America's Border Fence - SAGE Publications Inc 8.2 Americas... · America’s Border Fence Will it stem the flow of illegal immigrants?A merica is rushing to build 670 miles of fencing

America’s Border FenceWill it stem the flow of illegal immigrants?

America is rushing to build 670 miles of fencing

along the U.S.-Mexican border by the end of the

year. The fence — or wall, as critics along the

border call it — is to include 370 miles of fencing

intended to stop illegal immigrants on foot and 300 miles of vehicle

barriers. To speed construction, the Bush administration is using

unprecedented authority granted by Congress to waive environ-

mental-, historic- and cultural-protection laws. No one claims that

building physical barriers along roughly a third of America’s 2,000-

mile Southern border will stem illegal immigration by itself, but

supporters believe it is an essential first step in “securing the

border,” providing a critical line of defense against illegal migration,

drug smugglers and even terrorists. Opponents see it as a multi-

billion-dollar waste that will only shift illegal immigrants toward

more dangerous and difficult routes into the country, while doing

environmental, cultural and economic damage.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ......................747

BACKGROUND ..................754

CHRONOLOGY ..................755

CURRENT SITUATION ..........760

AT ISSUE ..........................761

OUTLOOK ........................763

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................766

THE NEXT STEP ................767

THISREPORT

U.S. Army personnel install sections of the fence nearPuerto Palomas, Mexico. U.S. officials expect to

complete 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle barriers by year’s end.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, a division of SAGE Publications

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • Sept. 19, 2008 • www.cqresearcher.comVolume 18, Number 32 • Pages 745-768

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOREXCELLENCE ◆ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

746 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

747 • Can a border fence stopillegal immigrants?• Would blocking all illegalimmigrants hurt or benefitthe U.S. economy?• Does the fence harmU.S. relations with Mexico?

BACKGROUND

754 Building WallsMost walls have been builtto keep foreigners out.

757 Bracero ProgramThe United States welcomesMexicans during labor short-ages and then deports them.

758 ‘Tortilla Curtain’ RisesThe first border wall wasa chain-link fence in 1978.

759 Facing the FenceWomen and children begincrossing the border.

CURRENT SITUATION

760 Local BlowbackLocal resistance to thefence is growing.

762 Legal ChallengesActivists challenge thewaiving of environmental-protection laws.

762 Straddling the FenceThe presidential candidateshave straddled the issue.

OUTLOOK

763 Demographic SolutionFalling Mexican birth ratescould affect the U.S.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

748 Border Fence Affects FourStatesThe fence will span 670 miles.

749 Undocumented PopulationRoseIllegal immigration increasedby 33 percent.

750 Does the Border FenceDeter Would-be Terrorists?Some say terrorists wouldavoid the Southern border.

752 Arrests Shift DramaticallyAfter Fence UpgradesApprehensions fell in SanDiego but rose in Tucson.

755 ChronologyKey events since 1882.

756 Border-town Life BecomesMore DifficultCross-border exchanges aredisrupted.

758 Critics Say Fence DisruptsWildlife MigrationLawsuits have been filed.

761 At IssueIs a border fence the answerto the illegal immigrationproblem?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

765 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

766 BibliographySelected sources used.

767 The Next StepAdditional articles.

767 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

AMERICA’S BORDER FENCE

Cover: AFP/Getty Images/Guadalupe Williams

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. [email protected]

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITERS: Thomas J. Billitteri, Marcia Clemmitt, Peter Katel

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Rachel S. Cox,Sarah Glazer, Alan Greenblatt,

Barbara Mantel, Patrick Marshall,Tom Price, Jennifer Weeks

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

FACT-CHECKER/PROOFREADER: Eugene J. Gabler

EDITORIAL INTERNS: Alexis Irvin, Vyomika Jairam

A Division ofSAGE Publications

PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER:John A. Jenkins

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REFERENCE INFORMATION GROUP:

Alix B. Vance

DIRECTOR, ONLINE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:Jennifer Q. Ryan

Copyright © 2008 CQ Press, a division of SAGE Pub-

lications. SAGE reserves all copyright and other rights

herein, unless previously specified in writing. No part

of this publication may be reproduced electronical-

ly or otherwise, without prior written permission. Un-

authorized reproduction or transmission of SAGE copy-

righted material is a violation of federal law carrying

civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional

Quarterly Inc.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Published weekly, except; (March wk. 4)

(May wk. 3) (July wk. 1) (July wk. 2) (Aug. wk. 2)

(Aug. wk. 3) (Nov. wk. 4) and (Dec. wk. 4), by CQ

Press, a division of SAGE Publications. Annual full-

service subscriptions start at $803. For pricing, call 1-

800-834-9020, ext. 1906. To purchase a CQ Researcher

report in print or electronic format (PDF), visit www.

cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports start

at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-rights

licensing are also available. Periodicals postage paid

at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to CQ Research-

er, 2300 N St., N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037.

Sept. 19, 2008Volume 18, Number 32

CQResearcher

Sept. 19, 2008 747Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

America’s Border Fence

THE ISSUESI n the arid landscape nearNaco, Ariz., America’snew border fence alreadylooks timeworn. A rustedbrown the color of the dis-tant Huachuca Mountains,spray-painted here and therewith directions for mainte-nance crews, it snakes upand down rugged hills, dis-appearing into the distance.Besides its length, the mostsurprising thing about thefence is how unimpressive itappears. Our nation’s highlypublicized first line of de-fense against illegal entry,now being built up and downthe U.S.-Mexican border,looks in some places likesomething that might guarda construction site.

But to Border PatrolAgent Mike Scioli the fencemarks a new day. “It’s ahuge improvement,” he saidrecently, while showing a re-porter the 14-foot-high fenc-ing near Naco and the ac-companying new roads, lightsand other improvements. “It makes ahuge difference in our ability to doour job. It changes the game.”

A few miles away, Bill Odle, a re-tired Marine whose house sits only ahundred yards or so from a stretch offence erected last fall, views the fencequite differently. Odle has lived on theborder since 1997 and is familiar withthe evidence and even the sight of il-legal immigrants stealing across. Heregularly picks up the trash they leavebehind and fixes livestock fencesthey’ve damaged. But it’s the borderfence itself that raises his ire.

“It’s ugly. It doesn’t work. It coststoo much,” Odle said, contemplat-ing the steel-mesh barrier from his

driveway. “It’s the perfect govern-ment project.”

The 670 miles of barriers the gov-ernment plans to have in place alongthe U.S.-Mexican border by the endof the year does more than separatetwo nations: It sharply divides U.S.opinion about how we should ap-proach illegal immigration and bordersecurity. That division becomes evi-dent even in what the barricade iscalled. The government and support-ers of the structure call it a “fence”;opponents disparagingly call it a “wall.”

A March 2008 Associated Press pollfound Americans almost evenly splitover the Secure Border Initiative, with49 percent favoring the fence and 48 per-

cent opposing it. But only44 percent believe it will makea difference, while 55 percentdo not. 1

That sentiment may part-ly reflect skepticism aboutthe effectiveness of the ef-fort. The “fence” is really amelange of barriers — builtalong several different stretch-es of the border — designedto hamper immigrants cross-ing illegally on foot and invehicles. Some of the earli-est portions are solid metal,consisting of corrugated steelonce used in Vietnam-era air-craft landing mats. More re-cent sections are often madeof wire mesh reinforced byconcrete-filled poles or tallerconcrete-filled poles plantedsix inches apart. The heightranges from 12 to 18 feet.Vehicle barriers are lowerand often resemble thecrossed metal defenses erect-ed by the Germans on thebeaches of Normandy dur-ing World War II.

The longest continuoussegment is 22.5 miles, ac-cording to Barry Morrissey,

a Bureau of Customs and Border Pro-tection (CBP) spokesman. The UnitedStates had constructed 338 miles offencing as of Aug. 13, 2008. 2 Home-land Security Secretary Michael Chertoffhas said 670 miles will be in place bythe end of 2008 — stretching acrossabout one-third of the 1,950-mile-longU.S.-Mexican border. Roughly 370miles of the fence will be designed tostop pedestrians and 300 miles of itto stop vehicular traffic. 3 At least 28miles of the fence will consist of high-tech sensors and cameras that will cre-ate a “virtual fence” in parts of theArizona desert. However, HomelandSecurity recently sent that project backto the drawing board after the initial

BY REED KARAIM

AFP

/Get

ty I

mag

es/C

hip

Som

odev

illa

The fence blocks illegal border crossings near CiudadJuarez (right side of fence) and El Paso, Texas. The

planned 670-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican borderincludes a mix of pedestrian and vehicle barriers.

Supporters call the fence a vital first step in securing theU.S. border; opponents say it is a waste of money that

threatens wildlife and forces undocumented immigrantsto take more dangerous desert routes into the U.S.

748 CQ Researcher

effort proved neither high-tech nor par-ticularly effective. 4

But even as National Guard engi-neering units and private contractorswork to meet Chertoff’s ambitious com-pletion timetable, everything about thefencing — from design to location tothe very notion itself — has provencontroversial. Some prefer a double layerof more formidable fencing along near-ly the entire length of the border. 5

Others object to the wall on humani-tarian grounds, believing it only forcesillegal migrants to try crossing in moredangerous or remote desert areas oralong the Pacific and Gulf of Mexicocoasts. In both cases, they say, thedeath toll — which has been climbingfor years — is likely to rise further. 6

“The fence doesn’t stop migrationalong the border, it simply displacesmigration,” says Nestor Rodriguez, co-director of the Center for ImmigrationResearch at the University of Houston.

