What is MS-13, and How Did the U.S. Help Create It?

In our last post, we explored how the language we use—"undocumented" vs. "illegal"—shapes how we treat immigrants. But words are just one piece of the puzzle. To truly understand today’s immigration crisis, we also need to look at the deeper forces that push people to flee their homes in the first place. One of the most common explanations we hear is "gang violence." And one gang in particular gets all the headlines: MS-13.

You may have heard MS-13 described as a foreign threat, a violent force from Central America invading U.S. cities. But the truth is far more complicated—and far more uncomfortable. MS-13 didn’t come from El Salvador. It came from the United States. And U.S. policy played a major role in making it what it is today.

What Is MS-13?

The gang known as MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, began in Los Angeles in the 1980s. "Mara" is Central American slang for gang. "Salvatrucha" likely combines "Salvadoran" with "trucha," a slang term meaning clever or alert. The "13" refers to their allegiance to the Mexican Mafia, also known as "La Eme."

MS-13 was formed by young Salvadoran immigrants, many of them refugees fleeing a brutal civil war back home. In L.A., they faced violence from other established gangs and little protection from law enforcement. Banding together for protection and identity, these youths started what would become MS-13. At the time, it was a small, local street gang—not the international criminal network it would later become.

The U.S. Role in the Salvadoran Civil War

To understand why so many Salvadorans fled to the U.S. in the first place, we have to look at the Salvadoran Civil War (1979–1992). During this conflict, the U.S. poured billions of dollars into supporting El Salvador's right-wing military government, viewing the conflict as part of the global Cold War fight against communism.

The Reagan administration, in particular, funneled aid and weapons to Salvadoran forces despite widespread reports of human rights abuses. U.S.-trained military units like the Atlacatl Battalion were responsible for massacres, including the infamous 1981 El Mozote massacre, where over 800 civilians were killed. Even after this, U.S. support continued.

These policies prolonged the war, destabilized the country, and left tens of thousands dead and even more displaced. Many of the refugees from this war ended up in Los Angeles, where MS-13 was born.

How Deportation Spread the Gang Internationally

In the 1990s, U.S. immigration policy took a sharp turn. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), signed by President Bill Clinton, expanded the list of crimes that could lead to mandatory deportation. Even legal immigrants with minor convictions were now subject to removal, often with no chance to plead their case before a judge.

Thousands of young people with gang ties were deported to El Salvador, a country still recovering from war and lacking the institutions to reintegrate them. In this chaotic environment, MS-13 evolved. What started as a U.S.-based street gang became a transnational criminal organization with a foothold in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Militarization and the Politics of Fear

After 9/11, the U.S. increasingly treated gang violence as a national security issue. MS-13 became a symbol used to justify tough-on-crime and anti-immigration policies. Successive administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—poured funding into militarized police, detention centers, and border security.

Meanwhile, U.S.-backed anti-gang crackdowns in Central America, like El Salvador's "Mano Dura" (Iron Fist) policies, often backfired. They filled prisons with young people, deepened gang identities, and gave MS-13 the structure and space to become more organized and violent.

A Bipartisan Legacy

The rise of MS-13 is not the fault of one party. It's the product of decades of decisions:

• Reagan and Bush Sr. funded the Salvadoran war effort and ignored atrocities.

• Clinton signed the 1996 deportation law that exported gang violence.

• George W. Bush framed MS-13 as a national security threat.

• Obama continued large-scale deportations while trying to stabilize the region.

• Trump used MS-13 as a political weapon to justify stripping asylum rights.

Each of these steps contributed to the conditions that allowed MS-13 to thrive.

Why It Matters Today

MS-13 is often cited to justify harsh immigration crackdowns. But many of the people arriving at our southern border today are fleeing the very violence that U.S. policy helped create. Instead of treating them as threats, we should be asking what it would take to stop the cycle of violence and displacement.

Toward Solutions: What Real Reform Looks Like

We can’t undo the past, but we can stop repeating it. Here are a few ways forward:

Reform Deportation Laws

• End mandatory deportation for minor, non-violent offenses.

• Restore judicial discretion and case-by-case review.

Expand Legal Migration Pathways

• Create regional asylum processing centers.

• Increase access to Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Invest in Central America—Beyond Police and Prisons

• Prioritize education, healthcare, and economic development.

• Fund anti-corruption efforts and civil society organizations.

End the Criminalization of Migration

• Make unauthorized border crossings civil, not criminal, offenses.

Restore Asylum Protections and Due Process

• Reinstate fair asylum interviews.

• Expand access to legal representation.

Fund Local Violence Prevention

• Support youth outreach, gang exit programs, and trauma care.

Invest in Root-Cause Solutions—They Cost Less and Work Better

• Detaining an immigrant in the U.S. costs about $165 per person per day (source).

• Vocational training in El Salvador can cost as little as $0.25 per hour (source).

• That means for the cost of one day of detention, we could provide 660 hours of job training—a far better investment in long-term safety and stability.

Conclusion: Accountability and Responsibility

MS-13 didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It was shaped by U.S. foreign policy, immigration law, and decades of political choices. We destabilized El Salvador, exported our gang problems, and then used the fallout to justify fear-driven policies.

But we have the power to break that cycle. By investing in people, not prisons, and by treating migration as a human challenge—not a criminal one—we can build a safer, more just future for everyone.

And let’s be honest: compassion isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s also cheaper.

Undocumented, Not Illegal

Rethinking Immigration, Enforcement, and Economic Reality

Every time you hear the phrase “illegal immigrant,” you’re hearing more than just a label — you’re hearing a political argument. Words matter, especially when they shape public perception, guide policy, and justify unequal treatment.

