Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Mexico–United States border wall
Series of border barriers From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
A border wall has been built along portions of the Mexico–United States border in an attempt to reduce illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico.[1] The barrier is not a continuous structure but a series of obstructions variously classified as "fences" or "walls".[2]
Between the physical barriers, security is provided by a "virtual fence" of sensors, cameras, and other surveillance equipment used to dispatch United States Border Patrol agents to suspected migrant crossings.[3] In May 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said it had 649 miles (1,044 km) of barriers in place.[4] A total of 438 miles (705 km)[2] of new primary barriers were built during Donald Trump's first presidency, dubbed the "Trump wall", though Trump had repeatedly promised a "giant wall" spanning the entire border and that Mexico would "pay for the wall," neither of which were done.[5] The national border's length is 1,954 miles (3,145 km), of which 1,255 miles (2,020 km) is the Rio Grande[6] and 699 miles (1,125 km) is on land.
On July 28, 2022, the Biden administration announced it would fill four wide gaps in Arizona near Yuma, an area with some of the busiest corridors for illegal crossings.[7] In October 2023, Biden announced that he was restarting wall construction on some parts of the border due to the surge of migrant crossings, constructing an additional 20 miles of border wall.[8] On January 20, 2025, re-elected President Donald Trump pledged to finish the wall during his second term, although this time not mentioning his previous statement that Mexico would pay for it.[9][10]
Remove ads
Description
Summarize
Perspective
The 1,954-mile (3,145-kilometer) border between the U.S. and Mexico traverses a variety of terrain, including urban areas and deserts.[11] The border from the Gulf of Mexico to El Paso, Texas, follows the Rio Grande, a natural barrier. The barrier is on both urban and uninhabited sections of the border, where the most illegal crossings and drug trafficking have been observed in the past. These urban areas include San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas.[12] The fencing includes a steel fence (varying in height between 18 and 27 feet (4.8 and 8.1 meters)) that divides the border towns of Nogales, Arizona, in the U.S. and Nogales, Sonora, in Mexico.[13]
97% of border apprehensions (foreign nationals caught in the U.S. illegally) by the Border Patrol in 2010 occurred at the southwest border. The number declined 61% from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 723,842 in 2008 to 463,000 in 2010. The decrease in apprehensions is the result of numerous factors, including changes in U.S. economic conditions and border enforcement efforts. Border apprehensions in 2010 were at their lowest level since 1972.[12][14] Total apprehensions for 2017, 2018, and 2019 were 415,517, 521,090, and 977,509, respectively.[15] And while the barrier is along the border with Mexico, 80% of those apprehended are not Mexican.[16]
As a result of the barrier, the number of people trying to cross in areas that have no fence, such as the Sonoran Desert and the Baboquivari Mountains in Arizona, has increased.[17] Such immigrants must cross 50 miles (80 km) of inhospitable terrain to reach the first road, which is in the Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation.[17][18]
Remove ads
Geography
The Mexico–U.S. border stretches from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Gulf of Mexico in the east. Border states include the Mexican states of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas and the U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.[19]
Remove ads
History
Summarize
Perspective
_133_and_NMCB-14_are_building_a_1,500_foot-long_concrete-lined_dr.jpg)
Origins
Territorial exchanges in the Mexican–American War (1846–1848) and the Gadsden Purchase (1853) largely established the current U.S.–Mexico border. Until the early 20th century, the border was open and largely unpatrolled, with only a few "mounted guards" patrolling its length.[20][21] But tensions between the U.S. and Mexico began to rise with the Mexican Revolution (1910) and World War I, which also increased concerns about weapons smuggling, refugees and cross-border espionage. The first international bridge was the Brownsville & Matamoros International Bridge, built in 1910. The first barrier built by the U.S. (a barbed-wire fence to prevent the movement of cattle across the border) was built in Ambos Nogales between 1909 and 1911,[21] and was expanded in 1929 with a "six foot–high chain-link fence".[22] The first barrier built by Mexico was likely a 6-foot (1.8 m)-tall wire fence built in 1918 explicitly for the purpose of directing the flow of people, also in Ambos Nogales. Barriers were extended in the following decades, and became a common feature in border towns by the 1920s. In the 1940s, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service built chain-link barriers along the border.[23]
