertently created ideal conditions for this dynamic. As U.S. enforcement intensified with technology, personnel, and physical barriers, crossings shifted to isolated areas where state oversight is weakest. Criminal organizations filled those governance gaps, imposing their own extralegal controls on human mobility.

An African proverb captures the situation: “When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.” As Mexican drug cartels battle for territorial control, undocumented migrants pay the price. Their vulnerability stems not just from the presence of organized crime, but from the fragmentation of criminal power. The implication is clear: a world where one criminal organization dominates can be less immediately violent than one where multiple groups compete. Still, for migrants navigating either scenario, the journey remains defined by exploitation, danger, and the constant threat of violence from those who control the routes north.

---