World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Mexico–United States barrier

 

Mexico–United States barrier

Mexico-United States barrier at the pedestrian border crossing in Tijuana.

The Mexico–United States barrier – also known in the United States as the Border Fence or Border Wall – is a collection of several barriers, designed to prevent illegal movement across the Mexico–United States border. The barriers were built as part of three larger "Operations" to taper transportation of illegal drugs manufactured in Latin America and illegal immigration: Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line [1] in Texas, and Operation Safeguard[2] in Arizona. The barriers are strategically placed to mitigate the flow of illegal border crossings along the Mexico–United States international border into the Southwestern United States. Construction supporters cite the ongoing escalation of national security risks, relating to Cartel border violence, and their possible co-operation with overseas terrorists. Opponents claim the barriers are a taxpayer boondoggle, an ineffective deterrent and that the barriers inappropriately jeopardize the health and safety of those seeking illegal entry into the United States, as well as destroy animal habitat, prevent animals from reaching water, disturb animal migration patterns, and otherwise damage the environment.

Contents

  • General impact on illegal immigration 1
  • Barrier status 2
    • Secure Fence Act 2.1
    • Rethinking the expansion 2.2
    • Expansion freeze 2.3
    • Local efforts 2.4
  • Controversy 3
    • Divided land 3.1
    • Hidalgo County 3.2
    • Mexico 3.3
    • Environmental impact 3.4
  • Public opinion in the United States 4
  • See also 5
  • References 6
  • External links 7

General impact on illegal immigration

Fence on the international bridge near McAllen, Texas.
Aerial view of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez Chihuahua, the border can clearly be seen as it divides the two cities at night, Feb 2014
A family enjoys the beach at Border Field State Park on the US side
Two men scale the border fence into Mexico near Douglas, Arizona, 2009
U.S.-Mexico Border at the Pacific Ocean in Imperial Beach, California. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol Jeeps are visible on the beach.)
Steel barrier wall near Mariposa port of entry, Nogales Sonora, Mexico. Viewpoint: from Sonora northeast to Arizona.
Beach in Tijuana.
Wildlife Friendly Border Wall in Brownsville, Texas. A young man climbs wall using horizontal beams for foot support.

96.6% of apprehensions by the Border Patrol in 2010 occurred at the southwest border.[3] The number of Border Patrol apprehensions declined 61% from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 723,840 in 2008 to 463,000 in 2010. The decrease in apprehensions may be due to a number of factors including changes in U.S. economic conditions and border enforcement efforts. Border apprehensions in 2010 were at their lowest level since 1972.[3]

The 1,954-mile (3,145 km) border between the United States and Mexico traverses a variety of terrains, including urban areas and deserts. The barrier is located on both urban and uninhabited sections of the border, areas where the most concentrated numbers of illegal crossings and drug trafficking have been observed in the past. These urban areas include San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas. As of August 29, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had built 190 miles (310 km) of pedestrian border fence and 154.3 miles (248.3 km) of vehicle border fence, for a total of 344.3 miles (554.1 km) of fence. The completed fence is mainly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, with construction underway in Texas.[4]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of fence in place by the second week of January, 2009.[5] Work is still under way on fence segments in Texas and on the Border Infrastructure System in California.

The border fence is not one continuous structure and is actually a grouping of short physical walls that stop and start, secured in between with "virtual fence" which includes a system of sensors and cameras monitored by Border Patrol Agents.[6]

As a result of the effect of the barrier, there has been a marked increase in the number of people trying to illegally cross the Sonoran Desert and crossing over the Baboquivari Mountain in Arizona.[7] Such illegal immigrants must cross 50 miles (80 km) of inhospitable terrain to reach the first road, which is located in the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation.[7][8]

As of 2007, there have been around 5,000 migrant deaths along the Mexico-U.S. border in the last thirteen years, according to a document created by the Human Rights National Commission of Mexico, also signed by the American Civil Liberties Union[9] Between 43 and 61 people died trying to cross the Sonoran Desert from October 2003 to May 2004; three times that of the same period the previous year.[7] In October 2004 the Border Patrol announced that 325 people had died crossing the entire border during the previous 12 months.[10] Between 1998 and 2004, 1,954 persons are officially reported to have died along the US-Mexico border. Since 2004, the bodies of 1086 migrants have been recovered in the southern Arizona desert.[11]