The U.S. Congress approved a $4.3 million request by Immigration and Naturalization Service, in 1978, to build a fence along the border to replace an existing 27-mile (43 km) fence near San Ysidro, California, and El Paso, Texas, and then build an additional 6 miles (9.7 km) of new fence.[24][25] Anchor Post Products was contracted to build the new fence in a project inherited from Richard Nixon,[26] who was the first president to propose building a border fence. The proposed construction received press coverage after the company's George Norris, described the fence as a "razor-sharp wall", leading to negative responses in Mexico.[24] The proposed wall, dubbed the "Tortilla Curtain" by critics,[27][28][29] was condemned by Mexican politicians such as then-president José López Portillo, and it was raised as an issue during President Jimmy Carter's state visit to Mexico in February 1979.[24] Fencing was ultimately constructed, but had a limited length and did not have razor wire.[25]
U.S. president George H. W. Bush approved the initial 14 miles (22.5 km) of fencing along the San Diego–Tijuana border.[30] In 1993, President Bill Clinton oversaw initial border fence construction which was completed by the end of the year. Starting in 1994, further barriers were built under Clinton's presidency as part of three larger operations to taper transportation of illegal drugs manufactured in Latin America and immigration: Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line[31] in Texas, and Operation Safeguard[32] in Arizona. Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which authorized further barriers and the reinforcement of the initial border fence. The majority of the border barriers built in the 1990s were made out of leftover helicopter landing mats from the Vietnam War.[30]
Bush administration (2001–2009)
The Real ID Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 11, 2005, attached a rider to a supplemental appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which went into effect in May 2008:
Notwithstanding 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.
In 2005, there were 75 miles (121 km) of fencing along the border.[33] In 2005, the border-located Laredo Community College obtained a 10-foot (3.0 m) fence built by the United States Marine Corps. The structure led to a reported decline in border crossings on to the campus.[34] U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter of California proposed a plan on November 3, 2005, calling for the construction of a reinforced fence along the entire United States–Mexico border. This would also have included a 100-yard (91 m) border zone on the U.S. side. On December 15, 2005, Congressman Hunter's amendment to the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437) passed in the House, but the bill did not pass the Senate. This plan called for mandatory fencing along 698-mile (1,123 km) of the 1,954-mile (3,145 km)-long border.[35] On May 17, 2006, the U.S. Senate proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), which would include 370 miles (600 km) of triple-layered fencing and a vehicle fence, but the bill died in committee.[36]
Secure Fence Act of 2006
_133_and_NMCB-14_construct_a_1,500_foot-long_concrete-lined_drainage_ditch_and_a_10_foot-high_wall_to_increase_security_along_the_U.S._and.jpg)
The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law on October 26, 2006, by President George W. Bush[37] authorized and partially funded the potential construction of 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical fence/barriers along the Mexican border. The bill passed with supermajorities in both chambers.[38][39] Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced that an eight-month test of the virtual fence he favored would precede any construction of a physical barrier.
The government of Mexico and ministers of several Latin American countries condemned the plans. Governor of Texas Rick Perry expressed his opposition, saying that the border should be more open and should support safe and legal migration with the use of technology.[40] The barrier expansion was opposed by a unanimous vote by the Laredo, Texas, City Council.[41] Laredo Mayor Raul G. Salinas said that the bill would devastate Laredo. He stated "These are people that are sustaining our economy by 40%, and I am gonna close the door on them and put [up] a wall? You don't do that. It's like a slap in the face." He hoped that Congress would revise the bill to better reflect the realities of life on the border.[42]
Secretary Chertoff exercised his waiver authority on April 1, 2008, 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.[43] By January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 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.[44] In January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place.[45]
Obama administration (2009–2017)
On March 16, 2010, DHS announced that there would be a halt to expand the virtual fence beyond two pilot projects in Arizona.[46] Contractor Boeing Corporation had numerous delays and cost overruns. Boeing had initially used police-dispatching software that was unable to process all of the information coming from the border. The $50 million of remaining funding would be used for mobile surveillance devices, sensors, and radios to patrol and protect the border. At the time, DHS 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.[46]
In May 2011, President Barack Obama stated that the wall was "basically complete", with 649 miles (1,044 km) of 652 planned miles of barrier constructed. Of this, vehicle barriers comprised 299 miles (481 km) and pedestrian fence 350 miles (560 km). Obama stated that:
