The debate over constructing fencing on the US-Mexico is not new. The Clinton administration, for example, passed legislation in the mid-90s that called for fencing around the major US metropolitan centers on the border. Yet, the extent of the inflow of illegal immigration (roughly 500,000 annually) as well as the growing Hispanic demographic in the United States has caused many people to view a more extensive fencing system as increasingly urgent.
The recent politics and legislation:
The pressure to somehow resolve the illegal immigration problem caused the US House of Reps and the Senate to propose two immigration reform bills in late 2005 and early 2006. While both bills attempted to create a comprehensive approach that went far beyond border controls, they widely diverged on a philosophical level. Senate bill 2611 approached the the issue with a much more tolerant and inclusive approach. For example, it proposed an amnesty and a path to citizenship plan for illegal immigrants. The House bill 4437 in contrast adopted a much more strict approach, making the presence of illegal immigrants in the country an aggravated felony, which would invariably call for the detention and deportation of illegals. As a result of these major philosophical differences, compromise between the two bills became very unlikely. One of the major points of agreement between the legislation, however, was on building a border wall of some kind. The two chambers decided to adopt the plan to build a 700-mile wall, which was initially proposed in H.R. 4437. This passed through the House on Sept. 14th, 2006 in House Resolution 6061 (H.R. 6061) – “Secure Fence Act of 2006” – with a vote of 283 to 138. On September 29, 2006, the Senate confirmed H.R. 6061 by a vote of 80 to 19. On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed H.R. 6061, which was the voted upon and passed by the 109th US Congress.
The Secure Fence Act authorizes the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing in high-crossing and high-risk sections along the border. This includes around the border town of Tecate, Calif., and a huge expanse stretching from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., which is virtually the entire length of Arizona’s border with Mexico. Another section would stretch over most of the southern border of New Mexico. An additional section will wind through Texas, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and from Laredo to Brownsville. The Department of Homeland Security will be required to install an intricate network of surveillance cameras on the Arizona border by May 30, 2007. The barrier will leave around 1,300 miles of border uncovered. The entire fence is set to be completed by the end of 2008.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has 18 months to secure “operational control” of the U.S. frontier. In addition to the wall, it will use unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, radar, satellites, and cameras to prevent unlawful U.S. entries. Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill for the fence and the above resources.
The debate’s key questions include the feasibility of constructing a fence of this length, the capacity of it and other measures to establish “operational control” over the borders and to deter illegal immigration, the extent to which illegal immigrants and “coyotes” (traffickers) will be able to adapt to the new security conditions and maintain a continuous stream of immigrants, the symbolism of this wall, the possible diplomatic costs, and the potential dollar costs.
See Wikipedia’s United State’s-Mexico Barrier for more introductory information and links]
The wall is not trapping individuals inside an area as the Berlin Wall did, but ensuring the regulation of cross-border flows.
Protecting national sovereignty and controlling borders is not racism. Neither is a desire to protect national identity and cultural uniqueness.
It is difficult for foreigners waiting in line to immigrate to the United States to observe illegal immigrants crossing freely. Closing the borders is an important means to respecting legal immigrants.
The Berlin wall was intended to keep people in, the US-Mexico wall would keep people out.
A fence is a draconian measure. At least symbolically, it is comparable to the Berlin Wall.
Douglas, Arizona Mayor Ray Borane “says a fence will divide a community that has strong family ties across the border.”
“The Rio Grande is the lifeblood of South Texas. A wall is just going to stand between farmers and ranchers and others who need legitimate access to water.”
The fence is intentionally placed in the least dangerous border crossings, while leaving open treacherous routes. Given the strong desire to cross, many will attempt to make these crossing fatally. Hundreds die each year already. Hundreds more could be expected.
While the barrier might not cover the entire span of the border, it will cover one-third, channeling illegal immigrants to the remaining two-thirds of the border. Border patrolmen, will be able to better concentrate their efforts on the remaining two-thirds of the border with better results.
Opponents of building the 700-mile wall often cite the fact that previous fences and policing operations in the 1990s that aimed to secure heavily crossed urban stretches of the border in El Paso, Texas, and San Diego, California did not substantially reduce the in-flow of illegal immigrants overall. Instead, these determined illegals pushed out into remote desert areas to cross. While this is true, it does not necessarily provide a good historical example against the new wall. The fact that these walls and security efforts caused illegal immigrants to cross elsewhere at much greater risk to themselves (around 400 die annually crossing) seems to be a sign that these measures had a substantial deterrent impact. By extension, it may be reasonable to believe that the 700-mile wall and its accompanying border security measures will have a similar deterrent effect along the portions of the border it will cover.
“…In the mid-1990s, the city was awash in illegal immigrants. Hundreds would gather by a soccer field near Otay Mesa, east of San Diego, and rush into the United States on what the Border Patrol termed “banzai runs.” During those years, Border Patrol agents routinely apprehended 200,000 illegal entrants a year in the sector. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) got funding to build a fence and thousands more Border Patrol officers were dispatched to the area. The number of crossers plummeted.” (see counter in costs subquestion below ->)
The 700-mile fence would be designed with greater focus on stopping illegal immigrants and would likely be much more effective at doing so.