U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector reported on October 15, 2008 that its agents were able to save 443 undocumented immigrants from certain death after being abandoned by their smugglers, during FY 2008, while reducing the number of deaths by 17 percent from 202 in FY 2007 to 167 in FY 2008. Without the efforts of these agents, hundreds more could have died in the deserts of Arizona.[12] According to the same sector, border enhancements like the wall have allowed the Tucson Sector agents to reduce the number of apprehensions at the borders by 16 percent compared with fiscal year 2007.[13]

Barrier status

George W. Bush on October 26, 2006.

The government of Mexico and ministers of several Latin American countries have condemned the plans.[15] Rick Perry, governor of Texas, also expressed his opposition saying that instead of closing the border it should be opened more and through technology support legal and safe migration.[16] The barrier expansion has also been opposed by a unanimous vote of the Laredo, Texas City Council.[17] Laredo's Mayor, Raul G. Salinas, is concerned about defending his town's people by saying that the Bill which includes miles of border wall would devastate Laredo. He states "These are people that are sustaining our economy by forty percent, and I am gonna [sic] close the door on them and put [up] a wall? You don't do that. It's like a slap in the face." He hopes that Congress would revise the Bill that better reflects the realities of life on the border.[18] There are no plans to build border fence in Laredo at this time. However, there is a large Border Patrol presence in Laredo.

Secure Fence Act

H.R. 6061, the "Secure Fence Act of 2006", was introduced on September 13, 2006. It passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on September 14, 2006 with a vote of 283–138.

On September 29, 2006, by a vote of 80–19 the U.S. Senate confirmed H.R. 6061 authorizing, and partially funding the "possible" construction of 700 miles (1,125 km) of physical fence/barriers along the border. The very broad support implies that many assurances have been made by the Administration, to the Democrats, Mexico, and the pro "Comprehensive immigration reform" minority within the GOP, that Homeland Security will proceed very cautiously. Michael Chertoff, announced that an eight-month test of the virtual fence, he favors, will precede any construction of a physical barrier.

On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed H.R. 6061 which was voted upon and passed by the 109th Congress of the United States.[19] The signing of the bill came right after a CNN poll showed that most Americans "prefer the idea of more Border Patrol agents to a 700-mile (1,125-kilometer) fence."[20] The Department of Homeland Security has a down payment of $1.2 billion marked for border security, but not specifically for the border fence.

As of January 2010, the fence project has been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona. From there it continues into Texas and consists of a fence that is 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5000 psi (UK/Ireland:345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete. There were no fatalities during construction, but there were 4 serious injuries with multiple aggressions against building crews, there was one reported shooting with no injury to a crew member in Mexicali region. All fence sections are south of the all American canals, and have access roads giving border guards the ability to reach any point easily, including the dunes area where a border agent was killed 3 years before and is now sealed off.

The Republican Party's 2012 platform states that "The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built."[21] The Secure Fence Act's costs were estimated at $6 billion,[22] more than the Customs and Border Protection's entire annual discretionary budget of $5.6 billion,[23] The Washington Office on Latin America notes on its Border Fact Check site that the cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act's mandate was the reason it has not been completely fulfilled.[24]

Rethinking the expansion

In January 2007 incoming House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) announced that Congress would revisit the fence plan, with committee chairs holding up funding until a comprehensive border security plan was presented by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Then Senators from Texas, John Cornyn (R-TX) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), advocate revising the plan, as well.[17]

Construction of the border fence will not be subject to any laws. This is because in 2005 the Real ID Act, attached as a rider to a supplemental appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, decreed, “Not withstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads." Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff used his new power to “waive in their entirety” the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act to extend triple fencing through the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve near San Diego.[25] The Real ID Act further stipulates that his decisions are not subject to judicial review, and in December 2005 a federal judge dismissed legal challenges by the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and others to Chertoff’s decision.

