This document analyzes the effectiveness of the U.S. policy of border enforcement in curbing unauthorized immigration. It argues that border enforcement is an ineffective unilateral policy response to a multifaceted issue. While it has increased apprehensions and costs of crossing, there is no evidence it has significantly reduced undocumented immigration. A multifaceted approach is needed that addresses economic, political, and social factors driving emigration from Mexico and Central America, rather than just focusing on enforcement.
The document summarizes US-Mexico relations and agreements around curbing illegal immigration. It notes that while the US focuses on militarizing the border, this burdens Mexico more through environmental and crime impacts. Bilateral agreements in the 1990s and 2000s focused more on security than addressing migration root causes. NAFTA improved trade but hurt Mexican farmers and increased immigration. The US prioritizes control over ending undocumented entry. Suggestions include defining a long-term integration vision, reducing unilateralism, and addressing migration causes.
Donald trump’s border wall could have deadly consequencesSusana Gallardo
Donald Trump wants America to build a permanent wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. "We'll have a great wall. We'll call it the Great Wall of Trump," the real estate mogul told Fox Business recently.
If that ever happens, the consequences could be deadly for the hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who attempt to cross the border each year, many of whom are unlikely to be deterred by even the greatest of walls.
Tightening security at America's southern border will inevitably make it more difficult to illegally traverse. But immigration and security experts warn that any effort to seal off the border will also make conditions more dangerous for the unauthorized immigrants who still try to make it over.
The document discusses Donald Trump's proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. It notes that the border is nearly 2,000 miles long and already has about 650 miles of fencing and barriers. Building a full wall is estimated to cost between $15-25 billion, or up to $16 million per mile, and would require over 12 million cubic yards of concrete. It would also cost $750 million annually to maintain. Experts argue that a full wall may not be effective or necessary along the entire remote border terrain.
Us mexico strategic border insecurity 14 mar2015 copymartincatino
The US-Mexico border poses a significant security threat to the US as various state and non-state actors like China, Russia, Iran, and Mexican drug cartels use strategies like smuggling, economic warfare, and influencing immigrant populations to deliberately erode American national security; understanding modern unconventional warfare techniques is critical to defending US security against this "unrestricted warfare" being waged along the border; if left unaddressed, the problems along the border will continue severely undermining security with worsening long-term consequences.
This document summarizes and critiques a Congressional border security briefing that advocates for increased border security measures. It argues that the briefing exaggerates claims of a security and humanitarian crisis at the border. Specifically, it notes that border apprehensions remain low historically, the administration did not prioritize humanitarian concerns in its family separation policy, and statistics on drugs, criminals, and vulnerable populations are misleading or lack context. The critiques suggest the briefing is aimed at justifying harsher immigration policies rather than objectively assessing the situation at the border.
This document discusses borders, their emergence and purpose throughout history, developments in border studies, and examples of contested borders in Asia. It begins by defining borders as lines that divide territories and function to create places and markers of identity. Borders can be permeable or closed. The study of borders emerged in the 1960s but was neglected until changes in sociopolitical order led to more focus on territories. This included a "territorial trap" view. New perspectives emphasized borders' relationships with security, identities, and economics. The document ends by providing examples of contested borders in Asia, such as disputes between China/India, Israel/Palestine, and India/Bangladesh.
The document discusses the topic of migration between Mexico and the United States. It outlines both "push" factors like violence and poverty in Mexico that encourage emigration, as well as "pull" factors like jobs and a higher standard of living in the US that attract immigrants. Over 12 million Mexican immigrants currently live in the US, both legally and illegally. This large-scale migration affects both countries economically, socially, and politically.
The document summarizes US-Mexico relations and agreements around curbing illegal immigration. It notes that while the US focuses on militarizing the border, this burdens Mexico more through environmental and crime impacts. Bilateral agreements in the 1990s and 2000s focused more on security than addressing migration root causes. NAFTA improved trade but hurt Mexican farmers and increased immigration. The US prioritizes control over ending undocumented entry. Suggestions include defining a long-term integration vision, reducing unilateralism, and addressing migration causes.
Donald trump’s border wall could have deadly consequencesSusana Gallardo
Donald Trump wants America to build a permanent wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. "We'll have a great wall. We'll call it the Great Wall of Trump," the real estate mogul told Fox Business recently.
If that ever happens, the consequences could be deadly for the hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who attempt to cross the border each year, many of whom are unlikely to be deterred by even the greatest of walls.
Tightening security at America's southern border will inevitably make it more difficult to illegally traverse. But immigration and security experts warn that any effort to seal off the border will also make conditions more dangerous for the unauthorized immigrants who still try to make it over.
The document discusses Donald Trump's proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. It notes that the border is nearly 2,000 miles long and already has about 650 miles of fencing and barriers. Building a full wall is estimated to cost between $15-25 billion, or up to $16 million per mile, and would require over 12 million cubic yards of concrete. It would also cost $750 million annually to maintain. Experts argue that a full wall may not be effective or necessary along the entire remote border terrain.
Us mexico strategic border insecurity 14 mar2015 copymartincatino
The US-Mexico border poses a significant security threat to the US as various state and non-state actors like China, Russia, Iran, and Mexican drug cartels use strategies like smuggling, economic warfare, and influencing immigrant populations to deliberately erode American national security; understanding modern unconventional warfare techniques is critical to defending US security against this "unrestricted warfare" being waged along the border; if left unaddressed, the problems along the border will continue severely undermining security with worsening long-term consequences.
This document summarizes and critiques a Congressional border security briefing that advocates for increased border security measures. It argues that the briefing exaggerates claims of a security and humanitarian crisis at the border. Specifically, it notes that border apprehensions remain low historically, the administration did not prioritize humanitarian concerns in its family separation policy, and statistics on drugs, criminals, and vulnerable populations are misleading or lack context. The critiques suggest the briefing is aimed at justifying harsher immigration policies rather than objectively assessing the situation at the border.
This document discusses borders, their emergence and purpose throughout history, developments in border studies, and examples of contested borders in Asia. It begins by defining borders as lines that divide territories and function to create places and markers of identity. Borders can be permeable or closed. The study of borders emerged in the 1960s but was neglected until changes in sociopolitical order led to more focus on territories. This included a "territorial trap" view. New perspectives emphasized borders' relationships with security, identities, and economics. The document ends by providing examples of contested borders in Asia, such as disputes between China/India, Israel/Palestine, and India/Bangladesh.
The document discusses the topic of migration between Mexico and the United States. It outlines both "push" factors like violence and poverty in Mexico that encourage emigration, as well as "pull" factors like jobs and a higher standard of living in the US that attract immigrants. Over 12 million Mexican immigrants currently live in the US, both legally and illegally. This large-scale migration affects both countries economically, socially, and politically.
Running Head BORDER SECURITY1BORDER SECURITY2.docxhealdkathaleen
Running Head: BORDER SECURITY1
BORDER SECURITY2
Border Security
Name
Institution
Border Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays a broad role in providing public security in the country. The missions of homeland security revolve around cyber security, disaster management, border security, and immigration (White, 2016). The department has been in existence since 2002 after the 9/11 attack and has remained to be a critical pillar in protecting the United States. The department gets allocated a budget every year to facilitate its operations. One issue of concern in Homeland Security is border security. The role of homeland security in providing border security is to ensure that while there is lawful travel at the border, illegal movement of substances such as drugs and weapons (White, 2016). Border security has a significant impact on the safety and economy of the country. The countries bordering the United States are Canada and Mexico, and rivers and lakes, which are substantial in the economic state of the country.