The fence has attracted a widely dis-parate group of opponents. A coalition

of civic leaders from 19 Texas bordercommunities has sued to halt construc-tion, claiming the federal governmenthas improperly seized land for the fence.The Defenders of Wildlife and the SierraClub are trying to halt the fence becauseof concern over what it will to dowildlife and environmentally sensitivehabitat.

“This thing might not be very effec-tive at stopping people, but it’s stop-ping wildlife in its tracks,” says MattClark, the Southwestern representativeof Defenders of Wildlife. (See sidebar,p. 758, and “Current Situation,” p. 762.)

While critics attack from all direc-tions, supporters concentrate their de-fense of the fence along two fronts: itsimportant role in halting illegal immi-gration and bolstering border security ata time of increased threats from terror-ists and drug smugglers.

“It sends a message we are finallygetting serious about our borders,” saysRosemary Jenks, director of govern-mental affairs for NumbersUSA, a group

that advocates reducing both illegaland legal immigration.

Few think a fence alone will stemthe tide of illegal immigrants acrossthe Southern border, estimated by thePew Hispanic Center at about 850,000people annually between 2000 to2006. 7 But supporters believe prop-erly placed fencing, backed by moresurveillance equipment and an ex-panded Border Patrol (projected toreach 18,319 agents by the end of2008) can largely halt the flow of il-legal human traffic. 8

The history of the economic, de-mographic and cultural forces that fi-nally led America to fence off morethan a third of its border with Mex-ico is nearly as long and serpentineas the fence itself. In fact, the fencecan be viewed as the physical man-ifestation of two powerful political cur-rents: heightened U.S. attention to na-tional security after the terroristattacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and a rapidlyintegrating global economy that hasleft many Americans vulnerable tocompetition from foreign workers, bothhere and abroad.

The forerunner of the fence build-ing now under way began in a farmore limited fashion near San Diegoin the 1990s. Congress adopted theidea as a national approach to the bor-der when it passed the Secure FenceAct of 2006, which called for double-layer fencing along specific sectionsof the border. The law was subse-quently modified to give Chertoff widediscretion in where and when to in-stall fencing.

Work is under way in all four statesalong the border — California, Arizona,New Mexico and Texas. But two stateswill get most of the barrier: Texas willget 149 miles of pedestrian fencing bythe end of 2008, according to the CBP,while Arizona will end up with 317miles (130 miles of pedestrian fencingand 187 miles of vehicular barriers),covering 84 percent of the state’s 377-mile border with Mexico.


ArizonaTexasNew MexicoCalifornia

Border Fence Affects Four States

The U.S.-Mexican border fence is slated to span 670 miles across four states — Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California — by the end of 2008. More than half of the barricade will be designed to stop pedestrians, and the rest will block vehicular traffic. Nearly half of the fence will be located in Arizona.

Source: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

Length of Border Fence(in miles, by state)

0

50

100

150

200

Anti-pedestrian fencing

Anti-vehicle fencing

149

13

101

0

130

187

78

12

Total Mileage:370 300


The CBP estimates that pedestrianfencing costs about $4 million to $5 mil-lion per mile, depending on the terrain,while vehicle fencing costs $2 millionto $3 million. But the Government Ac-countability Office (GAO) says the finalcosts will be higher. 9 Although thelong-term price tag is difficult to esti-mate, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers predicts the 25-year cost couldrange from $16.4 million to $70 mil-lion per mile, depending on theamount of damage done to the fenceby illegal border crossers and the ele-ments. 10 Thus the quarter-century costto taxpayers for 670 miles of fencecould reach as high as $46.9 billion,or nearly seven times the size of theannual budget of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Moreover, if Chertoff’s goal is to bemet, construction will have to averagemore than a mile a day for the restof this year. Many supporters and op-ponents are skeptical, but governmentofficials are confident they’ll meet theself-imposed deadline.

“We are on track to complete thisproject by the end of the year,” saysJason Ahern, CBP deputy commis-sioner, “and then we’ll assess wherewe need to consider putting additionalmiles of fence.”

Meanwhile, as the fence rises, hereare some of the questions being asked:

Can a border fence stem the flowof illegal immigrants?

The border below San Diego wasbeing overwhelmed by illegal immi-grants in the early 1990s when the U.S.government began building pedestrianfencing in the area. The initial fence didnot have the impact supporters hadhoped, but when it was backed up witha second and third layer of fencing,along with surveillance equipment andan increased Border Patrol presence, theresults were dramatic.

At the Border Patrol’s Imperial Beachand Chula Vista stations, which hadbeen ground zero of the illegal migrant

explosion, apprehensions plummetedfrom 294,740 people in 1994 to 19,035in 2004. 11 (See graph, p. 752.) Appre-hensions are considered one of the bestmeasures of the overall number of mi-grants trying to cross illegally, and sup-porters of the fence cite these statistics,along with similar ones in the BorderPatrol’s Yuma, Ariz., sector.

“A fence is a clearly proven tech-nology that, when deployed properlyand used in conjunction with otherenforcement strategies, clearly works,”says Dan Stein, president of the Fed-eration for American Immigration Re-form (FAIR), which supports evenstronger measures to stop illegal im-migrants. “The Yuma fence is triplefencing, and nobody gets over it. Youcan build a fence that’s essentially im-penetrable.”

Skeptics point out the increases inpersonnel and equipment may havehad as much to do with the success

as the fencing. But Deputy Commis-sioner Ahern says the fence was al-ways intended to work in conjunctionwith other resources. “We have whatwe call the three legs of our stool:tactical infrastructure [the fence], tech-nology and personnel,” he says. “It’sthat combination that’s effective.”

Agent Scioli believes the fence willdeter some migrants and smugglers,but he says it makes his job easiereven if illegal migrants make it overthe top, because catching bordercrossers is an equation involving timeand distance. Agents are trained in“cutting sign” — following the foot-prints and other pieces of evidencemigrants leave as they pass throughthe desert. If agents are late to thetrail, their chances of success dropdramatically.

“Yes, I’ve heard what people say.‘Show me a 14-foot fence, and I’ll showyou someone with a 15-foot ladder,’ ”

Undocumented Population Rose

The nation’s unauthorized migrant population increased by more than 3 million between 2000 and 2005 — a jump of nearly 33 per-cent, according to the 2005 Current Population Survey. The increas-es were among immigrants from every region in the world except the Caribbean. Mexico led the way with more than 6.2 million immi-grants in 2005, more than all other regions combined.

Source: Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.,” Pew Hispanic Center, March 2006

Unauthorized Migrant Population byBirth Region, 2000 and 2005

2000 Census

2005 Current Population Survey

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

OtherSouthand

Eastern Asia

MiddleEast

Europeand

Canada

SouthAmerica

CaribbeanCentralAmerica

Mexico

Number(In thousands)

750 CQ Researcher

Scioli says. “But even if they do get overthis fence, it takes time. Now, when I’mon their trail, maybe it only takes min-utes to catch them, rather than hours.”

The Border Patrol’s comprehensiveapproach sounds impregnable. But toOdle, the ex-Marine who lives alongthe border, the reality is different. Al-most all of the new fencing aroundNaco, as along most of the border, isa single layer that largely stands alone— a one-legged stool he sees doinglittle good. The remote-controlled

cameras and motion sensors that havebeen in the desert for some time don’tseem particularly effective, he says, andhis stretch of the border is still onlylightly patrolled. “The Border Patrol,their presence has lessened consider-ably since they built the wall,” he says.

Odle does credit the vehicle barrierswith stopping smugglers from drivingacross the desert the way they once did.But the rest fails to impress him. If any-thing, he believes illegal migration mayhave increased slightly in the area since

the fence went up. “I’ve seen womenand kids as well as guys climbing overit,” he says. “I could put up with thedamn thing if it worked, but it doesn’t.”

Criticism of the fence grows evenstronger when its effectiveness is mea-sured on a national scale. “It can slowdown or deter migration in some areasthat are very popular for border cross-ing, as it did in San Diego, but thatdoesn’t mean it stops migration alongthe whole border,” notes Rodriguez ofthe Center for Immigration Research.


T he Border Patrol annually rounds up a smattering of il-legal entrants from nearly every country in the world,including Middle Eastern countries considered hotbedsof terrorist activity. Indeed, the Internet buzzes with reports ofKorans and prayer rugs found along the U.S.-Mexican border.

But so far, no one in the U.S. government has tied any ter-rorist act to anyone who crossed the border illegally. The 9/11 hi-jackers all entered the United States on temporary visas, arrivingthrough regular ports of entry. Other foreign terrorists or would-be terrorists apprehended in the United States have followed sim-ilar routes into the country.

Many immigration and security experts believe the South-western border remains an unattractive option for terrorists plot-ting their path into the United States. “We have lots of data onterrorist travel. They like to travel the way everybody else trav-els. They like predictability. They like to know what they’re goingto face,” says James Jay Carafano, a senior defense and coun-terterrorism analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation.“That’s not to say a terrorist can’t try to use a smuggler to getacross the border, but they’re far more likely to use the legalports of entry.”

