We are building a citizen army across America fighting for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that will end the rampant corruption of our federal government and ensure Free and Fair Elections. The massive amounts of money spent in our elections from outside special interests, often with little to no transparency, is drowning out the voices of average citizens and distorting the most fundamental principle of America - a country dependent upon the people alone. By working together, we can solve this problem and ensure true representative government in America for ourselves and future generations with an amendment to the Constitution. Wolf-PAC is using a proven strategy of going through our state governments to achieve an amendment. Learn more about our plan and how to become an active citizen by visiting our website.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Latest news
Read More
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?
Oct 15, 2026
A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence
The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.
Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.
Presidential Deterrence Policies
Presidential administrations since Prevention Through Deterrence’s inception reflect the same commitment to preventing and deterring illegal immigration, albeit with differing approaches to this goal.
In 2003, George W. Bush formed the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), charging it with enforcing immigration law within U.S. borders and investigating cases of undocumented immigration. His 2004 update of the National Strategic Plan also included anti-terrorist measures focused on preventing the flow of weapons and set greater precedent for the use of drones, drug detection, identity verification, and baggage checking at airports.
Barack Obama’s administration saw a 2012 update of the National Strategic Plan emphasizing data collection and analysis as tools for allocating Border Patrol Resources. Obama himself also expanded deportations by implementing family detentions as a measure to deter women and children from migrating. Joe Biden’s restrictions on asylum that expedited deportation processes and allowed asylum seekers to be denied if they traveled through third-party countries without also applying for and being denied asylum in those nations.
Donald Trump’s first term saw the institution of Zero Tolerance immigration policies which prompted increases in detention and deportation capacities, due in part to the fact that they didn’t differentiate between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants traveling through the border. During this current term, he has reiterated his commitment to Prevention Through Deterrence through initiatives that will build the border wall and increase punitive capacities for immigration law violations.
Why Do Proponents Support Prevention Through Deterrence?
Data from the White House Release presented in this graph indicates that immigration apprehension rates drop when the country implements stricter Prevention Through Deterrence measures. This effect has been observed throughout the 2020s with President Trump’s policies, which continue to produce encounter rates at new record lows. Internal CPB data places the November 2025 encounter rate at 30,367, 28% lower than the previous record low set only one month before. U.S. Border Patrol data has also consistently recorded an average of 10,000 encounters per month since Trump took office, 5% of the total observed during the Biden administration. Immigration CPB book-ins and detention have also dropped dramatically in 2026, falling from the high 10,000s and 20,000s during Joe Biden’s term to a range encompassing the low hundreds and 5,000s in President Trump’s second term. These declines demonstrate a consistency in the effectiveness of deterrence measures which is visible across other metrics.
Why Do Critics Oppose Prevention Through Deterrence?
International human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch argue that Prevention Through Deterrence measures breed incredibly high disappearance and death rates. Estimates range from 10,000 to 80,000 deaths caused by Border Patrol tactics, attributing these deaths to agency procedure funneling immigrants into terrain where they are exposed to harsh climates and die from lack of aid. Reporting of these deaths has also drawn criticism from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). In a study on reports of known migrant deaths, the office found that language used in these announcements “naturalizes” deaths by calling them “accidental” or “natural” and listing such causes as blunt force trauma or elemental exposure. Such reporting hides the role that government agents and infrastructure play in migrant injuries. 2019 data from the San Diego Trauma Center indicates that 441 out of 455 patients treated were injured from falling off the border wall, and the design of infrastructure like the Rio Grande River buoys–which use serrated metal plates to deter migrants from climbing through gaps–increases the risk of deadly injuries.
Prevention Through Deterrence policies also create conflict in communities within patrolled areas. The Texas-based Operation Lone Star has received direct criticism for causing increases in racial profiling among immigrants and deaths among both immigrants and National Guard members. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of traffic stops in Texas’ Latin communities has increased by 92%. In the first nine months alone, there were a total of 1,046 vehicle pursuits causing at least 30 deaths and 71 injuries to immigrants, law enforcement personnel, and U.S. citizens alike.