One state in the U.S. that borders Mexico is New Mexico. Recently, the U.S President Donald Trump proposed the building of a perimeter wall that separates Mexico and the United States (Payan, 2016). The border between the two countries stretches to about one thousand and nine hundred miles from the south of Texas to the Pacific Ocean. As much as the proposal is meant to control the movement of illegal migrants from Mexico to the United States, a lot of debate has ensued concerning the practicality of the project. Some parts of the border have been fenced to restrict illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States (Payan, 2016). Another measure taken by the government is the deployment of border patrol personnel who are equipped with resources such as motion sensors and drones that help them to patrol the border throughout.
Measures put into restricting illegal immigrants from entering the United States have been influenced by some significant security threats that arise due to the movement of people in and out of the country. All the operations to secure the border have been tied to the immigration laws, which require the country to protect its soil and keep the citizens safe. As noted, a large number of undocumented immigrants pose a significant threat to society. The number affects cohesion in the nation and makes it hard to regulate the economy, which assimilates immigrants that are either employed or run their businesses (Payan, 2016). At one point in the past, a state of emergency was declared by the governor of New Mexico over illegal immigration due to the increase in the number of undocumented immigrants. President Bush pushed for the move signed the Act to establish a secure fence that combated unlawful immigration. One area that illegal immigration has affected in the states neighboring Mexico and the country at large is the economy.
One argument that has be ...
IntroductionThis paper will analyze the author’s claims, reasons.docxmariuse18nolet
Introduction
This paper will analyze the author’s claims, reasons and evidence for The Border to determine if the argument is effective in persuading the target audience.
First at all, we have to provide the context about the primary arguments that author highlight in article, a lot of Mexican try to cross border illegally that cause a tidal wave through United States. The 200,000 Mexicans were attempting to immigrate by illegal way that have raise by author as evidence to support the arguments. There are various of situation that have been caused by the illegally immigration; meanwhile, the author present an argument that US citizens now face many troubles coming from illegal immigration such job losing and safety problems, they believe that the political leader of government have to do something to restrict the influx from illegal immigration.(paragraph3,5,7) On the other hand, the political leader of government said that restriction of immigration seem to retard the economy growth.( paragraph6).
A statement of the claim/reason of “The Border.”
The author main claim is that the issue have been raise between citizenry and political leader of government because they conflict on different political opinions for illegally immigration, and that is the reason why border issue can’t be settled. Author provides the following reasons to support the claim: the gap is that generated from illegal immigration because different opinion between citizenry and political leader of government such regulation as opposed to restriction for border.
A discussion of the general context, authors’ purpose and authors’ audience
Author purpose is to make the reader aware the differences of opinions which between citizenry and U.S political leader, meanwhile what they might face due to illegally immigration, in order to let the reader understand that what are some of potential influences of illegal immigration they will actually deal with. Author establishes a formal and analytical tone with audiences who might suffer from illegal immigration, the evidence that author provide can make the assumption more powerful like the statistic and examples. Author provide that 58 percent of surveyed people believe Mexico is the sources of territory and refer to evidence for citizen. Otherwise, the evidence of “guest work” are used to support the points of political leader.
Evaluation of supporting evidence:
Author argue that the illegal immigration lead the potential political conflict between different point of view for citizenry and leader of US. The author claim is support by the use of some statistic data and research , the statistic present that they are around 485000 Mexican have crossed the border illegally since 2000 and they are 687 border agent has been attacked by illegal border crosser. This evidence is effective to support the popular’s and have to implement the stringent reform for ensure the American citizen safety. However, the government provide that the immig.
NSWBCN Strategy All Hazards Interagency Challenges P5 IP HLS650 VC 1501B ...John Cederstrom
The document discusses the National Southwest Border Counternarcotic (NSWBCN) strategy and challenges related to securing the US-Mexico border. It outlines the strategic purpose of NSWBCN to stop drug, weapons, and human trafficking across the southwest border. It describes primary threats like terrorist groups transporting weapons of mass destruction and secondary threats like relationships between drug cartels and terrorist organizations. It emphasizes the need for improved cooperation between agencies like CBP, FBI, ICE, and DEA. Securing the vast and remote border is challenging due to limited resources, lack of infrastructure like fencing, and risks to border agents from armed criminal organizations.
This document is a research paper that examines how illegal migration and smuggling from Mexico has been framed as a security threat in American political discourse. It begins with a literature review on the topic, discussing studies that have analyzed the relationship between smugglers and migrants. The paper then provides historical context on migration between Mexico and the US before analyzing how post-9/11, legislation and public opinion have contributed to illegal migration being conflated with serious crimes like terrorism. The conclusion suggests this securitization approach may not be effective and a renegotiation is needed in how illegal migration is addressed.
Paulson, Kathleen, Unit 6 Research Proposal, HM598Kathy Paulson
This document proposes research into the effects of illegal immigration on the US economy, public safety, and constitutionality. It will examine factors like amnesty programs, DACA, border security, and estimates of the illegal immigrant population. The methodology will use data from government agencies and surveys to determine relationships between illegal immigration numbers and economic/social impacts. A literature review discusses findings that illegal immigration is increasing US population size and costs, while weakening border control. DACA in particular is criticized as encouraging more illegal crossings. The proposal aims to establish a validated approach for assessing these issues and informing immigration reform.
Running Head ISSUES REGARDING IMMIGRATION1Issues Regardi.docxcowinhelen
Running Head: ISSUES REGARDING IMMIGRATION 1
Issues Regarding Immigration 7
Issues Regarding Immigration
Student’s Name
Institution
Introduction
Illegal migration into the United States has recently been on a massive scale. As the population of these illegal immigrants continues to increase, several challenges arise. These challenges come in various dimensions ranging from economic to socio-political challenges. It is, therefore, prudent to provide a succinct solution to these challenges lest the impact of illegal migration would be more perilous in the United States of America than earlier anticipated.
With increased levels of globalization, both terrorism and illegal immigration have been significantly enhanced (Correa-Cabrera & Rojas-Arenaza, 2012, p. 28). Efforts to deal with and provide an amicable solution to these fundamental problems associated with these challenges have attracted both the senate and the house of Congress significantly. This is primary because any neglect to peer into these issues would ideally affect the economy of the United States as well as the socio-economic and political setups among the citizens of the United States of America. What can, therefore, be done to ensure due address to these key challenges?
Efforts have been put by the house of the congress trying to craft a comprehensive law that would address the key challenges of illegal migration into the United States. However, full success of the implementation of these laws has neither been realized (Fialho, 2016, p. 87). However, there is some degree of success in as far as the Congress concerns addressing the real issues of immigration due to the implementation and operation of such comprehensive laws. Besides, there has been a severe neglect on the most favored policy of benign neglect in the recent past. It is apparently no longer tenable in the view and perspective of current US address priorities to the issues of illegal immigration.
Several efforts are currently being employed to try addressing the problems and challenges related to illegal migration in the United States. These include changes in the policy at places of employment and various sectors of the entire economy of the United States. Examples of these policy changes include things such as improving the levels of security at workplaces, ensuring proper and thorough verification of the employees by their prospective employers, establishment of new guest worker program, and offering amnesty to illegal immigrants who are found to be living in the United States of America.