Carafano believes a border fence makes sense for immi-gration control in limited areas but that the cost and effort nec-essary to build nearly 700 miles of fence is diverting resourcesthat could be better used to improve infrastructure and screen-ing procedures at ports of entry. “Fixating myopically on thewall is just bad public policy,” he says. “Looking for terroristsby standing watch on the border is stupid. It’s looking for aneedle in a haystack.”

But Michael Cutler, a former Immigration and NaturalizationService special agent and now a fellow at the Center for Immi-gration Studies, thinks the danger of terrorists sneaking across theU.S.-Mexican border shouldn’t be discounted. “If you’re doing riskanalysis, any place where somebody could reasonably expect toenter the United States is a place where you want to shore up

security,” he says. “And when you look at how many peoplecross that border every week, and the evidence of Islamists they’vefound there, then I think you’ve got to consider it a threat.”

Cutler is concerned that Hezbollah and other terrorist groupsmay have a presence in the “tri-border region” in South America— the area where Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil meet, whichincludes an immigrant population from the Middle East. Hebelieves the region could provide a Latin American base forIslamic terrorists who could use the Southwestern border toenter the United States. However, the credibility of such a threatis debated in security circles.

Rey Koslowski, director of the Research Program on Bor-der Control and Homeland Security at the University at Albany,in New York, says U.S. efforts to tighten security at ports ofentry — particularly a new system intended to make it moredifficult for those on the government’s terrorist “watch list” toboard airplanes bound for the United States — could makethe Southwestern border more attractive to “established terrorists.”If they did end up contemplating that route, then the borderfence might help deter them, Koslowski adds, since it wouldmake their capture — and identification — more likely.

Still, he believes al Qaeda and other terrorist organizationswould probably choose a different strategy: sending individu-als who don’t have a criminal record and thus would be lesslikely to generate a “watch list” hit. “Such individuals wouldbe in a better position to enter through ports of entry, at lowerlevels of risk,” Koslowski says.

But Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for Amer-ican Immigration Reform (FAIR), which favors less immigration— legal or illegal — says the “general sense of chaos” alongthe U.S.-Mexican border created by the large number of illegalmigrants makes it an attractive target for terrorists.

“The fact that it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it isn’t goingto happen,” he says. “The presumption ought to be that if we leaveany areas unguarded, our enemies will take advantage of them.”

Does the Border Fence Deter Would-be Terrorists?Some believe terrorists are more likely to enter legally.


National statistics back this assertion.The Border Patrol made 1.2 millionapprehensions in 1992 along the entireSouthern border and about the samenumber in 2004, suggesting that in-creased enforcement in the San Diegosector and other areas made little dif-ference in the overall number of im-migrants trying to cross illegally. 12

The more recent squeeze in Yumaalso has been met with increased ac-tivity elsewhere. Fence supporterscounter that’s because much of thenew fencing is still inadequate. Theynote that before theSecure Fence Act of2006 was revisedlast year, it requireddouble layers offencing along spec-ified parts of theborder. “They tookout that language,”says NumbersUSA’sJenks, “which wouldhave made a bigdifference.”

Fenc ing andstepped-up patrollingare effective, sayfence supporters,when the govern-ment is willing tocommit sufficient re-sources to the task.“We don’t argue thatthe fence alone is the solution,” saysJenks. “The fence is one part of thesolution. But there are vast amounts ofland . . . where fencing is feasible andwhere it would do a tremendous amountof good. We need more fence alongthe border.”

But stepped-up border enforcementalone is bound to fail, says WayneCornelius, director of the Center forComparative Immigration Studies at theUniversity of California, San Diego,which favors lower U.S. immigrationlevels. “A continuous barrier is im-possible because of the terrain; eventhe government recognizes that,” he

says. Besides, he continues, a contin-uous border would only create addedpressure at the maritime borders, whichis already happening. “We’ve had abouttwo dozen boats washing up or in-terdicted in San Diego County sincelast August. And those were only theboats that were found.”

Moreover, Canada does not requireMexicans to produce a visa when en-tering Canada. 13 For a continuousSouthern-border fence to work, saysRey Koslowski, director of the Re-search Program on Border Control

and Homeland Security at the Uni-versity at Albany in New York, “TheU.S. would have to build another fenceon the much longer 5,525-mile U.S.-Canadian border or persuade the Cana-dian government to end free travelfrom Mexico.”

But even that wouldn’t complete-ly solve the problem, because 45 per-cent of all illegal immigrants enteredthe United States legally but did notleave in accordance with the termsof their visas, according to the PewHispanic Center. 14

The most recent study by the Cen-ter for Comparative Immigration Studies

found that 91 percent of the villagersinterviewed in San Miguel Tlacotepec,a city in Southern Mexico, believed itis “very dangerous” to cross the borderwithout documents. And nearly a quar-ter of the interviewees knew someonewho had died trying to get into theUnited States.

Yet such awareness didn’t make adifference. 15 “Being aware of thephysical risks, being aware of some-one who actually died in the cross-ing, knowing about the Border Pa-trol’s increased efforts to interdict

people — none ofthese things discouragedthem,” says Cornelius.

In fact, Cornelius says,the interviews revealedthat increased borderenforcement has endedup discouraging illegalimmigrants from return-ing home because of thedanger now involved.

“The undocumentedpopulation has tripled dur-ing the period of con-centrated border enforce-ment,” he says. “We wereat 3.9 million in 1995, andnow we’re over 12 mil-lion. To me, that’s the mostsignificant evidence thatthis approach has failed.”

Would blocking all illegal immi-grants hurt or benefit the U.S.economy?

Both supporters and critics of theborder fence agree that as long as U.S.businesses continue to hire illegal im-migrants for higher salaries than theycan earn at home, workers will con-tinue to risk their lives to enter theUnited States.

But a divide quickly reemerges indiscussions about the impact those im-migrants have on the U.S. economy.Some see illegal immigrants doing workthat U.S. citizens spurn, filling a host ofhard, low-paying, but essential service

A vehicle barrier lines the south side of Interstate 8 at the ImperialDunes, just north of the U.S.-Mexican border near Winterhaven, Calif.

Some 300 miles of border fencing are designed to stop vehicles.

Get

ty I

mag

es/D

avid

McN

ew

752 CQ Researcher

and trade jobs that allow the rest ofus to live comfortably. That view wasencapsulated in the 2004 movie “ADay Without a Mexican,” a comedythat shows the California economygrinding to a halt when the state’s im-migrants mysteriously disappear. (Thefilm attracted almost no attention inthe United States but was a hit andwon several awards in Mexico.)

Others, however, believe illegal im-migrants are driving down U.S. wages,draining state and federal treasuries bycollecting government payments towhich they’re not entitled and con-tributing to rising health-care and law-enforcement costs. These sentiments

are strong enough to have trans-formed CNN anchor Lou Dobbs —who proudly waves the anti-illegalsflag — into a populist hero to mil-lions of Americans. Dobbs ties the il-legal immigrant surge to larger eco-nomic forces, chiefly globalization,and the “sellout” by U.S. policymak-ers to powerful business interests,which are all part of what he calls a“war on the middle class.” Dobbs par-ticularly claims that the North Ameri-can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),which lowered trade barriers betweenthe United States, Mexico and Cana-da, has sent U.S. jobs to Mexico andlowered American wages.

Kathleen Staudt, a political scienceprofessor at the University of Texas,El Paso, says immigrants make a con-venient target during tough econom-ic times. But she believes overheat-ed rhetoric has kept many Americansfrom seeing the role illegal immi-grants play in the economy. “If wewere forced to do without this labor,I think the economies of many bor-der towns would begin to die,” shesays, “and the price of many main-stream goods and services would goup dramatically.”

However, Stein, at the Federationfor American Immigration Reform, saysthe laws of supply and demand wouldbring clear rewards to U.S. workers.“If the people here illegally had toleave, wages would rise, and employerswould suddenly have incentives toprovide things like health care again,”he says. “It would be a great windfallfor the rising tide of less-skilled work-ers in the country, who would havea chance to reestablish their role inthe middle class.”

But would Americans really takejobs in meatpacking plants, janitorialservices, yard care, food service, con-struction and other trades now de-pendent on illegal labor? Staudt doubtsit. “I think the chamber of commercein many cities would begin to lobbyvery hard for relaxed [immigration]rules allowing more people in to fillthese jobs,” she says.

That has already happened in Ari-zona, which passed a law last yearimposing stiff, new sanctions againstemployers who hire illegal immigrants.Since then, the hospitality and agri-culture industries have reported work-er shortages. 16 Some business groupshave sued to overturn the law, andsome of the original sponsors are evencalling for reducing penalties on busi-nesses that violate the law. 17

Opponents of illegal immigrants saybusinesses’ economic distress is justthe result of the economic system ad-justing to new realities. “It’s not a


Arrests Shift After Border Improvements

After the U.S.-Mexican border was strengthened in San Diego in the early 1990s, arrests of illegal immigrants in the region — which includes Imperial Beach and Chula Vista — dropped dramatically. At the same time, however, apprehensions in Tucson skyrocketed to 491,000 in 2004. Because of the shift of illegal immigration to Tucson, the overall number of illegal migrants — 630,000 — apprehended in the San Diego and Tucson border regions remained about the same in 2004 as in 1992.