Secretary Chertoff exercised his waiver authority on April 1, 2008. In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a lower court ruling upholding the waiver authority in a case filed by the Sierra Club. (Associated Press) In September, 2008 a federal district court judge in El Paso dismissed a similar lawsuit brought by El Paso County, Texas.[26]

By January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had spent $40 million on environmental analysis and mitigation measures aimed at blunting any possible adverse impact that the fence might have on the environment. On January 16, 2009, DHS announced it was pledging an additional $50 million for that purpose, and signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for utilization of the additional funding.[27]

Expansion freeze

On March 16, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security announced that there would be a halt to expand the "virtual fence" beyond two pilot projects in Arizona.[28]

Contractor Boeing Corporation had numerous delays and cost overruns.[28] Boeing had initially used police dispatching software that was unable to process all of the information coming from the border.[28]

The $50 million of remaining funding would be used for mobile surveillance devices, sensors, and radios to patrol and protect the border.[28]

At the time, the Department of Homeland Security had spent $3.4 billion on border fences and had built 640 miles (1,030 km) of fences and barriers as part of the Secure Border Initiative.[28]

Local efforts

In response to a perceived lack of will on the part of the federal government to build a secure border fence, and a lack of state funds, Arizona officials plan to launch a website allowing donors to help fund a state border fence.

Piecemeal fencing has also been established. In 2005, under its president, Ramón H. Dovalina, Laredo Community College, located on the border, obtained a 10-foot fence built by the United States Marine Corps. The structure was not designed as a border barrier per se but is intended to divert smugglers and illegal immigrants to places where the authorities can halt entrance onto the college campus.[29]

Controversy

Divided land

Tribal lands of three American Indian nations would be divided by the proposed border fence.[30][31][32][33][34]

On January 27, 2008, a U.S. Native American human rights delegation, which included Margo Tamez, (Lipan Apache-Jumano Apache) and Teresa Leal (Opata-Mayo) reported the removal of the official International Boundary obelisks of 1848 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the Las Mariposas, Sonora-Arizona sector of the Mexico-U.S. border. The obelisks were moved southward approximately 20 meters, onto the property of private landowners in Sonora, as part of the larger project of installing the 18-foot (5.5 m) steel barrier wall.[35]

The proposed route for the border fence would divide the campus of the University of Texas at Brownsville into two parts, according to Antonio N. Zavaleta, a vice president of the university.[36] There have been campus protests against the wall by students who feel it will harm their school.[6] In August 2008, UT-Brownsville reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the university to construct a portion of the fence across and adjacent to its property. The final agreement, which was filed in federal court on Aug. 5 and formally signed by the Texas Southmost College Board of Trustees later that day, ended all court proceedings between UTB/TSC and DHS. On August 20, 2008, the university sent out a request for bids for the construction of a 10-foot (3.0 m) high barrier that incorporates technology security for its segment of the border fence project. The southern perimeter of the UTB/TSC campus will be part of a laboratory for testing new security technology and infrastructure combinations.[37] The border fence segment on the UTB campus was substantially completed by December 2008.[38]

Hidalgo County

In the spring of 2007 more than 25 landowners, including a corporation and a school district, from Hidalgo and Starr County in Texas refused border fence surveys, which would determine what land was eligible for building on, as an act of protest.[39]

In July 2008, Hidalgo County and Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the construction of a project that combines the border fence with a levee to control flooding along the Rio Grande. Construction of two of the Hidalgo County fence segments are under way; five more segments are scheduled to be built during the fall of 2008; the Hidalgo County section of the border fence will constitute 22 miles (35 km) of combined fence and levee.[40]

Mexico

Mexico has almost always condemned any course of action by the United States on its stance to increase border security and immigration control dating back over a century. It is estimated that over 500 people a year die trying to cross into the U.S. illegally. In prior years, two times that amount was estimated in casualties. Because of this, some Mexicans see the barriers as a slightly positive thing; but most Mexicans, as well as the Mexican government, somewhat view it as discrimination, as well as a source of alienation by the United States.