We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we've done. But ... I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time. They'll want a higher fence. Maybe they'll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat.[a] They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That's politics.[4]
The Republican Party's 2012 platform stated that "The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built."[48] The Secure Fence Act's costs were estimated at $6 billion,[49] more than the Customs and Border Protection's entire annual discretionary budget of $5.6 billion.[50] The Washington Office on Latin America noted in 2013 that the cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act's mandate was the reason that it had not been completely fulfilled.[51]
A 2016 report by the Government Accountability Office confirmed that the government had completed the fence by 2015.[52] A 2017 report noted that "In addition to the 654 miles (1,053 km) of primary fencing, [Customs and Border Protection] has also deployed additional layers of pedestrian fencing behind the primary border fencing, including 37 miles (60 km) of secondary fencing and 14 miles (23 km) of tertiary fencing."[53]
First Trump administration (2017–2021)
.jpg)
The concept for the proposed expansion of the border wall was developed in 2014 by Donald Trump's 2015–2016 presidential campaign advisers Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone as a talking point Trump could use to tie his business experience as a builder and developer to his immigration policy proposals.[54][55] The idea for the expansion of "the Wall", as Nunberg and Stone called it, was first aired publicly in January 2015 at the Iowa Freedom Summit hosted by Citizens United and Steve King.[55]
Trump proposed the wall's expansion again, along with a claim that Mexico would pay for it, during his June 2015 candidacy announcement. Throughout the 2015–2016 presidential campaign, Trump called for the construction of a much larger and fortified border wall, claiming that if elected, he would "build the wall and make Mexico pay for it".[56] Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto maintained that his country would not pay for the wall.[57][58][59]
On January 25, 2017, the Trump administration signed Executive Order 13767, which formally directed the U.S. government to begin attempting to construct a border wall using existing federal funding, although construction did not begin at this time because a formal budget had not been developed.[60] In March 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began accepting prototype ideas for a U.S.–Mexico border wall from companies and said it would issue a request for proposals by March 24.[61][62]
In 2013, a Bloomberg Government analysis estimated that it would cost up to $28 billion (~$36.2 billion in 2023) annually to seal the border.[63] While campaigning for the presidency in early 2016, Trump claimed it would be a one-time cost of only $8 billion,[64] while Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said $15 billion,[65] and the Trump administration's own early estimates ranged up to $25 billion.[58][66][67][68] The Department of Homeland Security's internal estimate in early 2017, shortly after Trump took office, was that his proposed border wall would cost $21.6 billion and take 3.5 years to build.[69]
In September 2017, the U.S. government announced the start of construction of eight prototype barriers made from concrete and other materials.[70][71] On June 3, 2018, the San Diego section of wall construction began.[72] On October 26, a two-mile (3.2 km) stretch of 30-foot steel bollards in Calexico, California, was commemorated as the first section of Trump's wall, although media coverage heavily debated whether it should be considered a "wall" or a "fence".[73] Trump scheduled a visit to this section in April 2019.[74]
Trump's campaign promise has faced a host of legal and logistical challenges since. In March 2018, the Trump administration secured $1.6 billion from Congress for projects at the border for existing designs of approximately 100 miles (160 km) of new and replacement walls.[75] From December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, the federal government was partially shut down because of Trump's declared intention to veto any spending bill that did not include $5 billion in funding for a border wall.[76]
On May 24, 2019, federal Judge Haywood Gilliam in the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from redirecting funds under the national emergency declaration issued earlier in the year to fund a planned wall along the border with Mexico. The injunction applies specifically to money the administration intended to allocate from other agencies and limits wall construction projects in El Paso and Yuma.[77] On June 28, Gilliam blocked the reallocation of $2.5 billion of funding from the Department of Defense to the construction of segments of the border wall categorized as high priority by the Trump administration (spanning across Arizona, California and New Mexico).[78] The decision was upheld five days later by a majority in the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court[79] but was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on July 26.[80] On September 3, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized the use of $3.6 billion in military construction funding for 175 miles (282 km) of the barrier.[81][82] The House and Senate have twice voted to terminate Trump's emergency declaration, but the president vetoed both resolutions.[83] In October, a lawsuit filed in El Paso County produced a ruling that the emergency declaration was unlawful, as it fails to meet the National Emergencies Act's definition of an emergency.[84] On December 10, a federal judge in the case blocked the use of the funding,[85] but on January 8, 2020, a federal appeals court granted a stay of the ruling, freeing $3.6 billion for the wall.[86]