Source: Blas Nuñez-Neto and Yule Kim, “Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,” Congressional Research Service, May 2008

Apprehensions of Illegal Immigrants inTucson and San Diego

TucsonImperial Beach (San Diego)Chula Vista (San Diego)Other San Diego

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

200420032002199419931992


crime for employers to have to raisewages to get people to do certainjobs,” says Stein.

But Gordon Hanson, an economistat the University of California, SanDiego, who has studied the impactof immigrant labor on the workforce,says, “The United States has done apretty good job of educating itself outof low-end work. Only 8 percent ofthe U.S. labor force lacks a high-schooleducation. You don’t graduate fromhigh school to go to work in a poul-try plant.”

America also has one of the high-est incarceration rates in the devel-oped world, Hanson adds, further re-ducing the low-end labor supply. 18

If illegal immigrant labor is cut off,“you’re not going to fill all those jobswith native workers,” he says. “In in-dustries where work can be export-ed, you’re going to lose jobs.”

Wages will rise in the service in-dustries where jobs can’t be exported— such as maids, dishwashers, gar-deners, waiters and 7-11 clerks — butso will the costs to consumers, Han-son says. While illegal labor hurts low-skilled U.S. workers, it helps higher-skilled workers by providing themwith cheaper goods and services, suchas home and child care. “In familieswith two educated workers,” Hansonsays, “it allows whoever would be thestay-at-home spouse to stay in theworkforce at lower cost.”

The question of how much illegalimmigration costs taxpayers also is hotlydisputed. The Federation for Ameri-can Immigration Reform estimates thatin just three areas — schooling, med-ical care and incarceration — illegalimmigrants cost local governments$36 billion a year. 19 Other estimatesare lower, but most economists agreeillegal workers are a net cost to localgovernments, especially in communitieswith large illegal populations.

The costs are incurred, in part, be-cause illegal workers are less likely tohave health insurance than U.S. citi-

zens and because their children aremore likely to need special assistancein school. With average incomes sig-nificantly below the national average,most studies indicate illegal workerspay less in state and local taxes thanthey collect in services. 20

However, the impact appears lim-ited. The Congressional Budget Officeestimates that public spending for il-legal immigrants generally accountsfor less than 5 percent of state andlocal spending on law enforcement,education and health care. 21

The impact on the federal budgetis less clear. A Center for Immigra-tion Studies report put the net costto the federal government for ser-vices provided to illegal immigrants— such as Medicare, food stamps,subsidized school lunches, federal aidto public schools and increased coststo the federal court and prison sys-tems — at about $10 billion annu-ally. 22 But other analysts say illegalimmigrants pay more into the feder-al treasury in taxes and Social Secu-rity taxes — since they usually havefake Social Security cards — thanthey receive in benefits. A study byStandard & Poor’s, a credit-rating andresearch firm, noted the U.S. Social Se-curity Administration places $6 bil-lion to $7 billion in a special accountfor unclaimed benefits annually —an amount analysts believe mostlycomes from illegal immigrants whopay Social Security taxes but cannotlegally claim Social Security orMedicare benefits. 23

When all the economic plusesand minuses are taken into account,Hanson says, “You get somethingthat’s close to a wash. There are dis-tributional shifts within the econo-my — some employers and con-sumers who will be hurt, someworkers and state and local gov-ernments that will benefit. But ourbest sense is that the net economicimpact isn’t huge.”

Does the fence harm U.S relationswith Mexico and other countries?

About a century ago, Mexican strong-man Porfirio Diaz surveyed his nation’salready long and troubled relationshipwith its neighbor to the north and ob-served, “Poor Mexico, so far from Godand so close to the United States.”

Much has changed in both countriessince Diaz’s dictatorial reign. Mexico’s pol-itics are far more vibrant, peaceful anddemocratic. America no longer interferesas bluntly as it once did in its neighbor’saffairs, and NAFTA ties the two coun-tries together economically with Canada.

But in more than one sense, Diaz’smelancholy observation feels as time-less as ever. “Mexico has never beenthe actor that drives the relationship,”says Tony Payan, an assistant profes-sor of international relations and for-eign policy at the University of Texas,El Paso. “It’s always been unilateralaction by the United States, and thenMexico is left to react.”

Mexico made its unhappiness withthe border fence clear from the begin-ning. In 2005, then-Mexican PresidentVicente Fox called the idea “shameful”when it began gaining traction in Con-gress. “It’s not possible that in the 21stcentury we’re building walls betweentwo nations that are neighbors, be-tween two nations that are brothers,”Fox said at an event for migrants inhis home state of Guanajuato. 24

Mexican officials already were dis-tressed by the rising death toll amongillegal migrants, which began after U.S.border enforcement activities werestepped up in the mid-1990s. By seal-ing off the areas of heaviest illegalcrossing, the Border Patrol drove bor-der crossers into more remote and dead-ly terrain, particularly the Arizona desert.

Illegal immigrant deaths along theborder have climbed steadily, accord-ing to the U.S. Border Patrol and Mex-ican consular offices, rising to 472 in2005, compared to an average of about200 in the early 1990s. 25 The totalsare widely believed to be undercounted,

754 CQ Researcher

however, because they reflect onlybodies recovered by the U.S. and Mexi-can border patrols. In the rugged ex-panses of the Southwestern desert, manyare likely never found. 26

Mexico has officially complainedabout the expansion of fencing. “Wecertainly recognize that they wouldprefer not to have a fence betweenour two countries,” says CustomsDeputy Commissioner Ahern. “But theyacknowledge that we need to secureour country, that it’s our responsibilityand our sovereign right.”

The two countries continue to co-operate along the border, with Mexicanofficials working with their U.S. coun-terparts on the International BoundaryWaters Commission to ensure that fenceconstruction along the Rio Grande Riverdoes not impede water flow ordrainage. The two countries also con-tinue to work together to battle violentcrime and drug smuggling along theborder. “We’ve had a great relationshipwith them there,” Ahern says.

His comments dovetail with publicstatements offered by President GeorgeW. Bush and Mexican President FelipeCalderon during the North AmericanLeaders Summit in Louisiana last April.Both said the relationship between thetwo countries remains strong and col-laborative, despite Mexican concernsover U.S. immigration policy. 27

But some observers are skeptical. “Ithink there’s almost total disillusionmentright now among Mexico’s ruling elites,”says Ed Williams, a retired political sci-ence professor from the University ofArizona. “They’ve recognized that thisis the reality and that haranguing isn’tgoing to change anything, but there’senormous disappointment.”

The disappointment is particularly pro-found, he adds, because Mexico initiallybelieved Bush’s time as governor of Texasand his close relationship with Fox sig-naled an era of closer ties between thetwo countries once he was elected.

Some fence proponents acknowledgethe bond between the United States

and its Southern neighbor has beendamaged, but they blame Mexican at-titudes. “U.S.-Mexico relations areheaded for hard times because they in-sist on respect, but what we want isa mutuality of respect,” says FAIR’s Stein,“and for some reason they seem tothink it’s a one-way street. They wanta special policy for Mexican nationals.”

Americans often take their neigh-bors — both to the north and south— for granted, even though the Mex-icans and Canadians are more impor-tant to the U.S. economy than is gen-erally realized. Canada and Mexico areAmerica’s top two trading partners aswell as, respectively, the largest andthird-largest suppliers of crude oil tothe United States.

Williams believes dismay over U.S.border policies extends to Canada, too.“The policy elites in both Canada andMexico are increasingly exasperatedwith the United States, and thereforea whole host of relationships are jeop-ardized by a feeling of ill will that char-acterizes the current situation,” he says.

At the end of the Louisiana summit,Bush and Calderon, along with Canadi-an Prime Minister Stephen Harper, issueda joint communiqué pledging, amongother things, to coordinate long-terminfrastructure plans along their bordersand to “deepen cooperation on thedevelopment and application of tech-nology to make our borders both smarterand more secure.” 28

Although the communiqué painteda picture of three partners marchingtogether into the future, Payan at theUniversity of Texas believes the realpicture is different. “What you have isan elephant in the middle with twomice sleeping on either side. Canadaand Mexico are always going to haveto move in such a way that the ele-phant doesn’t squash them,” he says.“But the image is a little more com-plicated than it first seems because theelephant is afraid of mice. And, rightnow, the U.S. is viewing its neighborsas potential threats.”

BACKGROUNDBuilding Walls

N ations have been building wallsor fences along their bordersmore or less since nations began.

Consider Hadrian’s Wall, built in thesecond century AD along RomanBritain’s frontier. The wall was madeof turf and stone instead of steel andconcrete, but its commonly acceptedpurpose sounds familiar: to keep thepoorer “barbarians” of ancient Scot-land from invading the civilized andmore prosperous empire.

The Great Wall of China built overseveral hundred years was a similar,even more expansive effort. Much likethe U.S. border fence, it wasn’t onestructure but a series of walls totalingabout 4,000 miles along strategic stretch-es of the border, designed to keep outthe Mongols and other nomadic tribesfrom Central Asia.