Figure 2: OHCHR Known Migrant Deaths Along the US-Mexico Border
Conclusion
Prevention Through Deterrence is an approach to border security which has drawn bipartisan support since its creation in 1994. It has been refined over the course of multiple presidential administrations and operates by tightening border security to create harsh conditions for illegal immigrants. While proponents of the policies see them as successful because of consistently reduced encounters at the border, opponents question the larger costs of these measures by pointing to patterns of enforcement-related deaths and violence in nearby communities. The debate has drawn questions about how to achieve true prevention of illegal immigration and the metrics used to assess its success.
Caterina Guerin is a non-traditional Ada Comstock Scholar at Smith College, majoring in Government with a concentration in International Relations and a minor in Korean.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.
Getty Images, uschools
Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power
Oct 14, 2026
From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.
The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.
Former U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin addressed the convention by video, recognizing the importance of competitive independent candidates and the opportunity to shift political power beyond the two-party structure.
Other current and former officeholders shared perspectives on independent movement-building and governance, including Utah County Commissioner Amelia Powers Gardner; former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey; and former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who closed the convention with reflections on what independent candidates and political organizations need to win.
Among other speakers were John Opdycke of Open Primaries; Greg Orman, former independent U.S. Senate candidate and author of A Declaration of Independents; Lindsey Williams Drath, CEO of the Forward Party; Amanda Griffiths, vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee; Manu Meel of Bridge USA; Adam Brandon of the Independent Center; Ryan Rabah of Independents Win; Jennifer Esteban of United Independents and many more.
Ben Droz
Independence, Civic Integrity and Better Governance
A central theme of the convention was defining political independence as more than simply not being affiliated with a major party.
Presentations explored independence as a standard of representation: the ability of public officials to exercise independent judgment and serve constituents without undue influence from party leadership, major donors or special interests.
One framework introduced a second dimension to the conventional left-right political spectrum. While the horizontal X-axis represents ideological differences, a vertical Y-axis measures civic integrity, including transparency, accountability, ethical conduct, and resistance to corruption.
The framework offers a practical basis for cooperation among political leaders who may disagree substantially on policy but share an interest in improving the integrity of public institutions. In this sense, the independent movement can also be understood as a movement for corruption-free government and more accountable representation.
Author and former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson reinforced these themes in her keynote, emphasizing government's responsibility to prevent harm, reduce suffering, improve quality of life and steward the natural world.
A National Slate of Competitive Independent Candidates
One of the convention's central programs showcased the 2026 Independent Slate, which Independents Win PAC assembled after an extensive review of independent federal candidates to identify those that demonstrate both alignment with independent representation and electoral viability.
The seven-candidate slate includes Senate candidates Dan Osborn of Nebraska, Seth Bodnar of Montana, Todd Achilles of Idaho and Brian Bengs of South Dakota, alongside House candidates Kevin Kiley of California, Bill Hill of Alaska and Sarah Zabel of Idaho.
The presentation gave the national independent community a chance to hear from serious congressional campaigns as part of a coordinated slate, not as isolated candidacies. Polling in several of these races indicates meaningful competitiveness.
The candidates also illustrated a larger strategy discussed throughout the convention: developing an Independent Fulcrum Caucus in Congress.
In a closely divided House or Senate, a small group of independent legislators could hold consequential votes, negotiate across party lines and help form issue-specific governing coalitions without being institutionally bound to either major party. The strategy seeks to translate independent electoral victories into meaningful legislative influence.
Supporting the slate through November became an immediate priority emerging from the gathering. Readers can review the candidates and examine available polling at Independents Win.
Building Institutions Beyond Election Cycles
INC ’26 also introduced initiatives intended to address longer-term weaknesses in independent political infrastructure.
The Better Governance Institute presented its developing Independent & Corruption-Free Certification Program, intended to establish measurable standards for ethical public leadership. The framework addresses conflicts of interest, financial transparency, bribery, personal enrichment, misuse of public resources and other forms of political corruption.
A second initiative, Independent America, is developing a national organizing platform to recruit, equip, and coordinate independent organizers and local chapters. The objective is to create durable organizing capacity that persists between election cycles, rather than requiring campaigns and civic organizations to continually rebuild local infrastructure.