DHS spokesman Jarrod Agen said toFox 1/3/07, “It’s beyond physical borders like fencing. It looks at how to deploy tech with fencing, which would mean camera systems, satellite, radar, sensors — all of that, lighting systems — how you integrate that with fencing and also integrate that with the Border Patrol on the ground so that they can deploy quickly and responsively to incursions along the border.”
There is no substitute for man power. And the plan accompanying the 700-mile fence has been to send national-guardsmen to provide support in patrolling the borders. This has proven beneficial and compliments greatly the construction of a 700-mile wall.
“Are we not capable of building a fence like the one the Israelis have found effective in preventing terrorists from entering Israel?[…]Similar fences in Israel have reduced terrorist attacks by up to 95%.”
Many opponents of a fence point out that it would leave over 1000 miles of border without any fencing, and that it is not directly tied to needed comprehensive immigration reform. However, numerous sources maintain that such a fence could conceivably be added to with time, potentially completing a fence that spans the entire border, and that the border fence legislation is only a first step in a broader comprehensive immigration reform process.
Just because the 700-mile fence will be difficult to build, will encounter problems, and will not be 100% effective, does not mean that it should not be built. Of course problems will exist, but the important thing is that it will add some level of additional security to American borders. And, this is of essential importance to American sovereignty.
While the wall proposed is 700 miles long, the US-Mexico border is roughly 2,000 miles long. Illegal immigrants will simply cross over the two-thirds of the border that is not covered by the fence.
After the construction of the San Diego fence, many illegal immigrants began crossing through the Arizona desert, which caused many of San Diego’s border agents to move out there. According to T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the main union for Border Patrol agents, “Tucson now has 2,600 agents. San Diego has lost 1,000 agents. Guess where the traffic is going? Back to San Diego. San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country, and yet it’s not stopping people from coming across.”
Global Security.org cited 40 tunnels being built between 2001 and 2006 under the US-Mexico border. Tunnels are a very effective means of bi-passing a border-fence, and are likely to contribute to the defeat of a 700-mile fence.
Illegal immigrants are frequently being stuffed into cars and boats to make illegal crossing over legitimate road-crossings. The techniques for doing so are highly resourceful, including the hallowing out of dashboards to fit a person.
Illegal immigrants can cross the US-Mexico border with false papers and passports or by obtaining a visa to enter the United States but with the intention to overstay the visa’s time period, which amounts to illegal immigration. These problems cannot be resolved through a border fence.
– “A study done by Wayne Cornelius, a political science professor and director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego, showed that stronger border controls have either ‘no statistically significant effect’ on the propensity to migrate, or actually encourage migrants to stay in the United States longer. Cornelius found that, among the Mexicans surveyed in his study, 37 percent stayed in the United States longer than they had planned to because of the new regulations, and 79 percent knew someone who remained in the United States because of stronger border controls. Experts say that ultimately, stricter border controls and higher penalties will not stop illegal immigration because they don’t address the root causes of the problem: a stagnant Mexican economy and strong demand for cheap labor in the U.S. market.”
In general, coyotes will always respond to difficulties with effective counter measures that enable them to do business, and shuttle illegal immigrants across.
the Homeland Security inspector general reported in December that since 1998, the Department of Homeland Security and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service spent $429 million on video and remote surveillance on the borders. Yet, nearly half of 489 cameras were never installed, 60 percent of sensor alerts are never investigated, 90 percent of the rest are false alarms, and only 1 percent overall resulted in arrests. In the same article, Doris Meissner, former INS commissioner was reported as saying, “There has been a huge amount of money poured into the border . . . but the track record of the performance of these technologies is disappointing.”
Roads need to be built to enable the construction of a border barrier. These roads, however, would actually better enable the rapid movement of illegal immigrants along the border in or outside of cars, thus actually aiding illegal immigration.
“The increased smuggling of drugs, humans and who-knows-what-else through a burgeoning international trade route through Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and Laredo, Texas, is unsettling. So is the human carnage in the all-out battles among Mexican drug-smuggling cartels to control the Mexican trade route. Even more unsettling are the border crossings by ‘special-interest aliens’ – persons from countries that sponsor terrorism – and the ‘culture of death’ catching hold among drug smugglers, a culture that appears to share characteristics with terrorist fanaticism…The DEA warns in an intelligence report that Asian narcotics traffickers, in collusion with Mexican drug cartels and terrorist groups, could use the so-called Gateway to the Pacific – a plan to expand border trade through the two Laredos – to bring contraband into the United States. ‘Contraband can be anything from narcotics, pirated videos, humans or weapons of mass destruction,’ said a DEA spokesman…El Paso County Sheriff Leo Samaniego told a House committee in August that terrorist organizations are probing the border with the help of Mexican smugglers. Webb County, Texas, Sheriff Rick Flores testified before Congress about the growing violence in Laredo, which is spilling over from Nuevo Laredo.”
Smuggling typically occurs in vehicles and often over legitimate passageways. A border barrier won’t impact this.
By increasing border controls, it becomes increasingly important for criminals to organize their efforts. Organized crime, therefore, increases along the border area.
Few if any high profile terrorists have entered the country through the US-Mexico border.
“If security measures offend public values, we may see a considerable decrease in public support, reduced participation by U.S. allies in sharing intelligence for counter-terrorism efforts.”
“Just ask the 9/11 Commissioners. Building of a fence to span our entire land border is not one of their recommendations.”
To access the second half of this Issue Report Login or Buy Issue Report
To access the second half of all Issue Reports Login or Subscribe Now