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
- Achieving border security: A matter of money or competency? by Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, assistant professor and chair of the government department of the University of Texas at Brownsville
- Less fence, more task force by Nathan Jones, postdoctoral fellow in drug policy
Investments in border security must be carefully calibrated in order to effectively regulate international flows of people and goods. An increase in spending alone will not necessarily improve control of the border. Rather, any increase in spending must prioritize effective security processes that facilitate legitimate flows and economic exchange across the border.
To most people, the border is a frontier that must be hermetically sealed to ward off a range of threats: unauthorized migration, smuggling of contraband and drugs, and potential terrorists. Unfortunately, these individual threats are often conflated. Certainly, transnational criminal enterprises exploit weak and ineffective border security. And certainly, pathways for moving migrants can be used to traffic arms and drugs as well. Cartels and other illicit networks exploit seams in state capacity and often co-mingle in opportunistic ways. Yet dealing with these complex threats by simply building a wall and attempting to seal the border is counterproductive.
The nearly 2,000-mile frontier between the U.S. and Mexico is one of the most complex national boundaries in the world, encompassing four U.S. states and six Mexican states. A complex web of federal, state and local agencies works on both sides to secure the border zone. At the federal level, these include U.S. Department of Homeland Security components such as Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard and the Drug Enforcement Administration. State and local police also patrol areas near the border — for example, the Texas Department of Public Safety deploys armed gunboats to patrol the Rio Grande. Mexican federal police, customs officials and military forces, as well as numerous state and municipal police, patrol their side of the border. These various authorities seek to control numerous homeland security and criminal challenges, including undocumented migration, human trafficking, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, terrorist penetration, money laundering and cross-border violence. This results in a complicated operational theater characterized by commerce, contention and cooperation. The border zone is rich in cross-border economic and social activity, including illicit elements such as crime, corruption and environmental degradation. These complexities led architectural analyst Fernando Romero to define the U.S.-Mexico border zone as the “hyperborder.”
Spillover violence from the Mexican drug war is a major concern for many in the U.S. The fear is that cartels and gangs will bring the epidemic of Mexican drug violence north. There is already evidence of cross-border crime networks operating to varying degrees in the U.S., but the greater threat is cross-border corruption. Americans often view the spillover of crime or violence as a one-way transaction, from Mexico into the United States. In reality, the actual threat is mutual inter-penetration of both the U.S. and Mexico by criminal networks and activities. While the United States is concerned about cartel violence, Mexico fears the inflow of U.S. arms and the seemingly never-ending demand for drugs. Recall the story of Miguel Treviño Morales, former drug lord and leader of the criminal organization known as Los Zetas: Morales started as a gangster in Nuevo Laredo and honed his skills while living in Dallas before he returned to Mexico to eventually ascend to the leadership of the brutal Los Zetas. Other cross-border fertilization is seen in the case of L.A.-bred Mara Salvatrucha and El Paso’s Barrio Azteca that is active in Ciudad Juaréz as well.
Since the problem of spillover in crime and violence implicates both sides of the border, the solution must do so as well. This month, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano met with her Mexican counterpart Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong to plan future collaborations on border issues. The slated efforts include better communication and information sharing, joint intelligence gathering, and joint border patrols. This is an important first step. These collaborative efforts could also include enhanced staffing (for example, additional border checkpoints to reduce logjams at crossings) and mutual enforcement strategies. Hopefully U.S. and Mexican officials will emphasize efforts to contain corruption within state agencies on both sides of the border.
Expanding physical security barriers without targeted intelligence can actually enhance the relative profit gained by cartels moving illicit goods. Smartly targeting security efforts can reduce that profit and enhance legitimate economic benefits.
Prioritizing investments in technology, including enhanced trusted traveler (e.g., Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection) and commercial cargo (e.g., Free and Secure Trade Program) programs, will yield the greatest return. Such initiatives need to be expanded and augmented with a cross-border communications system and mechanisms for non-intrusive detection that balance security, congestion management and ease of flow for people and commerce. These types of efforts will create a resilient yet flexible structure for managing the hyperborder.
Addressing cross-border transnational violence requires a collaborative response involving both sides of the border. Existing avenues of bilateral cooperation that could expand their focus on border issues include the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission (especially the Working Group on Homeland Security and Border Cooperation), the U.S.-Mexico Military Commission, the Border Governors Conference, the Conference of Border Attorneys General, border state consular officials and civil society nongovernmental organizations.
Investing in smarter border security is prudent. The solution is not to simply increase funding for security, especially physical barriers and other symbolic containment measures that are ultimately counterproductive and expensive. Instead, the U.S. and Mexican governments should seek efficient measures that stimulate economic growth, enhance security and protect the environment around the border.
Guest author John P. Sullivan is a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. He is also a senior fellow at the Stephenson Disaster Management Institute at Louisiana State University and a senior fellow at Small Wars Journal — El Centro. His current research focuses on the impact of transnational organized crime on sovereignty in Mexico and other countries.