Independent America is preparing a national pilot for individuals interested in establishing local chapters and developing independent organizing capacity in their communities.
Both initiatives reflect an understanding that lasting political competition requires more than successful individual candidacies. It requires standards, leadership development, professional infrastructure and ongoing civic participation.
Relationships, Culture and Movement Coordination
Beyond the formal presentations, INC ’26 placed considerable emphasis on relationship building among stakeholders. Shared meals, breakout discussions, networking sessions, receptions, and a closing gala gave organizers, funders, candidates, and organizational leaders opportunities to build connections and explore collaboration.
The program also incorporated original artistic performances, including DPAK's movement anthem “Together We Rise,” Naia Kete's “Proud,” Isabella Braveheart's spoken-word performance “Patriot” and Sophia Life's “Power With.” These contributions explored civic identity, patriotism and the cultural dimensions of cooperation across a growing independent movement.
The gathering concluded with commitments to continue supporting independent candidates through November, strengthen cooperation through a United Independent Coalition and advance organizing and institutional development throughout 2027.
After November, the next major electoral milestone will be 2028, when the movement aims to field a stronger generation of competitive candidates, supported by more developed national infrastructure. The fifth Independent National Convention is planned for Washington, D.C., in September 2028.
The significance of INC ’26 will ultimately be measured by the outcomes that follow: electoral results, functioning partnerships, stronger institutions and sustained organizing capacity.
For now, the convention provided a substantive view of an independent political sector increasingly recognizing opportunities to coordinate its otherwise separate efforts. Whether those efforts develop into lasting political influence remains an open question, but the work underway across the movement is becoming more organized and interconnected.
Main-stage presentations and performances from INC ’26 will begin publishing free for public viewing within the next week. Visit IndependentNationalConvention.com to access the recordings as they become available on the INC ‘26 Content page.
Ben Droz
Christopher Life is the founder and CEO of United Independents and founder and executive producer of the Independent National Convention.
Keep ReadingShow less

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.
Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images
On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think
Oct 14, 2026
Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.
Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.
What stood out was not simply the agreements themselves. It was the range of people involved in reaching them — and how they got there.
These were not eight self-described moderates who saw immigration the same way. The Bristol group included a conservative helping a longtime undocumented family, a Trump supporter who opposed amnesty and a Democratic participant who worked with refugees. One participant had assumed the dialogue would attract “only moderates.”
Instead, another participant came away surprised that they had “agreed way more than they expected.”
Getting there had taken work.
Months earlier, on May 16 in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, the eight Bristol participants were among a larger, evenly balanced group who spent nearly five hours in a Braver Angels Common Ground Workshop. The model asks people with differing views to understand one another and identify Points of Agreement. An idea becomes a Point of Agreement only when every participant can support it.
Participants worked toward unanimous Points of Agreement on values, concerns and possible remedies, then brought them to Bristol for a face-to-face conversation with Fitzpatrick and Suozzi.
What emerged crossed familiar partisan lines.
Among the values participants unanimously identified were both “rule of law” and “respect for human rights and dignity.” Among their concerns were what they called “massive indiscriminate detention and deportation,” but also the financial burden on taxpayers.
The same complexity appeared in possible remedies. One paired agreement called for permanent residency — but not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants who had lived here at least 10 years and committed no crime, alongside “zero tolerance and enforcement with penalties for illegal immigration in the future.”
As that Point of Agreement was read aloud in Bristol, Suozzi’s eyes widened. The brief reaction captured something important. Constituents with sharply different views had reached unanimous agreement on a combination of ideas that did not fit neatly into the usual red-or-blue immigration debate.
Both lawmakers said they agreed with much of what the group had produced and discussed the obstacles to translating agreement into legislation and the value of more members engaging in this kind of constituent deliberation.
None of this means the workshop participants had discovered the answer to immigration, nor should these Points of Agreement be mistaken for a representative poll of the American electorate. But that is precisely what makes the exercise interesting.
Polling tells us what people think separately. Deliberation can tell us what people are capable of reaching together.