More recently, the Berlin Wall ap-pears to have been built for the op-posite reason: to keep residents insidecommunist East Berlin. However, asformer University of Arizona politicalscience Professor Williams points out,East Germany claimed the wall wasdesigned to protect East Berliners fromthe “alien influences of capitalism.”

American history is replete with itsown examples of walls, notesWilliams, who edited an upcoming spe-cial issue of the university’s Journalof the Southwest entitled, “Fences.” 29

The Jamestown settlers and the Pil-grims built palisades — fences of point-ed wooden stakes — around theirsmall communities to keep out the Na-tive Americans and wild animals.

Through the centuries, barriershave been erected along borders “toprotect ‘us’ from ‘them,’ ” Williams says.


Continued on p. 756


ChronologyPre-1950s TheU.S. restricts immigration basedon race and national origin.

1882Chinese Exclusion Act suspendsimmigration of Chinese laborersfor 10 years — the first law inU.S. history to restrict immigrationbased on nationality.

1921A rising tide of isolationism promptsthe Emergency Quota Act, whichlimits annual immigration from anyone country to 3 percent of existingU.S. population from that country. Itsharply reduces immigration fromEastern and Southern Europe.

1924Congress enacts the Johnson-ReedAct, further tightening quotas forEuropeans and excluding immi-grants from Asia altogether. . . .The Labor Appropriation Act estab-lishes the Border Patrol, with 450 of-ficers responsible for guarding bothborders with Mexico and Canada.

1942Facing labor shortages duringWorld War II, the United Statesinitiates the Bracero Program,which imports Mexican workersfor farm labor and other jobs.

•

1950s-1960sAmerica begins to deal withlarge-scale illegal immigration.

1954Facing growing illegal immigrationfrom Mexico, the government initi-ates “Operation Wetback.” Authoritiessweep through Mexican-Americanbarrios, and thousands of immigrantsare returned to Mexico.

1964Congress ends Bracero Program.

1965Immigration and Nationality Act of1965 abolishes immigration quotasbased on national origin but givespreference to relatives of U.S. citi-zens, permanent resident aliens,scientists and workers with skillsin short supply.

•

1970s-1990sAmerica offers amnesty to illegalaliens and begins to consider aborder fence.

1986President Ronald Reagan signs Immigration Reform and ControlAct of 1986 giving amnesty, undercertain circumstances, to illegal immigrants who have been in theUnited States since 1982.

1990The Border Patrol begins erectinga 14-mile fence to deter illegalentries and drug smuggling nearSan Diego.

1993A Sandia Laboratory study says athree-tiered fence along parts ofthe border would discourage ordelay border crossers and channelothers into areas the Border Patrolcould more easily control.

1994Operation Gatekeeper increases thenumber of Border Patrol agents nearSan Diego.

1996Congress passes the Illegal Immi-gration Reform and Immigrant Re-sponsibility Act, which gives thegovernment broad authority to

construct barriers along the borderand authorizes a secondary layerof fencing in San Diego.

•

2000-PresentCongress sweeps aside legal restrictions and directs the administration to build fencing.

2002Congress allows Immigration andNaturalization Service (INS) funds tobe used to buy land for borderfencing and to construct the fences.

2003The INS is abolished, and its func-tions are transferred to the newlycreated Department of HomelandSecurity.

2005Congress passes the REAL ID Actauthorizing the Homeland Securitysecretary to waive all legal re-quirements in order to expeditethe construction of border barriers.

2006Border Patrol apprehends 1.2 mil-lion illegal migrants along U.S.-Mexican border. . . . Secure FenceAct authorizes construction of atotal of 850 miles of fencing alongthe border.

2007Consolidated Appropriations Actgives the secretary of HomelandSecurity greater freedom to decidehow much fencing to build alongthe Southern border and whereand when to build it.

2008Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff reaffirms 670miles of fencing will be in placeby the end of the year.

756 CQ Researcher

“The same things are always saidabout the people on the other side ofthe fence — they’re barbarians or sav-ages or an alien force.”

The question is whether they work.After all, the Berlin Wall fell, the Ro-mans eventually abandoned Hadrian’sWall, the Manchu finally conqueredChina and even the massive fortifica-tions of the French Maginot Line, builtbetween the world wars, were ren-dered ineffectual when the Germanssimply went around them — an ap-proach critics of the U.S. border fencesay illegal migrants already are taking.

But such unequivocal dismissal, pop-ular with critics of the U.S. fence, ig-nores the long periods during whichcertain fortifications proved effective.

In his book about the Roman Empire,historian Derek Williams says afterHadrian’s Wall was built, “Decadespassed without emergency.” The BerlinWall fulfilled its function for more than40 years, he adds, and the Great Wallof China for much longer. 30

“It would be very comfortable formy liberal consciousness to say thesethings don’t work,” says Williams. “Butthat’s not the case. They do work.”

But even if walls and fences work,says Maribel Alvarez, a folklorist at theUniversity of Arizona’s Southwest Cen-ter, the U.S. barriers still create a sim-plistic view of the border. “It’s a viewlocked in an either/or perspective,”she says. “The border is treated as anuntamed badlands. It assumes that inthis badlands someone with higher

knowledge needs to impose an orderthat is lacking.”

Some of the rhetoric from Wash-ington concerning the Southwesternborder certainly fits Alvarez’s descrip-tion. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., astrong opponent of illegal immigration,summed up the view in an article forHuman Events magazine, titled “Mexi-co’s Lawless Border Poses Huge Testfor Washington.” 31

But history may provide an un-expected lesson, says Mary Beard, aclassics scholar at Cambridge Uni-versity in England. The Romans’ viewof frontiers was more complex thanthose who cite Hadrian’s Wall as aforerunner of the U.S. fence wouldhave it. The Romans did not see bor-ders as clear divisions, Beard wrote


Continued from p. 754

On clear afternoons, Tony Zavaleta sometimes standson the porch of his home outside Brownsville, Texas,gazes across the Rio Grande and watches one of hiscousins working his farm on the other side of the river.

“I’ve got all kinds of family across the river,” says Zavaleta, vicepresident for external affairs at the University of Texas, Brownsville.“In fact, at 3 o’clock today I’m going to the bridge to pick up acousin, and we’re going to Starbucks to have coffee.”

The U.S.-Mexico border looks like a clearly drawn line on amap, but up close the delineation is blurred. The two nations areconnected by history, economy and, most significantly, a borderpopulation with extensive and often deep roots in both nations.

“We have family business, family dealings, intermarriages,social events on both sides of the border, and that is the casefor literally hundreds of thousands of people,” says Zavaleta,whose family traces its heritage on both sides of the river backto the 18th century.

These strong relationships have created what many describeas a unique border culture — one they believe is threatenedby the new border fence. “We’re one community, and we’vehistorically operated as one community,” says Chad Foster,mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, about his city’s relationship withPiedras Negras, immediately across the border. “We have indi-viduals who live in Piedras Negras but pay tuition so their kidscan go to school in Eagle Pass. We have people who live inEagle Pass and run plants in Piedras Negras. We’ve always goneback and forth.”

The border between the United States and Mexico remainsthe busiest in the world, with more than 220 million legal cross-ings a year. But casual interchange between the two nations,the lifeblood of border culture, has been growing more diffi-cult in recent years, particularly with the beefed-up bordersecurity since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Now, many fear afurther stifling of the relationship.

“You wouldn’t think it would affect everyday, legal crossing,”says Zavaleta, “but it has already done that.”

Foster says the fence sends a signal: “You’re not welcome.”When combined with longer waits at the legal ports of entry

due to tighter security and inadequate staffing, they say, thefence creates the sense that crossing the border is best avoided— a feeling that could have serious economic implications forborder communities.

Tom Fullerton, an economics professor at the University ofTexas, El Paso, has studied the financial relationships betweencities located across from each other on the border. In El Paso,he attributes an average of $900 million annually in retail salesto Mexicans crossing the border to shop in the United States.

Business also travels the other way. “I don’t know thenumber of people I’ve met who routinely go to the dentistin Nogales [Mexico] because it’s cheaper,” says folkloristMaribel Alvarez, an assistant professor at the University ofArizona’s Southwest Center.

Betty Perez, who operates a small ranch a couple ofmiles from the border near Roma, Texas, says many ranchers

Border-town Life Becomes More DifficultCross-border exchanges may be in jeopardy.


in The Times of London, but ratheras “frontier zones” where the empiregradually disappeared into foreignterritory. 32

Contacted by e-mail, Beard notesthat one connection between Hadrian’sWall and “Bush’s wall” is that both arepartly symbolic in intent. Critics of theU.S. fence have argued it is primarilya political gesture intended to appeaseanti-immigration sentiment. Similarly,Hadrian’s Wall was clearly designed asmuch to impress the Romans behindit as those on the other side, noteshistorian Williams. 33

But Beard’s description of thefluid nature of Roman borders, whichwere largely unfortified, describesthe U.S.-Mexican border for much ofits history.

Bracero Program

U ntil the 1990s, most of Ameri-ca’s border with Mexico waslargely invisible. The Rio Grande pro-vided a natural border in Texas. Inthe deserts of Arizona, New Mexi-co and inland California, an occa-sional stone obelisk or a few stringsof barbed wire were often all thatsignified the transition from one na-tion to another.