A key focus is, however, on the success of the implementation of these policies and reforms. To ensure the accomplishment and success of these reforms and policies, there must be a comprehensive immigration reform in place (Filindra & Kovács, 2011, p. 93). These reforms should be extensively ideological as well as significantly lopsided to address issues especially on the security at the borders an ...
Securing the United States-Mexico Border An On-Going Dilem.docxkenjordan97598
Securing the United States-Mexico Border:
An On-Going Dilemma
Karina J. Ordóñez
INTRODUCTION
For decades, the United States federal government has developed and implemented
border security strategies to counter illegal cross-border activity. While some strategies
have alleviated the influx of illegal immigration to certain geographic areas, increased
border controls in these locations have made other, less controlled areas of the border
more vulnerable. Rising crime rates, discarded debris, increased apprehension rates,
and growing public scrutiny in these less secure areas provide clear evidence that border
security is at once a social, an economic, and a national security issue.
Prior to 9/11, the United States Border Patrol (USBP) had established security efforts
along the international border. Since then, however, the constant flow of unauthorized
migrants and “the increasing mobility and destructive potential of modern terrorism has
required the United States to rethink and rearrange fundamentally its systems for
border…security.”1 Yet, despite the border security efforts of the Bush Administration
and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the problem persists
and continues to worsen, particularly along the Arizona-Sonora border (ASB). There is a
critical need to rethink border security systems, particularly along the Southwest border,
that leads observers to ponder: who is primarily responsible for securing our borders?
What is the USBP doing to secure the border given the additional threat of terrorism?2
Defining Borders
In order to articulate functional definitions, the “border” refers to the 2,000 mile geo-
political divide between the United States and Mexico. However, for purposes of this
paper, the “border” is specifically the international border between the State of Arizona,
United States and the State of Sonora, Mexico. The 377-mile Arizona-Sonora Border
(ASB) is a portion of one of the world’s busiest international boundaries and, as such, an
overwhelming number of cross-border illegal and legal activities occur there daily.3
Although there is a geo-political border, a full understanding of the complexities and
dynamics of the ASB requires recognition and analysis of the communities on both sides
of the border. The economic dependency, and the environmental and cultural ties
between these border communities, adds a multifaceted dynamic and dimension to
understanding the ASB. This cultural, social, and economic region has received
recognition from governments and the public; therefore, to encompass these intrinsic
interdependencies, the term “border region” was officially recognized in 1983 in the La
Paz Agreement. The border region includes 100 kilometers (67 miles) north and south
of the geopolitical divide between the United States and Mexico.4 The border region has
a population of approximately three million people, and it continues to grow
exponentially .
Do you think that Canada’s perceived liberal approach to both immigr.pdfforladies
Do you think that Canada’s perceived liberal approach to both immigration and refugees poses a
security threat to the United States?
Solution
Ans;- Yes, Canada’s perceived liberal approach to both immigration and refugees poses a
security threat to the United States,
mmigration has been connected with terrorism, immigration has also been related to increased
criminality, resulting in the perception that immigration is a threat to public security. The issue
of whether or not immigration actually results in increased crime rates is, again, an issue of
perception versus reality. While the public has become increasingly concerned about high crime
rates intensified by immigration and the threat that immigrants pose to public order, these
concerns are empirically unsound (Wang 2012:743). Contrary to popular opinion, several studies
on a number of states have found no strong correlation between immigration and criminality.
It cannot be denied that in some states, there has been a connection between increased
immigration flows and increased crime rates. There is, indeed, a trend showing that cities and
countries that have high crime rates tend to have a higher immigrant population. For instance, a
study found that in 2001, “the proportion of the prison population born abroad in Spain was
twenty five times higher than the proportion of immigrants in the population” (Westbrook
2010:101). However, as Westbrook (2010) insightfully argues, this has much more to do with
demographic factors than it does with simply having an immigrant status (101). In the case of
Spain, the majority of immigrants are those who have the highest incidence of criminal
behaviour: single men aged 18 to 35 (Westbrook 2010:101). Thus, in examining the relationship
between immigration and criminality, demographic variables must be taken into account.
There is an abundance of evidence which demonstrates that the correlation between immigration
and criminality is very weak or non-existent. A study of three American neighbourhoods
concludes that in general, immigration does not lead to increased levels of homicide among
Latinos and African Americans (Lee et al. 2001:559). Similarly, in another study, Butcher and
Piehl (1998) conclude that the flow of migration has no effect on a city’s crime rate (457). Bell et
al. (2010) investigate the relationship between immigration and crime during two particular
periods of large migration flows in the United Kingdom: during the wave of asylum seekers in
the 1990s and early 2000s, and the inflow of economic migrants from EU accession countries
beginning in 2004 (1). The study reports that neither wave impacted rates of violent crime, and
that immigrant arrest rates were no higher than native arrest rates (Bell et al. 2010:17). Evidently,
while widespread public opinion holds that immigration is a threat to public security, it is a
constructed threat, not founded upon empirical facts.
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 (9/11) in the United St.
Describe the politics of immigration from both a national and sub na.pdfshanhairstonkirui643
Describe the politics of immigration from both a national and sub national perspective
Solution
With globalization resulting in the increased movement of people around the globe, immigration
has become a significant political issue in most developed countries. In the United States and
Europe, immigration policy has been at the center of large public demonstrations and sustained
political debate. As a result, the politics of immigration policy need to be better understood. By
its nature, immigration policy is multidimensional, and hence the supporters and opponents of
different types of immigration policy will vary. 1 Asking who supports and who opposes
immigration overlooks the fact that some individuals will have incentives to support some types
of immigration policies but not others. Unfortunately much of the literature appears to miss this,
in part because public opinion research often is based on generic questions about increasing or
decreasing levels of immigration. Actual immigration policy is differentiated not only by the
type of immigrant affected, but also by the types of instruments (e.g., border control, visas) used
to manage immigrants. For example, a recent literature focuses on the public finance dimension
of immigration, but not all policy decisions about immigrants involve fiscal issues. Indeed
recently, the politics of immigration have increasingly centered on border security. From our
study spanning 27 years of votes in the US House of Representatives, we provide clearer tests of
economic and ideological theories by studying the varying influence of these factors on different
types of immigration policy votes. Immigration policy includes many distinct issues; here, we
consider six main types of immigration legislation, which we think captures most legislation on
the issue. The six types are: high-skill employment visas, low-skill employment visas, welfare
benefits for immigrants, employer constraints, border security, and final passage of over-arching
immigration reform. Recent debates about immigration policy focus on the relative impact of
economic selfinterest and ideological or cultural factors (Burns and Gimpel, 2000; Citrin et al.,
1997; Facchini and Mayda, 2009; Facchini et al., 2009; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2007, 2010;
Luedtke, 2005; Mayda, 2006). In terms of theories of economic self-interest, the state of the art
in immigration literature presents an interactive model where concerns about an individual’s
economic gains or losses from immigration are conditioned by the fiscal impact of immigration
policy (Borjas, 1999a, b; Facchini and Mayda, 2009). Earlier research claimed that an
individual’s relative capital and labor endowments influenced his or her attitudes toward
immigration because of the labor market ramifications of immigration—i.e., its effect on wages
and employment (Fetzer, 2006; Gonzalez and Kamdar, 2000; Scheve and Slaughter, 2001a).