Participants had spent hours listening across disagreement, explaining the experiences behind their views, confronting tradeoffs and deciding what they could endorse together.
One participant said immigration had been “ripping us apart as a country.” Yet participants spoke afterward not only about unexpected agreement, but also about relationships they had formed with people across the political divide.
Through the Citizens Commission on Immigration, Braver Angels is applying this model at several levels. Nearly 50 Common Ground Workshops on immigration have taken place nationwide, engaging ordinary Americans in the work of finding areas of agreement across political differences.
The same approach is being used among national immigration leaders. For over a year, a couple dozen prominent advocates and experts from across the ideological spectrum — people who have spent decades on opposing sides of the immigration debate — have been meeting regularly through Braver Angels’ Immigration Policy Roundtable to better understand their differences and identify areas of agreement. That engagement has also moved into public settings, including a 2026 Braver Angels National Convention discussion featuring roundtable participants and other public conversations across the country.
Congress is the third part of the effort. Members are being invited to engage directly with constituents and national leaders who have already done the difficult work of listening across disagreement. The effort is intended to culminate in a Report to the Nation outlining immigration recommendations reflecting red-blue common ground from the grassroots and national work.
Bristol is not an isolated example. Similar constituent conversations have connected politically diverse Americans with lawmakers from both parties, including Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), Blake Moore (R-Utah), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.). Participants first identified Points of Agreement across political differences and then brought them directly to their representative.
Better conversations alone will not resolve the country’s disagreements over immigration. Genuine differences remain, and deliberation cannot — and should not — eliminate political conflict.
Citizens can do more than choose sides. They can listen, deliberate and search seriously for areas where agreement is possible. National leaders who have spent years opposing one another can do the same. And elected officials can engage not only with polls, advocacy organizations or the loudest voices in a debate, but with constituents and policy leaders who have already done the difficult work of listening across disagreement.
At the end of the conversation, one participant summed up the experience simply: “I’m leaving today more hopeful.”
Bristol raises a question worth considering: What might happen if more Americans had opportunities to deliberate across political differences, identify genuine Points of Agreement and then bring those agreements directly to their representatives?
Diego N. Sánchez is vice president of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a non-resident fellow at Cornell University’s Center on Democracy, and a member of the leadership team of the Braver Angels Citizens Commission on Immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
How a Brazilian Island's Automation Model Offers a Blueprint for Overwhelmed U.S. Hotspots
Oct 14, 2026
Hugo Balta is currently reporting from Brazil, exploring how the country's efforts to strengthen democracy, expand civic participation, and address environmental challenges may hold valuable insights for the United States.
For decades, some of the world's most popular ecotourism destinations have faced a simple but persistent challenge: a relatively small local tax base must support infrastructure and environmental protection for millions of visitors. When tourism costs fall disproportionately on residents, roads, sanitation systems, and natural resources can become strained. Increasingly, governments are addressing that imbalance through "user-pays" conservation fees that shift a portion of those costs to travelers.
One notable example is the Brazilian archipelago of Ilhabela, which has developed an automated, dedicated funding model that could serve as a blueprint for environmentally sensitive destinations in the United States.
(R-L) Ilhabela in the distance, and a ferry leaves from the mainland terminal in the city of São Sebastião and brings passengers and vehicles across the channel directly to the island of Ilhabela.Hugo Balta
Unlike traditional tourist fees that rely on tollbooths or local surcharges, Ilhabela's system uses a frictionless electronic collection framework. At the mainland ferry crossing, municipal authorities use automated license plate recognition (ALPR) technology to track incoming vehicles without interrupting traffic flow.
Through its ECO Ilhabela program, the Prefeitura Municipal de Ilhabela assesses a flat entry fee on visiting vehicles. Rates vary by vehicle type, ranging from R$10 for motorcycles and R$48 for passenger cars to as much as R$140 for large commercial tour buses. To protect residents from additional costs, vehicles registered in Ilhabela and neighboring São Sebastião are automatically exempt. Visitors can pay through electronic transponders, Pix transfers, or the municipality's online portal. According to G1 Globo, pedestrians and cyclists cross for free, encouraging lower-carbon transportation.
