In an effort to secure bipartisan support for immigration reform, a bill recently passed by the Senate includes a dramatic increase in border security spending of at least $40 billion. This funding provides for the addition of 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 700 miles of fencing and expanded use of drones on the U.S.-Mexico border. Facing financial losses from the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation’s largest private military contractors are now vying for profitable contracts on the U.S.-Mexico border. Critics have argued that increasing border security spending will further militarize the border and exacerbate existing budget deficits. In this Baker Institute Viewpoints series, six experts respond to the question: What are the implications of expanding border security? Their analyses cover a range of issues — including the legality of drones, the environmental impact of constructing border fencing and the politics of bipartisan compromise — and reveal the complex unintended consequences of increasing spending on border security.
Read other posts in this series:
- Border security and (mis-)management by Tony Payan, fellow in Mexico studies and director of the Mexico Center
- U.S. border security spending: Too much, too late? by Robert Bunker, senior fellow with Small Wars Journal — El Centro
- The broader implications of enhancing border surveillance capabilities by Geoffrey Corn, professor at the South Texas College of Law
- Securing the “hyperborder”: U.S.-Mexico border security investments by John Sullivan, lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and senior fellow with Small Wars Journal — El Centro
- Less fence, more task force by Nathan Jones, postdoctoral fellow in drug policy
On June 27, the U.S. Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, a broad immigration reform bill that includes a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. One of the major provisions of this legislation is an increase in funding for border security. The bill establishes the goal of achieving a 90 percent success rate of intercepting and deporting undocumented immigrants who attempt to cross the border. To meet this goal, the bill would provide an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents, new fencing, electronic surveillance and unmanned drones. What are the implications of this massive influx of funding and resources for securing the border?
The reasoning behind this part of the bill relates to the possibility of a terrorist attack coming from the south and Mexico’s drug violence spilling over the border, as well as the alleged link between these two phenomena and undocumented immigration. So far, I have not seen evidence of this connection. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that coyotes who are paid to smuggle people across the border, undocumented immigration, drug cartels and terrorist organizations are all somehow linked and represent a major threat along the U.S.-Mexico border. Let’s also assume that terrorists plan to enter the U.S. at the southern border, even though none of the previous terrorist attacks were carried out by people who entered the country across this border.
Fearing the threats of terrorism, illegal immigration and spillover violence, Congress and the Department of Homeland Security have made substantial investments in border and immigration enforcement. In the past seven years, investment in border security has exceeded $100 billion, and from 2004 to today, the Border Patrol has doubled its number of agents. Congress has also massively expanded spending on fencing, infrastructure and technology to secure the border. In spite of the resources being spent, the results have been disappointing, and in some areas of the country — particularly in Texas — they have been contrary to what was expected.
Notwithstanding the fact that the number of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants, often seen as a rough proxy for border crossings, has fallen by more than 50 percent since 2006, a National Academy of Sciences study found that between 75 and 90 percent of those who are caught making an illegal crossing decide to keep trying until they make it. Research has established that recent immigration enforcement programs and personnel have not been particularly effective at discouraging people from crossing the border. What is even more worrisome is that the security situation in some states, like Texas, has deteriorated, according to some local official reports.
For example, an assessment of Texas border security commissioned in 2011 by the state’s Department of Agriculture described the Lone Star State as a “war zone.” A more recent report by the Texas Department of Public Safety supports this view. According to the agency, “Mexican cartels are the most significant organized crime threat to Texas, with six of the eight cartels having command and control networks operating in the state,” particularly in the areas of “drug trafficking, human trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, public corruption, money laundering, and the recruitment and use of children in criminal operations.” Another problem that should be considered is the lack of consensus about how to measure border security and how to evaluate existing enforcement efforts. In a February 2013 report, the Congressional Research Service noted that there is “no single, quantitative, off-the-shelf indicator [that] accurately and reliably provides a metric or ‘score’ for border enforcement.”
This situation seems quite discouraging, especially considering the massive amount of resources spent on border security in recent years. The Senate bill does not significantly deviate from previous efforts to secure the border, which have been relatively ineffective. Furthermore, the security situation in some states, such as Texas, appears to be deteriorating, rather than improving. It seems that federal and state law enforcement authorities are failing in their attempts to secure the border and its citizens, and have not been able to stop the advancement of Mexico’s drug cartels into U.S. territory.
The situation described above is not fair for U.S. taxpayers, especially for those living in Texas. The part of their taxes that goes toward border security efforts could be reallocated to fund education or infrastructure projects. Future decisions about spending on border security should consider this, among other factors. What is really needed is an improvement in interagency coordination and oversight of intelligence and enforcement operations, as well as better training practices for these programs. Moreover, in order to set up a system to keep American business owners accountable to the law, criminal penalties for employers hiring unauthorized aliens should be substantially higher. From the current situation, it is clear that state and federal law enforcement authorities must do better. Maybe the answer is not more money, but rather more competent authorities that can effectively secure the border.
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and chair of the government department of the University of Texas at Brownsville. Her areas of expertise are U.S.-Mexico border relations, immigration and organized crime. She is the author of “Democracy in ‘Two Mexicos’: Political Institutions in Oaxaca and Nuevo León” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), and her current research analyzes the sources of violence and organized crime in the Texas-Mexico border region.