Sparsely populated and little trav-eled for most of its history, the Sono-ran Desert in Arizona and New Mex-ico seemed to need little more thanthat. The United States did not evenestablish the Border Patrol until 1924,

when it hired 450 agents. In someborder towns, the two countries wereno more than a street apart.

People from both countries movedback and forth with little governmentattention until World War I created asignificant shortage of labor in the Unit-ed States. Congress created a programallowing the temporary admission ofnearly 77,000 Mexican “guest work-ers.” The legislation began a patternof “recruitment in times of labor short-age followed by massive restrictionsand deportations,” writes KatherineFennelly, a member of the League ofWomen Voters’ Immigration StudyCommittee. 34

When joblessness rose during theDepression in the late 1920s, thou-sands of Mexican immigrants were

go across the border “tobuy a good bull or sell agood bull or a horse.There’s a lot of horse busi-ness down there.”

Fullerton says it’s difficultto estimate the economicconsequences of the borderfence, but with trade liber-alization, Mexicans now canfind almost anything theymight buy in the UnitedStates at home. “It’s possible they’ll say, ‘We’ll just stay hereand not worry about going into this country where we’re notreally welcome,’ ” he notes.

That would be just fine for many fence supporters, includ-ing those living along the border. Ed Williams, a retired Uni-versity of Arizona political science professor, points out the ex-istence of a border culture does not imply universal mutualappreciation. “While many borderlands people have been sym-pathetic to their brethren across the line, others have alwaysbeen suspicious,” he says. “There are people in the bordercommunities who say, ‘Build that damn wall.’ ”

But opinion does not necessarily divide strictly along raciallines. “You can find a lot of people with Spanish surnameswho will say, ‘Keep those Mexicans out,’ ” says Zavaleta. “Anda lot of Anglos feel that’s bad for business.”

But Alvarez, who edits thecenter’s “Borderlore” blog, notesthe breadth of the populationwhose lives have been lived onboth sides of the border. “Youhave the ranchers. You have theNative Americans. You have thebohemians that come to thedesert to write and paint,” shesays. “You have a very ground-ed working class that crossesback and forth almost daily.”

Border towns even have shared fire departments and othercivic institutions. “Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, prior to the 1980s,was essentially like a spot on the Canadian border or betweentwo Scandinavian countries,” says Fullerton. “That’s how close-ly intertwined they were. They even shared a minor leaguebaseball team.”

But when people living on the border reminisce about ear-lier, less-security-conscious days, they most often cite the per-sonal exchanges that built a sense of a shared land. “I re-member when my grandfather decided he wanted to give mea horse as a gift,” says Zavaleta. “He just had a ranch handride it across the river. I was 14, and I remember standing onthe riverbank and watching that horse come across from mygrandfather. You wouldn’t do that today.”

Patricia Escobar, left, of Los Angeles, visits through the fencewith her daughter Rosa, who lives in Tijuana, Mexico.

AFP

/Get

ty I

mag

es/O

mar

Torr

es

758 CQ Researcher

deported. But when World War II leftthe United States with another laborshortage, the country reversed courseand created the Bracero Program —Spanish for “laborer” — to bring inMexicans, mainly to work in agricul-ture and on the railroads.

The program brought in more than400,000 workers a year during its 22-year history. 35 But illegal immigrationgrew at the same time, particularly inthe late-1940s and ’50s as Mexicanscame north to take advantage of Amer-ica’s postwar economic boom. In re-action, Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Commissioner Gen. Joseph Swinginitiated “Operation Wetback” in1954, with federal and local author-ities sweeping through Mexican-

American barrios looking for illegal im-migrants. Thousands were deported. 36

When the Bracero Program endedin 1965, legal entry became moredifficult for Mexican farmworkers. Butwork in U.S. fields and orchards re-mained plentiful, so many Mexicansbegan to travel into the United Statesseasonally without legal documents.

‘Tortilla Curtain’ Rises

A s illegal immigration grew, cer-tain border cities became the fa-vorites for border crossers. By 1978the problem had become bad enoughin El Paso, Texas, that the governmenterected 12.5 miles of chain-link fence

— the “Tortilla Curtain” — along theborder. The Border Patrol has expandedinfrastructure along the border since,with lighting and more agents on theground, but the fence remains inplace, says Tom Fullerton, an econo-mist at the University of Texas, El Paso.“You can’t go more than 30 feet with-out finding spots where either holeshave been cut or repaired,” he says.

Some see the Tortilla Curtain as theprimitive forerunner of today’s fence.Before the U.S. government embracedthe idea, however, policy would onceagain veer in a different direction. Dur-ing the Reagan administration, “Con-gress allowed people who had beenin the United States illegally for a num-ber of years to apply for citizenship,”


T he San Pedro River in Arizona — one of only twomajor rivers that flow north from Mexico into the Unit-ed States — provides habitat to an astonishing varietyof birds and small mammals. It also serves as a watering holefor deer, mountain lions, bobcats and possibly even jaguars asthey range across the arid Sonoran Desert in Mexico and theUnited States.

The U.S. government recognized the importance of the SanPedro and the surrounding landscape when it created the SanPedro Riparian National Conservation Area — a 57,000-acrerefuge for the animals and plants of the region’s fragile desertriparian ecosystem, one of the few remaining in the AmericanSouthwest.

But today the area is also home to a section of the new bor-der fence, slicing the desert landscape in half as it stretches eastfrom the riverbank. Much of America’s new fencing is being builton environmentally sensitive public lands, which critics fear couldhave disastrous consequences, especially for wildlife.

“You can call this a fence, but to animals it’s an impenetrablebarrier,” says Matt Clark, Southwest representative for Defendersof Wildlife, an organization dedicated to the preservation of wildanimals and native plants. “It’s between 14 and 18 feet tall; it goeson for miles; it’s not something they can jump over or circum-vent. It might not be very effective at stopping people, but it’sstopping wildlife in their tracks.”

Border barriers are being built or are planned for portionsof Arizona’s Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and theOrgan Pipe National Monument. In Texas, new fencing is

planned near Big Bend National Park and on the Lower RioGrande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. In California, the fed-eral government is even filling in a canyon, Smuggler’s Gulch,with more than 2 million cubic yards of dirt so it can run afence across it.

Environmental concerns differ by area, but in general thefence divides the breeding and hunting territories of manyspecies, separating animals from food, water or potential mates,according to wildlife advocates. Sometimes the animals havealready had their habitat reduced or disrupted by development,and their populations cannot afford to be split in two.

“With isolation comes a lack of genetic exchange — a lackof genetic diversity, which makes these populations less fit tosurvive,” says Clark.

The impact of new border barriers could be particularlyacute in the Lower Rio Grande Valley refuge, according to ScottNicol, a member of the Texas-based No Border Wall citizens’coalition.

The 90,000-acre refuge consists of 115 separate plots alongthe Rio Grande River, designed so wildlife can use the riveras a corridor to move from one plot to another. But they wouldbe blocked if the government builds new barriers along theriver levees as now planned, Nicol says. “You put a wall therethat keeps animals from getting to the river,” he explains, “andthe individual plots are not large enough to support them.”

Among the rare or endangered species threatened by thefence, says Clark, are jaguars, Sonoran pronghorn antelopes,ocelots, jaguarundi, flat-tailed horned lizards and the Cactus

Critics Say Fence Disrupts WildlifeBorder fence is ‘stopping wildlife in their tracks.’


says Staudt, of the University of Texas,El Paso. 37

But the Immigration Reform andControl Act of 1986 — what some callthe “amnesty bill” — did little to stemthe flow of illegal immigrants, so anti-immigration sentiment continued togrow in Border States. The Clinton ad-ministration reacted with operations“Hold the Line” in El Paso in 1993and “Gatekeeper” in San Diego thefollowing year. Border Patrol agentsand technology were concentrated inthese areas, and fencing was eitherbuilt or reinforced. 38

Both operations dramatically reducedillegal immigration in the targeted lo-cations, although illegal crossings didnot fall significantly overall. But Con-

gress seemed to judge the approach asuccess. A series of bills then expand-ed the Border Patrol, increased moneyfor security measures and, after 9/11,gave the new Homeland Security sec-retary the authority to ignore laws thatmight slow fence construction.

Although President Bush pushed fora comprehensive immigration-reformpackage that would have includedguest-worker and limited-amnesty pro-grams, Congress remained focused onenforcement. The Secure Fence Act of2006 mandated double-layer securityfencing along significant parts of theborder. That requirement was latermodified to give Secretary Chertoff morelatitude, but the message was clear: Amer-ica was building a border fence.

Facing the Fence

I n 2006, more than 90 percent ofthe 1.2 million illegal migrantsapprehended by the Border Patrolwere caught along the border withMexico — nearly 88 percent of themMexicans. But U.S. authorities alsopicked up nearly 150,000 peoplefrom 197 other countries. (See graph-ic, p. 749.)

The largest number, after Mexicans,came from Central America. In 2006,there were 46,329 illegal immigrantsfrom El Salvador, 33,365 from Hon-duras and 25,135 from Guatemala.Many were twice illegal, having first

Ferruginous Pygmy Owl. Abird may seem an unlikelyvictim of a 14-foot fence,but wildlife advocates saythe fence threatens thehabitat for many birds. “Youhave barriers that can catchdebris and sediment, createartificial dams, shifting waterflows, impacting the vege-tation,” Clark says. “All ofthis does damage.”