The most distinctive feature of the Taxa de Preservação Ambiental (TPA), however, is its dedicated use of revenue. Municipal officials say the proceeds fund environmental protection, conservation initiatives, and tourism-related mitigation efforts, with quarterly reporting requirements intended to ensure public accountability.
Explaining the program's purpose, Mayor Toninho Colucci said the model "represents an important advance to conciliate tourism, sustainability, and quality of life for the population. Ilhabela reaffirms its commitment to be a reference in preservation of the Atlantic Forest, adopting measures that strengthen sustainability without failing to responsibly receive the thousands of visitors who choose our city every year."
According to projections cited by Viagem e Turismo, the fee could generate approximately R$45 million annually. Municipal officials say the revenue funds environmental preservation, urban cleanliness, environmental education, conservation efforts, and related infrastructure improvements, including projects within Ilhabela State Park.
(R-L) The Atlantic Forest, a bromeliad grows on a tree branch, Hugo Balta treks through miles of uninterrupted, lush greenery.
During my visit to the archipelago off São Paulo state's northern coast, I explored its ecological centerpiece: Ilhabela State Park. Covering approximately 85 percent of the municipality and spanning more than 27,025 hectares, the protected area preserves critical Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlântica) habitat while helping shield traditional Caiçara communities from unchecked development.
As communities across the United States grapple with tourism's environmental impacts, Ilhabela's approach offers a practical example of how visitor-generated revenue can sustain natural resources without adding burdens on residents.
Hawaiʻi has embraced a similar philosophy through a statewide climate resilience initiative. In 2025, the Office of the Governor enacted Act 96 (Senate Bill 1396), creating the nation's first statewide climate-impact "Green Fee."
Rather than charging motorists, Hawaiʻi targets overnight visitors. The law adds a 0.75 percent climate surcharge to the state's Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) and, as Hawaiʻi Public Radio reported, extends the surcharge to commercial cruise ships docking at state ports.
Emphasizing the measure's purpose, Governor Josh Green stated, "Today Hawaiʻi ushers in the first Green Fee in the nation. Once again, Hawaiʻi is at the forefront of protecting our natural resources and recognizing their fundamental role in sustaining Hawaiʻi's ecological, cultural, and economic health. As an island chain, Hawaiʻi cannot wait for the next disaster to hit before taking action. We must build resiliency now, and the Green Fee will provide the necessary financing to ensure resources are available for our future."
The Hawaiʻi Green Fee Advisory Council estimates the program will generate approximately $100 million annually. Like Ilhabela's TPA, those funds would support conservation priorities, including beach restoration, invasive-species control, coral reef protection, and wildfire prevention.
A comparable discussion is underway in California's Lake Tahoe Basin. The U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit has proposed restructuring recreation fees to help maintain heavily used public-access sites.
Under the proposal, visitors to historically free locations, including Kiva Beach, 64 Acres Riverside, and Echo Trailhead, would pay a mandatory $10 per-vehicle day-use fee. According to CBS News Sacramento, the revenue would "help the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit maintain developed recreation sites, improve overall maintenance and visitor services, and preserve the ecological integrity of the natural environment." Federal regulations require those fees to remain within the local recreation system, funding improvements such as trail maintenance and waste management.
Implementing conservation fees is not without challenges. In Ilhabela, the TPA underwent legal review and experienced collection delays before officials transitioned to a fully digital system. In the United States, legal questions have emerged over the portion of Hawaiʻi's Green Fee that applies to cruise ships. The Georgetown Environmental Law Review reported that cruise industry groups have challenged that provision, arguing it may conflict with constitutional protections governing maritime commerce and port taxation.
Even so, the broader trend is clear. As destinations face growing tourism pressures and rising climate-related costs, policymakers increasingly turn to dedicated visitor fees to protect natural resources while preserving public support for sustainable tourism. Ilhabela, Hawaiʻi, and Lake Tahoe suggest that when collection systems are transparent, revenues are tightly earmarked, and oversight is clear, travelers may be willing to help fund the landscapes they come to enjoy.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home