In the U.S., the immigration debate is often reduced to a caricature: lawbreaking border crossers versus patriotic enforcers. But the real picture is far more complex — and far more human. This post breaks down what the language of immigration says (and doesn’t say), how enforcement actually works, and what real solutions could look like for immigrants, employers, and the nation as a whole.

“Undocumented” vs. “Illegal”: What’s the Difference?

Many people use “illegal immigrant” to describe anyone without legal status in the U.S., but that term is both legally imprecise and politically loaded.

Here’s why:

• Undocumented immigrants are people who are in the country without current legal authorization — often because they overstayed a visa (a civil violation) or entered without inspection (a misdemeanor on first offense).

• “Illegal” implies that the person themselves is a crime — not just their action. But under U.S. law, only actions can be illegal. There’s no such thing as an “illegal person.”

Even major style guides like the Associated Press now recommend using “undocumented” rather than “illegal” to avoid dehumanizing language that fuels stigma.

What Happens to Undocumented Workers?

Undocumented immigrants face steep consequences — detention, deportation, separation from families, and bars to future legal re-entry — even when they’ve lived in the U.S. for years, paid taxes, and contributed to their communities.

And despite popular myths, they’re less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. A 2024 Reuters fact check showed that in Texas, the homicide conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 2.2 per 100,000 — lower than the 3.0 per 100,000 rate for native-born Americans.

Still, immigration enforcement disproportionately targets undocumented individuals, even though many are filling essential roles in our economy.

What Happens to Employers Who Hire Them?

Federal law requires employers to verify a new hire’s authorization using Form I-9, but enforcement is notoriously lax. Many employers simply accept documents that “reasonably appear genuine” — even when they suspect otherwise. And it’s completely legal for them to do so, as long as they don’t knowingly violate the law.

Penalties on Paper

• Civil fines range from $698 to $27,894 per unauthorized worker.

• Criminal charges can apply for a pattern of illegal hiring, with fines up to $3,000 per worker and up to 6 months in jail.

In Practice

Very few employers are prosecuted. While two companies did forfeit $2 million each in 2024, these cases are the exception, not the rule. A 2021 shift in DHS policy ended mass workplace raids and focused instead on employers who exploit labor, but audits remain rare and underfunded (source).

Who’s Really Working Without Papers?

The U.S. economy runs on undocumented labor — and has for decades.

• As of 2022, about 11 million people were living in the U.S. without legal status, with 8.3 million of them in the workforce — about 4.8% of all U.S. workers (Pew Research).

• In some industries, that presence is even higher:

  • Construction: 13%

  • Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing: 12%

  • Leisure & Hospitality: 7% (source)

These jobs are often grueling, poorly paid, and unfilled by U.S. citizens. In short: undocumented immigrants are doing work that needs to be done, but the system provides no legal way for them to do it.

Access to Social Services: Facts vs. Fear

Contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for nearly all federal public assistance programs. That includes:

• Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and housing assistance

• Exceptions include:

  • Emergency medical care (via Emergency Medicaid)

  • Public K–12 education (guaranteed by Plyler v. Doe, 1982)

  • Free/reduced school meals and WIC benefits for children (Migration Policy Institute)

Even where benefits are technically accessible, fear often keeps people away. The Trump-era “public charge” rule created a chilling effect that reduced participation in programs by mixed-status families, including U.S. citizen children (The Guardian).

So why do undocumented immigrants stay? It’s not for free stuff. It’s for work — often the only path to stability, family reunification, or even safety from persecution.

Enforcement for Workers vs. Employers: A Lopsided Reality

Undocumented workers face deportation, detention, and the daily risk of losing everything — including family. Employers, on the other hand, often walk away with minimal consequences. This lopsided system reflects not just legal inconsistency, but a willful blindness to the economic realities that drive undocumented employment.

Immigrants aren’t coming here because the U.S. is handing out benefits — they’re coming because employers are hiring. And they’re staying because the work is here, and the law provides no viable way for most of them to participate legally.

What Would a Better System Look Like?

Reform isn’t just possible — it’s necessary. Here’s what a more functional, humane, and economically sound immigration system could include:

Expanded Legal Work Visas

Current visa programs for low-wage labor (like H-2A for agriculture) are cumbersome and too limited. We need scalable, affordable visa pathways that match labor market needs without exploiting workers.

Earned Legalization

Millions of undocumented immigrants have lived here for years, paid taxes, raised families, and contributed to our communities. A path to legal status — not necessarily citizenship — would benefit them and the economy.

Real Accountability for Employers

Make enforcement real — not by punishing paperwork errors, but by cracking down on companies that exploit workers or knowingly break the law. Pair penalties with support for ethical hiring practices.

National E-Verify with Worker Protections

Implement a national employment verification system with strict oversight to prevent discrimination, wrongful firings, and misuse.

Decouple Immigration from Local Policing

People should feel safe reporting crimes or labor violations without risking deportation. Separating immigration enforcement from local law enforcement is key to public safety and workplace fairness.

Conclusion: Language, Logic, and Leadership

“Illegal immigrant” isn’t just an inaccurate term — it’s a distraction. It blames the people with the least power while letting the system’s real flaws go unaddressed.

If we want an immigration system that actually works — for citizens, immigrants, and employers alike — we need to be honest about who’s here, why they’re here, and what the law is doing (or failing to do) about it.

The problem isn’t that undocumented immigrants are breaking the law.

The problem is that the law is broken.