Department of HomelandSecurity Secretary MichaelChertoff has used authority granted by Congress to waive com-pliance with environmental laws in several areas as he pro-ceeds with the fence, a move that upset local officials and ledto a lawsuit by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. (See“Current Situation,” p. 762.)

Customs and Border Protection officials say they are stillworking to protect native plants and animals. “Even thoughthe secretary used his waiver authority to keep moving thisprocess forward, we’re not disregarding environmental consid-erations at all,” says Jason Ahern, Customs and Border Pro-tection deputy commissioner. “We’re looking at what we needto do to mitigate risk to the environment. Our goal is to makesure we leave the environment in better condition than wefound it.”

The border fence is beingbuilt in several different styles.Some of the most recent, de-scribed as “bollard” fencing, ismade of round, concrete-filledpoles spaced six inches apart ina staggered pattern. In Arizona,bollard fencing is being con-structed in the washes, whichrun with water in the rainy sea-son. Border Patrol officials be-lieve bollard fences are moreeco-friendly, because water canflow around the poles and be-

cause small animals and reptiles can pass between them. Butenvironmentalists doubt this will be enough to prevent erosionand habitat damage.

The fence’s advocates point out that illegal immigrants arealready damaging fragile desert lands. “When hundreds of thou-sands of people are hiking through pristine ecosystems, set-ting fires, dumping trash and abandoning vehicles, building afence that can drastically reduce that destruction is a goodthing,” says Rosemary Jenks, governmental affairs director forNumbersUSA, which supports reducing both legal and illegalimmigration.

But trails and trash can be cleaned up, Clark says. “The wallhas significantly more impact,” he adds, “because of its magnitudeand because it’s permanent.”

The ability of the jaguar and other animals to rangebetween Mexico’s Sonoran Desert and the Southwestern

United States may be blocked by the border fence.

AFP

/Get

ty I

mag

es/E

lmer

Mar

tinez

760 CQ Researcher


entered Mexico without papers andthen the United States.

The arduous and dangerous effortto enter the United States is a signof border-crossers’ determination. InEnrique’s Journey, The Story of aBoy’s Dangerous Odyssey to Reunitewith His Mother, journalist SoniaNazario traced the 1,600-mile cross-Mexico migration made by thousandsof Central American children follow-ing their mothers to the United States.Many were turned back repeatedlybut refused to quit. Enrique, the boyshe followed, finally succeeded inmaking it all the way into the UnitedStates on his eighth attempt. 39

Nazario’s book also illuminated alittle-noticed trend: An increasingnumber of women have been mak-ing the journey alone, followed by anincreasing number of their children.Nazario estimates about 48,000 chil-dren a year enter the United States il-legally. Mexican railroad workers re-port children as young as 7 trying tocross their country alone traveling tothe United States. 40

With little or no knowledge of whatthey are facing, these illegal migrantsseem unlikely to give up their jour-ney because of the fence. The Centerfor Comparative Immigration Studiesfound similar determination. Briseida,a 24-year-old woman from Oaxaca, re-counted being caught six times in asingle month before making it into theUnited States. 41

Research also indicates that mostillegal immigrants had jobs in Mexi-co but thought the United States of-fered greater opportunity. “Ninety-three percent of undocumentedMexican immigrants left jobs in Mex-ico,” says Robert Pastor, director ofthe Center for North American Stud-ies at American University in Wash-ington. “They’re not coming to theUnited States for jobs. They’re com-ing because they can earn six to 10times more.”

CURRENTSITUATION

Local Blowback

A merica’s new border fence mayrepresent a national commitmentby the Bush administration, but it’salso a matter of local politics. Formany who live on the border, thefence isn’t being built along some ab-stract line, it’s going through theircommunity, or neighborhood or evenbackyard.

In the Rio Grande Valley in Texas,in particular, local concerns aresparking a battle that pits communi-ties in President Bush’s home stateagainst his administration. The TexasBorder Coalition, made up of may-ors, economists and business leadersfrom 19 municipalities and 10 coun-ties in the valley, in May sued theDepartment of Homeland Security, al-leging it is ignoring due process andabusing private property rights in itsrush to put up the fence.

“We didn’t want to file this lawsuit,but we felt we had no choice,” sayscoalition Chairman Chad Foster, themayor of Eagle Pass, a border townof about 22,000. “We just want thegovernment to follow the law.”

The anti-fence blowback has beentriggered by tactics adopted by theDepartment of Homeland Security tospeed construction. When some prop-erty owners refused to give the Corpsof Engineers permission to survey forthe fence on their land, the Corpssent landowners letters threatening alawsuit and raising the possibility ofseizing their property through emi-nent domain. 42

Landowners responded by chal-lenging the government in court. “I

don’t think they counted on anybodystanding up to them,” says Eloisa Tamez,who lives on a three-acre plot alongthe Rio Grande that has been in herfamily for nearly 250 years. “We’re notbig, powerful people here. We respectour government. But we’re not justgoing to lay down and let the bull-dozer roll over us.”

In January, a federal judge ordered10 property owners along the border— including Tamez — to permit thesurveying, but only after denying thegovernment the right to take the landwithout a hearing. 43 The govern-ment’s actions against individuallandowners, however, are not the onlyones provoking indignation.

In Eagle Pass, for example, the CityCouncil met with Homeland Securityin 2006 over the department’s plansto leave a city park and golf coursesouth of the proposed barrier. “Theywere going to cede our municipal golfcourse and a city park to Mexico,” hesays. “We had a resolution to opposeit, and they said they would allow usto delete the fence. But they cameback a year later and sued us. Wecan’t trust them.”

Because the fence is being locatedon or outside of flood control levees,in several Texas locations the prelim-inary site is inside the U.S. border. Inthe small town of Granjeno, for in-stance, about 35 landowners foundthey might end up on the wrong sideof the border fence. 44 In Brownsville,the proposed fence will run throughthe University of Texas campus, leav-ing some facilities south of the barri-er. Campus officials say they are work-ing with Homeland Security to resolvethe situation. 45

Homeland Security said it placesa high priority on feedback fromlocal residents. Since May 2007, theagency has held 100 meetings withlocal officials and 600 with individ-ual property holders along the South-west border. 46

Continued on p. 762

no


At Issue:Is a border fence the answer to the illegal immigration problem?Yes

yesREP. DUNCAN HUNTER, R-CALIF.

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, SEPTEMBER 2008

abattle is being waged for control of the U.S.-Mexicanborder between the U.S. Border Patrol and criminalswho utilize this largely unprotected land corridor tocarry narcotics and other contraband into the United States.Citizens on both sides of the border, whose safety is seriouslythreatened by escalating violence, are caught in the middle.

Last year drug-war violence claimed least 2,500 lives inMexico, and numerous U.S. citizens reportedly have beenkidnapped and murdered by Mexican criminals linked to thedrug trade. The local sheriff in the Laredo, Texas, bordercommunity compared conditions there to a “war zone” andsaid his officers appear “outgunned” by the drug cartels.

Border Patrol agents are also at risk, because they oftenare the first to encounter these criminals. Since 2001, assaultsagainst agents have nearly tripled, from 335 to 987 in 2007.Four agents and three other border security officials werekilled last year, and two agents have been killed so far in2008.

The land corridor between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego,Calif., has been overrun by smugglers and criminals. It wasn’tuntil my legislation mandating construction of the San Diegoborder fence that the armed gangs and drug cartels lost con-trol of this smuggling route. Since then, conditions on bothsides of the border have improved.

Since construction of the border fence began in 1996,San Diego County has become one of the most secure andresponsibly enforced border regions. Smuggling of people andnarcotics in this area has decreased by more than 90 percent,and violent crime has declined by 53 percent.

Such a high level of effectiveness illustrates that fencing —supported with the right mix of personnel and technology —is an excellent border enforcement tool.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is acceleratingfence construction in several areas along the border, rightlyutilizing its broad waiver authority to expedite completion inlocations subject to unnecessary delays and litigation. DHS ex-pects to meet its goal of 670 miles of new fence by the endof this year, but overall a lot of work remains in creating anenforceable border.

Moving forward, it would be wise to extend this infrastructureto other smuggling routes and heavily transited areas of the U.S.-Mexican border. Not only is it the quickest and easiest way tocontrol the border, but it’s also proven to be the most effective.No

REP. SILVESTRE REYES, D-TEXASFORMER EL PASO SECTOR CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL

WRITTEN FOR CQ RESEARCHER, SEPTEMBER 2008

iam acutely aware of the challenges of securing our bor-ders, having served for more than 26 years with the U.S.Border Patrol. I have not only patrolled the U.S.-Mexicanborder but also supervised thousands of hard-working, dedicatedBorder Patrol agents and initiated a successful deterrence strategycalled Operation Hold the Line. I also supported fencing certainstrategic areas to augment enforcement. I strongly feel, however,that erecting nearly 700 miles of fencing on our Southern borderis wasteful, irresponsible and unnecessary, and I voted againstthe Secure Fence Act.

Hundreds of miles of fencing will do little to curb theflow of undocumented immigrants and could even increasedemand for human smuggling. It will only provide a falsesense of security for supporters of a hard line on immigrationreform. With construction expected to exceed $1.2 billion andlifetime maintenance of up to $50 billion, the exorbitant costof this border fence would be better invested in additionalBorder Patrol agents, equipment and technology.