Individuals with high levels of skill stand to gain from low-skill .
This document provides an overview of theories from the early 20th century suggesting that immigration increases crime rates. It discusses opportunity structure theory, cultural approach theory, and social disorganization theory, which argued that immigrants face limited opportunities, cultural conflicts with the host society, and social instability in their communities. However, the document notes that over a century of research has not found compelling evidence to support these theoretical expectations. The purpose is to assess whether widespread anti-immigration views are factually grounded or require reexamination based on contemporary empirical research.
Operation Streamline is a program that criminally prosecutes all immigrants apprehended illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border prior to deporting them, in an effort to deter illegal immigration. It instates a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal border crossings. Previous strategies to curb illegal immigration have included border blockades, constructing physical and virtual border fences using technology, deploying the National Guard to support Border Patrol efforts, and prosecuting those caught trying to cross the border illegally.
This document discusses US immigration policy and its impact on human dignity. It argues that current policy prerequisites like education and work experience requirements disadvantage the poor and disenfranchised from other countries in the same way that Jim Crow laws disenfranchised blacks. While some argue for more restrictive policies, the document disagrees and notes that legal immigrants contribute greatly despite facing high fees, racism, and lack of rights protections once in the US.
The document summarizes the history of refugee and immigration policy in the United States and Canada from the late 19th century through the recent Paris attacks, arguing that policy has long been framed around excluding minority groups in the name of security. Early policies implemented race-based quotas and bans on Asian and some European immigrants. During the Cold War, policies targeted communists. Following 9/11, policies became more exclusionary. The Paris attacks have further shifted policies towards greater securitization, despite long-standing trends of disproportionate impacts on minorities in the name of national security.
The document discusses how human smuggling networks likely utilize denial and deception techniques. It finds that while smuggling networks employ similar tactics regardless of human cargo, the tactics are used differently depending on the type of cargo. For example, migrant workers are most likely smuggled by foot, while terrorists could potentially enter by foot but more likely use fraudulent documents. Over the next five years, smuggling networks will likely continue using similar tactical methods of denial and deception for each cargo type. The document also examines smuggling patterns and tactics used at each US border.
Citizenship Status and Arrest Patterns for Violentand NarcotVinaOconner450
Citizenship Status and Arrest Patterns for Violent
and Narcotic-Related Offenses in Federal Judicial
Districts along the U.S./Mexico Border
Deborah Sibila1 & Wendi Pollock2 & Scott Menard3
Received: 8 September 2016 /Accepted: 30 October 2016 /
Published online: 10 November 2016
# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2016
Abstract Media reports routinely reference the drug-related violence in Mexico,
linking crime in communities along the Southwest U.S. Border to illegal immigrants.
The primary purpose of the current research is to examine whether the media assertions
can be supported. Logistic regression models were run to determine the impact of
citizenship on the likelihood of disproportionate arrest for federal drug and violent
crimes, along the U.S./Mexico border. In arrests for homicide, assault, robbery, and
weapons offenses, U.S. citizens were disproportionately more likely than non-citizens
to be arrested. The only federal crime where non-citizens were disproportionately more
likely to be arrested than were U.S. citizens was for marijuana offenses. Results of the
current study challenge the myth of the criminal immigrant.
Keywords Citizenship . Arrest . Criminal immigrant . Gender
The myth of the criminal immigrant is perhaps one of the single most controversial
factors contributing to America’s present day anti-immigrant fervor. In their book, The
Am J Crim Just (2017) 42:469–488
DOI 10.1007/s12103-016-9375-1
* Wendi Pollock
[email protected]
Deborah Sibila
[email protected]
Scott Menard
[email protected]
1 Department of Government, Stephen F. Austin State University, Box 13045 SFA Station,
Nacogdoches, TX 75962, USA
2 Department of Social Sciences, Texas A&M University, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi,
TX 78412, USA
3 Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12103-016-9375-1&domain=pdf
Immigration Time Bomb, authors Richard D. Lamm and Gary Imhoff contend that the
issue of immigration and crime is a critically divisive topic easily subject to misinter-
pretation (1985, p. 21). The belief that immigrants are more crime-prone than native-
born is not a twentieth century development. Debates on this controversy date back
more than 100 years (Hagan & Palloni, 1998; Martinez & Lee, 2000). Hagan and
Pallon believed that the nexus between immigration and crime is so misleading that it
constitutes a mythology (1999, p. 630). In a special report for the Immigration Policy
Center, professors Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing wrote B[The] misperception that
the foreign-born, especially illegal, immigrants are responsible for higher crime rates is
deeply rooted in American public opinion and sustained by media anecdote and
popular myth^ (2007, p. 3). Lee (2013) similarly argues that immigrants have a long
history of serving as scapegoats for a vast array of America’s societal problems
including crime.
Public opinion surveys suggest that a significant nu ...
Running Head BORDER SECURITY1BORDER SECURITY2.docxhealdkathaleen
Running Head: BORDER SECURITY1
BORDER SECURITY2
Border Security
Name
Institution
Border Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays a broad role in providing public security in the country. The missions of homeland security revolve around cyber security, disaster management, border security, and immigration (White, 2016). The department has been in existence since 2002 after the 9/11 attack and has remained to be a critical pillar in protecting the United States. The department gets allocated a budget every year to facilitate its operations. One issue of concern in Homeland Security is border security. The role of homeland security in providing border security is to ensure that while there is lawful travel at the border, illegal movement of substances such as drugs and weapons (White, 2016). Border security has a significant impact on the safety and economy of the country. The countries bordering the United States are Canada and Mexico, and rivers and lakes, which are substantial in the economic state of the country.
One state in the U.S. that borders Mexico is New Mexico. Recently, the U.S President Donald Trump proposed the building of a perimeter wall that separates Mexico and the United States (Payan, 2016). The border between the two countries stretches to about one thousand and nine hundred miles from the south of Texas to the Pacific Ocean. As much as the proposal is meant to control the movement of illegal migrants from Mexico to the United States, a lot of debate has ensued concerning the practicality of the project. Some parts of the border have been fenced to restrict illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States (Payan, 2016). Another measure taken by the government is the deployment of border patrol personnel who are equipped with resources such as motion sensors and drones that help them to patrol the border throughout.
Measures put into restricting illegal immigrants from entering the United States have been influenced by some significant security threats that arise due to the movement of people in and out of the country. All the operations to secure the border have been tied to the immigration laws, which require the country to protect its soil and keep the citizens safe. As noted, a large number of undocumented immigrants pose a significant threat to society. The number affects cohesion in the nation and makes it hard to regulate the economy, which assimilates immigrants that are either employed or run their businesses (Payan, 2016). At one point in the past, a state of emergency was declared by the governor of New Mexico over illegal immigration due to the increase in the number of undocumented immigrants. President Bush pushed for the move signed the Act to establish a secure fence that combated unlawful immigration. One area that illegal immigration has affected in the states neighboring Mexico and the country at large is the economy.
One argument that has be ...
IntroductionThis paper will analyze the author’s claims, reasons.docxmariuse18nolet
Introduction
This paper will analyze the author’s claims, reasons and evidence for The Border to determine if the argument is effective in persuading the target audience.