In 2006, the Mexican government vigorously condemned the Secure Fence act of 2006. Mexico has also urged the U.S. to alter its plans for expanded fences along their shared border, saying that it would damage the environment and harm wildlife.[41]

In June 2007, it was announced that a section of the barrier had been mistakenly built from 1 to 6 feet (2 meters) inside Mexican territory. This will necessitate the section being moved at an estimated cost of over $3 million (U.S.).[42]

In 2012, then Presidential candidate of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto was campaigning in Tijuana at the Playas de Monumental, less than 600 yards (550 m) from the U.S.-Mexico border adjacent to Border Field State Park. In one of his speeches he criticized the U.S. government for building the barriers, and asked for them to be removed. Ultimately, he mocked Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech from Berlin in 1987.

Environmental impact

In April 2008, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to waive more than 30 environmental and cultural laws to speed construction of the barrier. Despite claims from then Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff that the department would minimize the construction's impact on the environment, critics in Arizona and Texas asserted the fence endangered species and fragile ecosystems along the Rio Grande. Environmentalists expressed concern about butterfly migration corridors and the future of two species of local wildcats, the ocelot and the jaguarundi.[43]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted environmental reviews of each pedestrian and vehicle fence segment covered by the waiver, and published the results of this analysis in Environmental Stewardship Plans (ESPs).[44] Although not required by the waiver, CBP has conducted the same level of environmental analysis (in the ESPs) that would have been performed before the waiver (in the “normal” NEPA process) to evaluate potential impacts to sensitive resources in the areas where fence is being constructed.

ESPs completed by CBP contain extremely limited surveys of local wildlife. For example, the ESP for border fence built in the Del Rio Sector included a single survey for wildlife completed in November, 2007, and only "3 invertebrates, 1 reptile species, 2 amphibian species, 1 mammal species, and 21 bird species were recorded." The ESPs then dismiss the potential for most adverse effects on wildlife, based on sweeping generalizations and without any quantitative analysis of the risks posed by border barriers. Approximately 461 acres of vegetation will be cleared along the impact corridor. From the Rio Grande Valley ESP: "The impact corridor avoids known locations of individuals of Walker’s manioc and Zapata bladderpod, but approaches several known locations of Texas ayenia. For this reason, impacts on federally listed plants are anticipated to be short-term, moderate, and adverse." This excerpt is typical of the ESPs in that the risk to endangered plants is deemed short-term without any quantitative population analysis.

By August, 2008, more than 90 percent of the southern border in Arizona and New Mexico had been surveyed. The remaining portions will be surveyed in the next three months. In addition, 80 percent of the California/Mexico border has been surveyed.[4]

Public opinion in the United States

A July 29, 2010 Rasmussen Reports nationwide poll revealed that Americans favored building a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico, with 68 percent in favor and 21 percent against (margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points).[45]

