US - Mexico border wall is ineffective solution to stop illegal immigration, it only divert illegal crossing to less enforced areas of the US-Mexico border

  • Claim


Name

US - Mexico border wall is ineffective solution to stop illegal immigration, it only divert illegal crossing to less enforced areas of the US-Mexico border

Types

Claim

Opposing arguments

US - Mexico border wall significantly reduces illegal migration to surrounding areas

Quotes that support the claim

As currently constructed and manned the fence has only turned illegal immigration to more remote, less enforced areas of the US Mexico border without significantly reducing the numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross.
Did the Secure Fence Act lead to a change in migration patterns? Yes, but the effect was small. Using a unique dataset that contains information on the origin and destination of (primarily unauthorized) Mexican migrants, we document that migration fell between Mexican municipalities and U.S. counties that were more affected by the wall (i.e. by geographical proximity). The magnitude of the effects suggests that the direct effect of the wall expansion was to reduce migration flows by 0.8%. The direct effect, however, does not account for other effects, such as whether migrants changed where they migrated to or whether wages changed in the destination. To account for these, we develop and estimate a general equilibrium spatial model. We find the total effect of the wall expansion was to reduce the number of Mexican citizens living in the United States by 0.6%, or roughly 82,650 people.
Measured by the number of apprehensions or arrests at the border, it was quickly apparent that building fences and massing Border Patrol agents was a powerful deterrent to illegal crossing in the places where it was deployed. In the El Paso sector, the decline in apprehensions was almost immediate following Operation Hold the Line, falling from 250,000 in 1992 to fewer than 80,000 by 1994. In the San Diego sector, apprehensions fell more gradually but still dramatically, from more than 550,000 in 1992 to just 110,000 in 2001 (CBP 2016a). But it was also equally apparent that sealing the high-traffic corridors alone would not significantly reduce illegal crossings. Instead, border crossers move to the more remote regions in Arizona, and the numbers continued to climb
Our estimates reveal that the rapid escalation of border enforcement beginning in 1986 had no effect on the likelihood of initiating undocumented migration to the United States but did have powerful unintended consequences, pushing migrants away from relatively benign crossing locations in El Paso and San Diego into hostile territory in the Sonoran desert and through Arizona, increasing the need to rely on paid smugglers, and substantially increasing the costs and risks of undocumented migration.
fortified walls did not prevent crossings into the United States and European Union entirely, but instead shifted flows to other locations that were more remote or less fortified. In the U.S. case, as high-traffic urban routes were closed, migrants and smugglers began to cross in the remote and dangerous deserts of western Arizona.

Topics

Claims that US - Mexico border wall is ineffective in stopping illegal immigration

Referenced by

Claims that US - Mexico border wall is ineffective in stopping illegal immigration

US Politics

Topic

US - Mexico border wall significantly reduces illegal migration to surrounding areas

US Politics

Claim

As currently constructed and manned the fence has only turned illegal immigration to more remote, less enforced areas of the US Mexico border without significantly reducing the numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross.

US Politics

Quote