First at all, we have to provide the context about the primary arguments that author highlight in article, a lot of Mexican try to cross border illegally that cause a tidal wave through United States. The 200,000 Mexicans were attempting to immigrate by illegal way that have raise by author as evidence to support the arguments. There are various of situation that have been caused by the illegally immigration; meanwhile, the author present an argument that US citizens now face many troubles coming from illegal immigration such job losing and safety problems, they believe that the political leader of government have to do something to restrict the influx from illegal immigration.(paragraph3,5,7) On the other hand, the political leader of government said that restriction of immigration seem to retard the economy growth.( paragraph6).
A statement of the claim/reason of “The Border.”
The author main claim is that the issue have been raise between citizenry and political leader of government because they conflict on different political opinions for illegally immigration, and that is the reason why border issue can’t be settled. Author provides the following reasons to support the claim: the gap is that generated from illegal immigration because different opinion between citizenry and political leader of government such regulation as opposed to restriction for border.
A discussion of the general context, authors’ purpose and authors’ audience
Author purpose is to make the reader aware the differences of opinions which between citizenry and U.S political leader, meanwhile what they might face due to illegally immigration, in order to let the reader understand that what are some of potential influences of illegal immigration they will actually deal with. Author establishes a formal and analytical tone with audiences who might suffer from illegal immigration, the evidence that author provide can make the assumption more powerful like the statistic and examples. Author provide that 58 percent of surveyed people believe Mexico is the sources of territory and refer to evidence for citizen. Otherwise, the evidence of “guest work” are used to support the points of political leader.
Evaluation of supporting evidence:
Author argue that the illegal immigration lead the potential political conflict between different point of view for citizenry and leader of US. The author claim is support by the use of some statistic data and research , the statistic present that they are around 485000 Mexican have crossed the border illegally since 2000 and they are 687 border agent has been attacked by illegal border crosser. This evidence is effective to support the popular’s and have to implement the stringent reform for ensure the American citizen safety. However, the government provide that the immig.
NSWBCN Strategy All Hazards Interagency Challenges P5 IP HLS650 VC 1501B ...John Cederstrom
The document discusses the National Southwest Border Counternarcotic (NSWBCN) strategy and challenges related to securing the US-Mexico border. It outlines the strategic purpose of NSWBCN to stop drug, weapons, and human trafficking across the southwest border. It describes primary threats like terrorist groups transporting weapons of mass destruction and secondary threats like relationships between drug cartels and terrorist organizations. It emphasizes the need for improved cooperation between agencies like CBP, FBI, ICE, and DEA. Securing the vast and remote border is challenging due to limited resources, lack of infrastructure like fencing, and risks to border agents from armed criminal organizations.
This document is a research paper that examines how illegal migration and smuggling from Mexico has been framed as a security threat in American political discourse. It begins with a literature review on the topic, discussing studies that have analyzed the relationship between smugglers and migrants. The paper then provides historical context on migration between Mexico and the US before analyzing how post-9/11, legislation and public opinion have contributed to illegal migration being conflated with serious crimes like terrorism. The conclusion suggests this securitization approach may not be effective and a renegotiation is needed in how illegal migration is addressed.
Paulson, Kathleen, Unit 6 Research Proposal, HM598Kathy Paulson
This document proposes research into the effects of illegal immigration on the US economy, public safety, and constitutionality. It will examine factors like amnesty programs, DACA, border security, and estimates of the illegal immigrant population. The methodology will use data from government agencies and surveys to determine relationships between illegal immigration numbers and economic/social impacts. A literature review discusses findings that illegal immigration is increasing US population size and costs, while weakening border control. DACA in particular is criticized as encouraging more illegal crossings. The proposal aims to establish a validated approach for assessing these issues and informing immigration reform.
Running Head ISSUES REGARDING IMMIGRATION1Issues Regardi.docxcowinhelen
Running Head: ISSUES REGARDING IMMIGRATION 1
Issues Regarding Immigration 7
Issues Regarding Immigration
Student’s Name
Institution
Introduction
Illegal migration into the United States has recently been on a massive scale. As the population of these illegal immigrants continues to increase, several challenges arise. These challenges come in various dimensions ranging from economic to socio-political challenges. It is, therefore, prudent to provide a succinct solution to these challenges lest the impact of illegal migration would be more perilous in the United States of America than earlier anticipated.
With increased levels of globalization, both terrorism and illegal immigration have been significantly enhanced (Correa-Cabrera & Rojas-Arenaza, 2012, p. 28). Efforts to deal with and provide an amicable solution to these fundamental problems associated with these challenges have attracted both the senate and the house of Congress significantly. This is primary because any neglect to peer into these issues would ideally affect the economy of the United States as well as the socio-economic and political setups among the citizens of the United States of America. What can, therefore, be done to ensure due address to these key challenges?
Efforts have been put by the house of the congress trying to craft a comprehensive law that would address the key challenges of illegal migration into the United States. However, full success of the implementation of these laws has neither been realized (Fialho, 2016, p. 87). However, there is some degree of success in as far as the Congress concerns addressing the real issues of immigration due to the implementation and operation of such comprehensive laws. Besides, there has been a severe neglect on the most favored policy of benign neglect in the recent past. It is apparently no longer tenable in the view and perspective of current US address priorities to the issues of illegal immigration.
Several efforts are currently being employed to try addressing the problems and challenges related to illegal migration in the United States. These include changes in the policy at places of employment and various sectors of the entire economy of the United States. Examples of these policy changes include things such as improving the levels of security at workplaces, ensuring proper and thorough verification of the employees by their prospective employers, establishment of new guest worker program, and offering amnesty to illegal immigrants who are found to be living in the United States of America.
A key focus is, however, on the success of the implementation of these policies and reforms. To ensure the accomplishment and success of these reforms and policies, there must be a comprehensive immigration reform in place (Filindra & Kovács, 2011, p. 93). These reforms should be extensively ideological as well as significantly lopsided to address issues especially on the security at the borders an ...
Securing the United States-Mexico Border An On-Going Dilem.docxkenjordan97598
Securing the United States-Mexico Border:
An On-Going Dilemma
Karina J. Ordóñez
INTRODUCTION
For decades, the United States federal government has developed and implemented
border security strategies to counter illegal cross-border activity. While some strategies
have alleviated the influx of illegal immigration to certain geographic areas, increased
border controls in these locations have made other, less controlled areas of the border
more vulnerable. Rising crime rates, discarded debris, increased apprehension rates,
and growing public scrutiny in these less secure areas provide clear evidence that border
security is at once a social, an economic, and a national security issue.
Prior to 9/11, the United States Border Patrol (USBP) had established security efforts
along the international border. Since then, however, the constant flow of unauthorized
migrants and “the increasing mobility and destructive potential of modern terrorism has
required the United States to rethink and rearrange fundamentally its systems for
border…security.”1 Yet, despite the border security efforts of the Bush Administration
and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the problem persists
and continues to worsen, particularly along the Arizona-Sonora border (ASB). There is a
critical need to rethink border security systems, particularly along the Southwest border,
that leads observers to ponder: who is primarily responsible for securing our borders?