As the only member of Congress with a background inborder control, I have worked to educate my colleagues thatexisting policies and the border fence will do little to honorour legacy as a nation of immigrants and will threaten ournation’s security. I have worked with the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS), hosted many leaders at annualborder conferences and have emphasized that border commu-nities must be consulted in fencing decisions.

Unfortunately, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff recently madethe troubling announcement that he intends to waive morethan 30 federal environmental laws to expedite construction ofthe fence. This approach continues DHS’s continued disregardfor border communities and undermines decades-old policiesthat have preserved many of our region’s most valuable envi-ronmental assets, cultural sites and endangered wildlife.

After Secretary Chertoff’s decision, I joined 13 of my col-leagues in submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. SupremeCourt, asking the justices to hear an appeal challenging thesecretary’s waiver authority.

Our nation needs comprehensive immigration reform withthree main components: strengthened border security; an earnedpath to legalization along with tough, strictly enforced sanctionsagainst employers who hire undocumented immigrants; and aguest worker program. Hundreds of miles of border fencing isnot the answer.

762 CQ Researcher

CBP Deputy Commissioner Ahernsays siting the fence has been apainstaking process. “We looked at en-forcement data,” he says. “We lookedat geography. We looked at landscape.We looked at alternatives. This was athoughtful and detailed analysis byboth local and national Border Patrolleadership.”

But some Texans believe politicsplays a role. The Texas Border Coali-tion lawsuit asserts that Homeland Se-curity is violating the Fifth Amendment’sEqual Protection provision by “givingcertain politically well-connected prop-erty owners a pass on having the bor-der fence built on their property,” ac-cording to the coalition’s Web site.

Specifically, the coalition refers tomedia reports the fence is being builtthrough city and county-owned landwhile bypassing land owned by Dal-las billionaire Ray Hunt, a close friendof President Bush who recently do-nated $35 million to help build theGeorge W. Bush Memorial Library atSouthern Methodist University.

The coalition’s allegations brought asharp response from Ahern. “I reject theidea out of hand,” he says. “Our analy-sis of where to locate the fence wasbased on the operational and tacticalrequirements in a given area, not onwho owned the land or whether theywere influential individuals.”

Legal Challenges

E ven as construction continues,however, Chertoff faces anotherchallenge that has the active supportof several members of Congress. Lastspring Chertoff used the broad au-thority granted him by Congress towaive more than 30 environmental-,historical- and cultural-protection lawsand regulations to enable fence con-struction to proceed.

“Criminal activity at the border doesnot stop for endless debate or pro-

tracted litigation,” Chertoff said in thestatement announcing the decision. 47

The Sierra Club and Defenders ofWildlife already had sued HomelandSecurity over an earlier, more limitedwaiver allowing fence construction tocontinue in the San Pedro RiparianNational Conservation Area in Arizona,home to many rare and endangeredspecies of plants and animals. The en-vironmental groups feared that the fencewould block migratory patterns andaccess to water and habitat for sever-al endangered animals and that con-struction could harm certain rare plants.(See sidebar, p. 758.)

A federal judge ruled against theirclaim, which challenged the constitu-tionality of the secretary’s waiver au-thority. The fence is now up in theconservation area. After Chertoff ex-panded his use of waivers to coverconstruction of the entire fence, theenvironmental groups asked theSupreme Court to hear their case; inJuly the court refused to take the case.

Before the court’s decision, how-ever, the lawsuit had been joined by14 Democratic House members, includingMississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair-man of the Homeland Security Com-mittee, and several lawmakers fromborder districts. Their friend-of-the-courtbriefs argued that Congress oversteppedits constitutional bounds when it al-lowed the secretary to ignore laws.

On the other side, Rep. Peter King,R-N.Y., ranking minority member ofthe House Homeland Security Com-mittee, backed Chertoff’s use of waivers.“He’s acting entirely within the law,and any attempts to impede thefence’s progress through frivolous lit-igation will only serve to lessen thesecurity of our country,” King said. 48

Noah Kahn, an expert on federallands at Defenders of Wildlife, saysChertoff’s decision to bypass laws in-tended to provide a thorough reviewof environmental and cultural impactsmakes it impossible to determinewhether there were other options, such

as better use of surveillance technolo-gy in environmentally sensitive areas.“One of the basic problems is the com-plete lack of transparency in the waythe Department of Homeland Securityhas carried out this entire process,” saysKahn. “They’ve completely ignored notjust communities and other public part-ners but even other federal agenciesin their deliberations.”

Cindy Alvarez, who oversaw an en-vironmental assessment of the fencein the San Pedro conservation area,defends the agencies building the fence.“Once the waiver came into play, ittook it out of our hands,” says Al-varez, assistant field manager of theU.S. Bureau of Land Management’sTucson office. “But that said, the Bor-der Patrol and the Corps of Engineersare continuing to try to be good landstewards while meeting the nature oftheir missions. They are continuing towork with us.”

Homeland Security’s critics are skep-tical. “The only reason you waive thelaws is because you’re planning onbreaking them,” says Scott Nicol, amember of the No Border Wall Coali-tion, a citizens’ group in Texas.

The Tohono O’odham Indian Na-tion, which straddles the border, hasalso been concerned about Chertoff’suse of waivers. The tribe has so faragreed to allow vehicle barriers, butnot pedestrian fencing, on tribal landsbut is weighing its options concern-ing the waivers, says Pete Delgado, atribal spokesman. With more fencingplanned for environmentally and cul-turally sensitive areas in both Texasand California, further legal challengesto Chertoff’s authority and the fence’sroute seem almost inevitable.

Straddling the Fence

N othing illustrates the complicatedpolitical fault lines that runthrough the border fence debate better


Continued from p. 760


than the way the presidential nomi-nees have straddled the issue.

By voting for the Secure Fence Actof 2006, both GOP candidate Sen.John McCain, R-Ariz., and Democraticcontender Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.,voted to authorize the dramatic expan-sion of border fencing now under way.A year later, presumably busy cam-paigning, they missed the key votes onthe Consolidated Appropriations Act,which gave the Homeland Security sec-retary more latitude on when and whereto locate the fencing.

Since then, McCain and Obamahave sent conflicting messages aboutwhat they think now that the fence isactually being built. Obama’s campaignWeb site calls for preserving “the in-tegrity of our borders” and says thecandidate supports “additional person-nel, infrastructure and technology onthe border and at our ports of entry.”

But when a question about the bor-der fence came up during a primarycampaign debate with Sen. Hillary Rod-ham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Texas, Obamastruck a skeptical note about the fencenow being built. After Clinton criticizedthe Bush administration’s approach andcalled for more personnel and bettertechnology instead of a physical barri-er, Obama agreed. “There may be areaswhere it makes sense to have somefencing,” Obama said. “But for the mostpart, having [the] border patrolled,surveillance, deploying effective tech-nology, that’s going to be the betterapproach.” 49

McCain’s campaign Web site calls for“securing the border through physicaland virtual barriers.” But the word “fence”can’t be found on McCain’s BorderSecurity Web page. In interviews, how-ever, McCain has said he supportsbuilding a border fence in areas whereit’s necessary, while he believes tech-nology can more effectively do the jobin others.

Anti-immigrant groups have criti-cized McCain for supporting PresidentBush’s failed comprehensive immi-

gration reform package, which in-cluded a path for many illegal immi-grants in the United States to gain cit-izenship. The sensitive nature of theissue in Republican circles was clearat a town meeting in Texas, whenMcCain was asked how he would bal-ance individual property rights withborder security.

“This meeting is adjourned,” McCainjoked, before saying he would lookinto the issue. 50 Earlier, he said hehoped federal and local officials couldwork together to resolve their differ-ences over the fence.

Neither candidate’s campaign pressoffice responded to requests for furtherinformation clarifying their candidate’sposition.

OUTLOOKDemographic Solution

W hat goes up can always comedown — even if it is 670 mileslong and built by the U.S. governmentof double-layered steel. And many crit-ics of the border fence say that’s justwhat will happen.

“The United States eventually willhave to tear down the wall they builtbecause the forces of globalizationdrawing us together are much strongerthan the forces trying to tear us apart,”says Payan, at the University of Texas,El Paso.

Others, particularly those concernedwith the fence’s impact on the envi-ronment, place their faith in technol-ogy. “Ultimately, we’re going to be alot less dependent on physical infra-structure,” says Bob Barnes, a seniorpolicy adviser at the Nature Conser-vancy. “Particularly in open country,virtual fencing — sensors, camerasand other surveillance technology —is a lot more mobile and can react to

changing patterns of immigrationmore easily.”

Customs and Border ProtectionDeputy Commissioner Ahern says theagency will continue using sensors,remote-controlled cameras, unmannedsurveillance planes and other high-tech hardware. But he believes therewill always be a need for fencing.

“No matter how good our technol-ogy is, in some of these areas of theborder [illegal crossings are] going tobe too easy,” he says. “So, especially inurban environments, we’re always goingto need that tactical infrastructure, somekind of physical

Documents

America's Border Fence - SAGE Publications Inc 8.2 Americas... · America’s Border Fence Will it stem the flow of illegal immigrants?A merica is rushing to build 670 miles of fencing