See also

References

  1. ^ Michael P. Dino, Evaluator-in-Charge & James R. Russell, Evaluator. December 1994 Border Control: Revised Strategy Is Showing Some Positive; Results: Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/gao/gao13.htm
  2. ^ Operation Gatekeeper, Operation Hold-the-Line, Operation Safeguard
  3. ^ a b Department of Homeland Security: "Apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol: 2005-2010" retrieved November 18, 2011
  4. ^ a b "U.S. Customs and Border Protection". Cbp.gov. 2005-09-28. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  5. ^ U.S. Plans Border ‘Surge’ Against Any Drug Wars The New York Times, January 7, 2009.
  6. ^ a b "The Border Fence". NOW on PBS. 
  7. ^ a b c Border Desert Proves Deadly For Mexicans
  8. ^ One Nation, Under Fire High Country News, February 19, 2007.
  9. ^ El Universal de Mexico (Spanish) Retrieved on 09/11/2007
  10. ^ "Border deaths of illegal migrants cause concern"
  11. ^ New Matilda The Long Graveyard
  12. ^ CBP Border Patrol Announces Fiscal Year 2008 Achievements for Tucson Sector
  13. ^ Tucson Sector Makes Significant Gains in 2008
  14. ^ "HUNTER PROPOSAL FOR STRATEGIC BORDER FENCING PASSES HOUSE". 2005. Archived from the original on 2006-10-06. Retrieved 2006-10-10. 
  15. ^ Stevenson, Mark. "Mexico Promises to Block Border Wall Plan". Retrieved 2006-03-07. 
  16. ^ "Rechaza gobernador de Texas muro fronterizo" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2006-03-07. 
  17. ^ a b James Rowley, "U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Plan Will Be 'Revisited' By Congress," Bloomberg January 17, 2007.
  18. ^ Kahn, Carrie (2006-07-08). "Immigration Debate Divides Laredo".  
  19. ^ "ABC News: Bush Signs U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Bill". Retrieved 2006-10-26. 
  20. ^ "Bush OKs 700-mile (1,100 km) border fence - CNN.com". Archived from the original on October 27, 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-26. 
  21. ^ "2012 Republican Party Platform" (PDF). The Republican National Convention. Retrieved 24 September 2012. 
  22. ^ Weisman, Jonathan (September 30, 2006). "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill". The Washington Post. 
  23. ^ "Budget-in-Brief" (pdf). United States Department of Homeland Security. 2006. 
  24. ^ Isaacson, Adam. "A budget-busting proposal in the Republican platform". Border Facts: Separating Rhetoric from Reality. 
  25. ^ Billing Code -4410-10 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
  26. ^ Border Wall Battle: Bad News vs. Good News
  27. ^ Archibold, Randal C. (January 17, 2009). "Border Plan Will Address Harm Done at Fence Site". The New York Times. Retrieved March 27, 2010. 
  28. ^ a b c d e Hsu, Spencer S. (March 16, 2010). "Work to cease on 'virtual fence' along U.S.-Mexico border". The Washington Post. 
  29. ^ "Fence Protects College From Smugglers and illegals".  
  30. ^ "Border Fence to Divide Three Native American Nations". News.newamericamedia.org. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  31. ^ O'odham tell U.N. rapporteur of struggles Indian Country, October 31, 2005
  32. ^ "Fence In The Sky - Border Wall Cuts Through Native Land". News.newamericamedia.org. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  33. ^ As Border Crackdown Intensifies, A Tribe Is Caught in the Crossfire Washington Post, September 15, 2006
  34. ^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS IN THE BORDER REGION WITH MEXICO Amnesty International, May 20, 1998
  35. ^ "Nogales Residents Say US is Building Border Wall on Mexico's Land | | the narcosphere". Narcosphere.narconews.com. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  36. ^ Some Texans Fear Border Fence Will Sever Routine of Daily Life New York Times, June 20, 2007
  37. ^ Bids Requested for Fence Upgrade The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, August 20, 2008
  38. ^ Sieff, Kevin (December 12, 2008). "'"‘Friendly Fence. Brownsville Herald. Archived from the original on July 7, 2009. Retrieved March 27, 2010. 
  39. ^ Roebuck, Jeremy (2008-03-17). "Local: Hidalgo border fence suits head to court | hidalgo, border, fence". Brownsville Herald. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  40. ^ Border wall in Hidalgo County moves forward Brownsville Herald, September 6, 2008
  41. ^ "'"World | Americas | US border fences 'an eco-danger. BBC News. 2007-07-31. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  42. ^ "Border Fence Built In Mexico By Mistake". CBS News. June 29, 2007. 
  43. ^ Marosi, Richard; Gaouette, Nicole (2008-04-02). "Border fence will skirt environmental laws - Los Angeles Times". Latimes.com. Archived from the original on April 14, 2008. Retrieved 2010-03-27. 
  44. ^ http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/sbi/sbi_enviro_docs/sbi_ti_docs/esp_information.xml CBP - Environmental Waiver/Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) Information
  45. ^ http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/support_for_mexican_border_fence_up_to_68 Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%

External links

  • [2] - Wall to Wall
  • The Wall - A film documenting the impacts of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
  • Border Stories - a mosaic documentary on the U.S.-Mexico Border.
  • Library of Congress Bill Summary & Status on H.R. 6061
  • Fences and Mushrooms Along the Border, JURIST
  • 360-degree View of the AZ/Mexico Border Fence
  • Sierra Club Borderlands Team
  • No Border Wall website
  • Profiles of people living in the US-Mexico Borderlands
  • Photos of the US-Mexico Borderlands
  • Series of multimedia videos about the US-Mexico Borderlands
  • Background on the policy history of the US-Mexico Borderlands
  • Exhibit about the US-Mexico Borderlands
  • Website about the environmental impacts of US-Mexico Border Wall
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.