What is the USBP doing to secure the border given the additional threat of terrorism?2
Defining Borders
In order to articulate functional definitions, the “border” refers to the 2,000 mile geo-
political divide between the United States and Mexico. However, for purposes of this
paper, the “border” is specifically the international border between the State of Arizona,
United States and the State of Sonora, Mexico. The 377-mile Arizona-Sonora Border
(ASB) is a portion of one of the world’s busiest international boundaries and, as such, an
overwhelming number of cross-border illegal and legal activities occur there daily.3
Although there is a geo-political border, a full understanding of the complexities and
dynamics of the ASB requires recognition and analysis of the communities on both sides
of the border. The economic dependency, and the environmental and cultural ties
between these border communities, adds a multifaceted dynamic and dimension to
understanding the ASB. This cultural, social, and economic region has received
recognition from governments and the public; therefore, to encompass these intrinsic
interdependencies, the term “border region” was officially recognized in 1983 in the La
Paz Agreement. The border region includes 100 kilometers (67 miles) north and south
of the geopolitical divide between the United States and Mexico.4 The border region has
a population of approximately three million people, and it continues to grow
exponentially .
Do you think that Canada’s perceived liberal approach to both immigr.pdfforladies
Do you think that Canada’s perceived liberal approach to both immigration and refugees poses a
security threat to the United States?
Solution
Ans;- Yes, Canada’s perceived liberal approach to both immigration and refugees poses a
security threat to the United States,
mmigration has been connected with terrorism, immigration has also been related to increased
criminality, resulting in the perception that immigration is a threat to public security. The issue
of whether or not immigration actually results in increased crime rates is, again, an issue of
perception versus reality. While the public has become increasingly concerned about high crime
rates intensified by immigration and the threat that immigrants pose to public order, these
concerns are empirically unsound (Wang 2012:743). Contrary to popular opinion, several studies
on a number of states have found no strong correlation between immigration and criminality.
It cannot be denied that in some states, there has been a connection between increased
immigration flows and increased crime rates. There is, indeed, a trend showing that cities and
countries that have high crime rates tend to have a higher immigrant population. For instance, a
study found that in 2001, “the proportion of the prison population born abroad in Spain was
twenty five times higher than the proportion of immigrants in the population” (Westbrook
2010:101). However, as Westbrook (2010) insightfully argues, this has much more to do with
demographic factors than it does with simply having an immigrant status (101). In the case of
Spain, the majority of immigrants are those who have the highest incidence of criminal
behaviour: single men aged 18 to 35 (Westbrook 2010:101). Thus, in examining the relationship
between immigration and criminality, demographic variables must be taken into account.
There is an abundance of evidence which demonstrates that the correlation between immigration
and criminality is very weak or non-existent. A study of three American neighbourhoods
concludes that in general, immigration does not lead to increased levels of homicide among
Latinos and African Americans (Lee et al. 2001:559). Similarly, in another study, Butcher and
Piehl (1998) conclude that the flow of migration has no effect on a city’s crime rate (457). Bell et
al. (2010) investigate the relationship between immigration and crime during two particular
periods of large migration flows in the United Kingdom: during the wave of asylum seekers in
the 1990s and early 2000s, and the inflow of economic migrants from EU accession countries
beginning in 2004 (1). The study reports that neither wave impacted rates of violent crime, and
that immigrant arrest rates were no higher than native arrest rates (Bell et al. 2010:17). Evidently,
while widespread public opinion holds that immigration is a threat to public security, it is a
constructed threat, not founded upon empirical facts.
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 (9/11) in the United St.
Describe the politics of immigration from both a national and sub na.pdfshanhairstonkirui643
Describe the politics of immigration from both a national and sub national perspective
Solution
With globalization resulting in the increased movement of people around the globe, immigration
has become a significant political issue in most developed countries. In the United States and
Europe, immigration policy has been at the center of large public demonstrations and sustained
political debate. As a result, the politics of immigration policy need to be better understood. By
its nature, immigration policy is multidimensional, and hence the supporters and opponents of
different types of immigration policy will vary. 1 Asking who supports and who opposes
immigration overlooks the fact that some individuals will have incentives to support some types
of immigration policies but not others. Unfortunately much of the literature appears to miss this,
in part because public opinion research often is based on generic questions about increasing or
decreasing levels of immigration. Actual immigration policy is differentiated not only by the
type of immigrant affected, but also by the types of instruments (e.g., border control, visas) used
to manage immigrants. For example, a recent literature focuses on the public finance dimension
of immigration, but not all policy decisions about immigrants involve fiscal issues. Indeed
recently, the politics of immigration have increasingly centered on border security. From our
study spanning 27 years of votes in the US House of Representatives, we provide clearer tests of
economic and ideological theories by studying the varying influence of these factors on different
types of immigration policy votes. Immigration policy includes many distinct issues; here, we
consider six main types of immigration legislation, which we think captures most legislation on
the issue. The six types are: high-skill employment visas, low-skill employment visas, welfare
benefits for immigrants, employer constraints, border security, and final passage of over-arching
immigration reform. Recent debates about immigration policy focus on the relative impact of
economic selfinterest and ideological or cultural factors (Burns and Gimpel, 2000; Citrin et al.,
1997; Facchini and Mayda, 2009; Facchini et al., 2009; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2007, 2010;
Luedtke, 2005; Mayda, 2006). In terms of theories of economic self-interest, the state of the art
in immigration literature presents an interactive model where concerns about an individual’s
economic gains or losses from immigration are conditioned by the fiscal impact of immigration
policy (Borjas, 1999a, b; Facchini and Mayda, 2009). Earlier research claimed that an
individual’s relative capital and labor endowments influenced his or her attitudes toward
immigration because of the labor market ramifications of immigration—i.e., its effect on wages
and employment (Fetzer, 2006; Gonzalez and Kamdar, 2000; Scheve and Slaughter, 2001a).
Individuals with high levels of skill stand to gain from low-skill .
This document provides an overview of theories from the early 20th century suggesting that immigration increases crime rates. It discusses opportunity structure theory, cultural approach theory, and social disorganization theory, which argued that immigrants face limited opportunities, cultural conflicts with the host society, and social instability in their communities. However, the document notes that over a century of research has not found compelling evidence to support these theoretical expectations. The purpose is to assess whether widespread anti-immigration views are factually grounded or require reexamination based on contemporary empirical research.
Operation Streamline is a program that criminally prosecutes all immigrants apprehended illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border prior to deporting them, in an effort to deter illegal immigration. It instates a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal border crossings. Previous strategies to curb illegal immigration have included border blockades, constructing physical and virtual border fences using technology, deploying the National Guard to support Border Patrol efforts, and prosecuting those caught trying to cross the border illegally.
This document discusses US immigration policy and its impact on human dignity. It argues that current policy prerequisites like education and work experience requirements disadvantage the poor and disenfranchised from other countries in the same way that Jim Crow laws disenfranchised blacks. While some argue for more restrictive policies, the document disagrees and notes that legal immigrants contribute greatly despite facing high fees, racism, and lack of rights protections once in the US.
The document summarizes the history of refugee and immigration policy in the United States and Canada from the late 19th century through the recent Paris attacks, arguing that policy has long been framed around excluding minority groups in the name of security. Early policies implemented race-based quotas and bans on Asian and some European immigrants. During the Cold War, policies targeted communists. Following 9/11, policies became more exclusionary. The Paris attacks have further shifted policies towards greater securitization, despite long-standing trends of disproportionate impacts on minorities in the name of national security.
The document discusses how human smuggling networks likely utilize denial and deception techniques. It finds that while smuggling networks employ similar tactics regardless of human cargo, the tactics are used differently depending on the type of cargo. For example, migrant workers are most likely smuggled by foot, while terrorists could potentially enter by foot but more likely use fraudulent documents. Over the next five years, smuggling networks will likely continue using similar tactical methods of denial and deception for each cargo type. The document also examines smuggling patterns and tactics used at each US border.
Citizenship Status and Arrest Patterns for Violentand NarcotVinaOconner450
Citizenship Status and Arrest Patterns for Violent
and Narcotic-Related Offenses in Federal Judicial
Districts along the U.S./Mexico Border
Deborah Sibila1 & Wendi Pollock2 & Scott Menard3
Received: 8 September 2016 /Accepted: 30 October 2016 /
Published online: 10 November 2016
# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2016
Abstract Media reports routinely reference the drug-related violence in Mexico,
linking crime in communities along the Southwest U.S. Border to illegal immigrants.
The primary purpose of the current research is to examine whether the media assertions
can be supported. Logistic regression models were run to determine the impact of
citizenship on the likelihood of disproportionate arrest for federal drug and violent
crimes, along the U.S./Mexico border. In arrests for homicide, assault, robbery, and
weapons offenses, U.S. citizens were disproportionately more likely than non-citizens
to be arrested. The only federal crime where non-citizens were disproportionately more
likely to be arrested than were U.S. citizens was for marijuana offenses. Results of the
current study challenge the myth of the criminal immigrant.
Keywords Citizenship . Arrest . Criminal immigrant . Gender
The myth of the criminal immigrant is perhaps one of the single most controversial
factors contributing to America’s present day anti-immigrant fervor. In their book, The
Am J Crim Just (2017) 42:469–488
DOI 10.1007/s12103-016-9375-1
* Wendi Pollock
[email protected]
Deborah Sibila
[email protected]
Scott Menard
[email protected]
1 Department of Government, Stephen F. Austin State University, Box 13045 SFA Station,
Nacogdoches, TX 75962, USA
2 Department of Social Sciences, Texas A&M University, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi,
TX 78412, USA
3 Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12103-016-9375-1&domain=pdf
Immigration Time Bomb, authors Richard D. Lamm and Gary Imhoff contend that the
issue of immigration and crime is a critically divisive topic easily subject to misinter-
pretation (1985, p. 21). The belief that immigrants are more crime-prone than native-
born is not a twentieth century development. Debates on this controversy date back
more than 100 years (Hagan & Palloni, 1998; Martinez & Lee, 2000). Hagan and
Pallon believed that the nexus between immigration and crime is so misleading that it
constitutes a mythology (1999, p. 630). In a special report for the Immigration Policy
Center, professors Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing wrote B[The] misperception that
the foreign-born, especially illegal, immigrants are responsible for higher crime rates is
deeply rooted in American public opinion and sustained by media anecdote and
popular myth^ (2007, p. 3). Lee (2013) similarly argues that immigrants have a long
history of serving as scapegoats for a vast array of America’s societal problems
including crime.
Public opinion surveys suggest that a significant nu ...
Evaluating the Efficacy of Border Enforcement as a Policy Response to the Influx of Immigrants
1. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 1
Border Enforcement: A Unilateral Policy Response to a Multifaceted Issue
In response to the recent (two decades) influx of unauthorized immigration into the
United States, the U.S. government has drastically increased the scope of its border
enforcement policy. Predicated under the goal of creating a system where only those legally
permitted by the government can enter the United States, the policy of border enforcement
has prompted federal, state, and local leaders to disincentivize unauthorized immigration by
creating an apparatus of apprehension amongst migrants. In order to accomplish this, political
actors have enacted legislation that a) builds nearly 700 miles of fences along the border, b)
“criminalizes undocumented workers”, c) increases the size of Border Patrol from about
3,000 agents to 21,000, and d) subsidizes the employment of expensive technology such as
drones and sensor cameras (Alden, 107 and Correa Cabrera, 37). Given the objective of the
border enforcement policy, the efficacy of such policy should be delineated by examining
whether the augmentation of border enforcement has led to a decrease in unauthorized
immigration (Reyes, Johnson, Van Swearingen, 8).
I argue that the efficacy of border enforcement as a policy designed to curb
unauthorized immigration is compromised because a) there is no evidence to prove that a
buildup in border enforcement contributes to a decrease in unauthorized immigration, b) the
emphasis on border enforcement has created an apparatus of fear that precludes our political
actors from exuding cooperation and communication with leaders of Mexico and Central
America, and c) economic opportunities and state protection mechanisms play a larger role in
shaping the quantity of unauthorized immigration than does the presence of Border Patrol
(Ibid). I am not, however, suggesting that the border enforcement policy is frivolous and
completely ineffective. To the contrary, border enforcement has “increased the probability of
apprehension, changed the crossing places of migrants, and increased the costs associated
with crossing the US-Mexican border” (Ibid, 10). Despite these accomplishments, however,
2. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 2
border enforcement has done little to combat the influx of undocumented immigrants into the
nation, thus rendering it ineffective. The inadequacy of border enforcement as a policy
response illuminates its problematic nature: border enforcement is a unilateral policy
response to a multifaceted issue. Such an issue demands coordination with political actors in
Mexico and Central America and understanding on the causal factors of economic, political,
and social corruption.
Proponents1 of our approach towards combating unauthorized immigration argue that
the success of the policy emanates from increases in coyote prices, “higher rates of
discouraged migrants who give up trying to cross the border,” and changes in the migrant
crossing patterns (Orrenius, 10). These arguments, however, are flawed. For example, the
premise that enforcement has led to increases in coyote prices disregards the fact that from
1965 to 1994, “increases in the supply of smugglers outpaced increases in the demand for
smugglers” thus lowering median coyote prices from $900 in 1965 to $300 in 1994 (ibid, 8).
In other words, the implementation of Operation Hold-the-Line in 1993 and Operation
Gatekeeper in 1994 began the gradual process of cutting the supply of smugglers, thus,
increasing the price of coyotes for the first time in thirty years (Ibid). Nevertheless, the
notion that enforcement is successful because it has increased the prices of coyotes is
problematic for presuming that increasing coyote prices deters unauthorized immigration in a
statistically significant manner. Such rationale also fails to explicate how migrants are willing
to pay more, in terms of coyote fees, if the demand to escape conditions of violence and
poverty is high enough. For instance, according to the Mexican Migration Project’s data on
smuggler use rates and fees from 1965-1997, about 93% of undocumented immigrants in
1996 hired coyotes despite an increase in prices, which was a 20% increase in undocumented
immigrants from 1995 (Ibid,7). Such argument also fails to explicate surges in undocumented
1 For the purpose of this paper, proponents ofborder enforcement are solely those who believe that border
enforcement is an effective policy to curb unauthorized immigration.
3. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 3
immigrants despite increasing coyote prices. Take, for example, the recent spike in
unaccompanied migrant children from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala in the summer
of 2013. Why was there a surge in unaccompanied migrant children from these nations
despite the fact that median coyote fee averaged anywhere from $3000 to $4000 (Mexican
Migration Project)? Predicating the success of the border enforcement policy on increasing
coyote prices is dubious for assuming that a) increasing coyote prices automatically means
curbing unauthorized immigration and b) undocumented immigrants only rely on coyotes to
enter the United States.
The idea that border enforcement has fostered “higher rates of discouraged migrants”
is misleading for a few reasons. It fails, for instance, to consider the differences between new
migrants, or migrants with no prior migration experience, and experienced migrants, who
have attempted migration before. A comprehensive study conducted by Reyes, Johnson, and
Van Swearingen (2002) found a decrease in the probability of first-time migration for both
men and women during the last 1990s, but an increase in the probability of migration from
experienced migrants (37-38). As for new migrants, Reyes, Johnson, and Van Swearingen
found that a decline in the probability of first-time migration is “statistically unrelated to the
number of hours spent guarding the U.S.-Mexican border” (ibid). The claim that border
enforcement has led to “higher rates of discouraged migrants” fails to account for the fact that
“border build-up appears to have no effect on the probability of migration for migrants, or
(that) the effect is too small to be captured in this model” (39). Rather than attributing the
probability of unauthorized immigrants entering the United States to the number of border
patrols present, Reyes, Johnson, and Van Swearingen argue that changes in the conditions of
the U.S. and Mexican economies has a stronger influence on the influx of unauthorized
immigrants, a position that this paper will further explore.
4. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 4
Out of all justifications to the efficacy of the border enforcement policy, the claim that
border enforcement has been successful because it has contributed to changes in migrant
crossing partners is the least compelling argument. While it is true that migrants are choosing
to cross through the deserts of El Centro in California and through Laredo/Brownsville in
Texas rather than the traditional paths of San Diego and El Paso, respectively, there is no
evidence to suggest that changes in crossing sites has led to a decrease in unauthorized
immigration. What this new enforcement strategy has fostered is an all-time high number of
crossing-related deaths and injuries along the border (Orrenius, 9). The increase in crossing-
related deaths illuminates how migrants will continue to enter the United States despite rising
difficulties. The demand to escape persecution and pursue economic opportunities transcends
a border enforcement strategy to “eliminate illegal alien traffic from city centers” (Ibid).
The effectiveness of the border enforcement policy is also compromised by the
inability for our political actors to tackle the casual factors of unauthorized immigration. The
perception of Mexico and Central America as societies ridden with violence and excessive
drug use has perpetuated a politics of fear within the United States (Correa-Cabrera, 37). This
politics of fear has concocted a distorted view of undocumented immigrants as “enemies that
hurt low-skilled Americans, burden(s) taxpayers, create(s) an unassimilated underclass,
encourage(s) law breaking, [and] compromise[s] border security” (Griswold, 1). This
political paradigm has also been erroneously substantiated by the conflation between
unauthorized immigration and terrorism where migrants are viewed as terrorists seeking to
perpetuate acts of terrorism against Americans. This attitude towards undocumented
immigrants as unassimilated underclass terrorists creates the impression that border
enforcement and apprehension is the only means to protect the nation. As a result, a
humanitarian crisis is transformed into a matter of national security, thus prompting the U.S.
to act unilaterally on an issue that transcends national boundaries. Such reframing of the issue
5. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 5
of unauthorized immigration deters political actors from both sides (U.S. and Mexico/Central
America) from communicating and coordinating to address the issues of insecurity, family
reunification, and economic corruption that are prompting migrants to pursue entry into the
United States (Correa-Cabrera, 46). For example, the United States’ unilateral approach of
border enforcement has impeded Mexico and the United States from a) renewing “bilateral
migration agreements” to create a border “that would allow for the freer movement of both
people and goods and b) creating temporary worker programs to allow Mexican migrants
from maintaining their residences while being able to cycle freely between both countries
(Orrenius 9). The unilateral approach purported by the United States impedes the United
States from working with Central American nations to curb the prevalence of gang violence,
concentration of economic power into the few, and the lack of political will. Politically, the
policy of border enforcement is costly for precluding our political actors and citizenry from
understanding the grander scope of the unauthorized immigration issue and the coordination
necessary to address the issue.
While the political ramifications of border enforcement are a testament to the
inefficiency of the policy, the most compelling argument against border enforcement as a
successful deterrent against unauthorized immigration is how it fails to consider the
inextricable link between the economic conditions in the United States and Mexico/Central
America and the quantity of unauthorized immigration into the United States. For instance,
during the economic recession that plagued Mexico during the mid-1980s, decline in the real
incomes, increase in unemployment rates, and decreases in agricultural sector outputs
corresponds to a surge in Mexican emigration (Ibid, 5). During this recession, the presence of
underdeveloped capital markets made it difficult for Mexicans to obtain the means to “start a
business, build a house, repay a loan or fund medical procedures,” which are some of the
main push factors for Mexican migrants. Conversely, when the gross domestic product of
6. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 6
Mexico increased by 10 percent in 1994, the probability for migration amongst men
decreased by 0.5 percent. A 0.5 percent decrease in the probability of migration amongst men
means that 78,400 men would be discouraged from migrating to the United States (Ibid). As
for the influence of economic conditions in the United States, unemployment rate has a
strong correlation to the quantity of unauthorized immigration into the United States. For
example, the Mexican Migration Project estimates that “a 10 percent increase in U.S.
unemployment rate will discourage 28,800 males from crossing illegally to the United States
(Ibid). According to the study conducted by the Mexican Migration Project, people described
a persistent need to migrate, which they felt could not be diminished by an increase in the
number of agents at the border (43). The demand for a job that provides a livable wage
transcends the level of border enforcement. Undocumented migrants are focused more on
finding a job to support their families than on being caught at the border. To diminish the
amount of unauthorized immigration, it is imperative to implement initiatives that foster the
growth of Mexican/Central American economies to disincentivize migration.
The U.S. policy of border enforcement, alone, is incapable of altering the economic
conditions that plague migrants in their country of origins. Increasing the quantity of border
patrols does nothing to tackle the ubiquitous gang violence and political corruption that
plagues Mexico/Central America. While the increased funding in border enforcement has
increased the probability of apprehension, the economic, political, and social needs of
migrants will ultimately compel one to migrate into the United States. The efficaciousness of
border enforcement, thus, is dismantled by its narrow focus on the issue, a focus that treats an
international phenomenon as a matter of national security.
7. Daniel Vasquez Political Science 12/12/2014
Vasquez 7
Works Cited
Alden, Edward. "Immigration and Border Control." Cato Journal 32 (2012): 107-24. Print.
Correa-Cabrera, Guadalupe, Terence Garrett, and Michelle Keck. "Administrative Surveillance and
Fear: Implications for U.S.-Mexico Border Relations and." Revista Europea De Estudios
Latinoamericanos Y Del Caribe 96 (2014): 35-53. Print.
Orrenius, PIa M. "Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Along the U.S.–Mexico Border: An
Overview." Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Along the U.S.-Mexico Border: An
Overview - Economic and Financial Review, First Quarter, 2001 - Dallas Fed (2001): 1-
11. Dallas Fed. 2001. Web. 13 Dec. 2014.
Reyes, Belinda I., Hans P. Johnson, and Richard Van Swearingen. "Holding the Line? The Effect of
the Recent Border Build-up on Unauthorized Immigration." Population Research and Policy
Review 23.3 (2004): 235-57. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA. PUBLIC
POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA, 2002. Web. 13 Dec. 2014.