.jpg)
As of August 2019[update], the Trump administration's barrier construction had been limited to replacing sections that were in need of repair or outdated,[87] with 60 miles (97 km) of replacement wall built in the Southwest since 2017.[88] As of September 12, 2019, the Trump administration plans for "Between 450 and 500 miles (724–806 kilometers) of fencing along the nearly 2,000-mile (3,218-kilometer) border by the end of 2020"[89][90] with an estimated total cost of $18.4 billion.[91] Privately owned land adjacent to the border would have to be acquired by the U.S. government to be built upon.[82][92]
On June 23, Trump visited Yuma, Arizona, for a campaign rally commemorating the completion of 200 miles (320 km) of the wall.[93] U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed that almost all of this was replacement fencing.[94] By the end of Trump's term on January 21, 2021, 452 miles (727 km) had been built at last report by CBP on January 5, much of it replacing outdated or dilapidated existing barriers.[95]
Contractors and independent efforts
As of February 2019, contractors were preparing to construct $600 million worth of replacement barriers along the south Texas Rio Grande Valley section of the border wall, approved by Congress in March 2018.[96][97] In mid-April 2019, former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach visited Coolidge, Arizona, to observe a demonstration by North Dakota's Fisher Industries of how it would build a border fence. The company maintained that it could erect 218 miles (351 km) of the barrier for $3.3 billion and be able to complete it in 13 months. Spin cameras positioned atop the fence would use facial-recognition technology, and underground fiber optic cables could detect and differentiate between human activity, vehicles, tunneling, and animals as distant as 40 feet (12 m) away. The proposed barrier would be constructed with 42 miles (68 km) near Yuma and 91 miles (146 km) near Tucson, Arizona, 69 miles (111 km) near El Paso, Texas, and 15 miles (24 km) near El Centro, California—reportedly costing $12.5 million per mile ($7.8 million per kilometer).[98] In April 2019, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy said that he traveled with the group of politicians and administration officials over the Easter recess to Coolidge (120 miles (190 km) north of the Mexico border) because he felt that insufficient barrier and border enhancements had been erected since Trump became president.[98] U.S. senator Kevin Cramer was also there, promoting Fisher Industries, which demonstrated the construction of a 56-foot (17 m) fence in Coolidge.[99]
A private organization founded by military veteran Brian Kolfage called "We Build the Wall" raised over $20 million beginning in 2018, with President Trump's encouragement and with leadership from Kobach and Steve Bannon. Over the 2019 Memorial Day weekend, the organization constructed a 0.5-mile (0.80 km) to 1-mile (1.6 km) "weathered steel" bollard fence near El Paso on private land adjoining the U.S.–Mexico border using $6–8 million of the donated funds. Kolfage's organization says it has plans to construct further barriers on private lands adjoining the border in Texas and California.[100][101][102] On December 3, 2019, a Hidalgo County judge ordered the group to temporarily halt all construction because of its plans to build adjacent to the Rio Grande, which a lawyer for the National Butterfly Center argues would create a flooding risk.[103] On January 9, 2020, a federal judge lifted an injunction, allowing a construction firm to move forward with the 3-mile (4.8 km) project along the Rio Grande.[104] This ended a month long court battle with both the Federal Government and the National Butterfly Center which both tried to block construction efforts. By August 2020, the portions constructed by the organization were already in serious danger of collapsing due to erosion, and the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment charging four people, including Bannon,[105][106][107][108] with a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of donors by illegally taking funds intended to finance construction for personal use.[109] An unpublished memo from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection leaked in March 2022 revealed that the wall had been breached more than 3,200 times from October 2018 to September 2021. Nonetheless, CBP officials say the bollard fencing remains a valuable border security tool when combined with surveillance technology and sufficient personnel.[110]
Outcome
As of December 2020, the total funding given for new fencing was about $15 billion (~$17.4 billion in 2023), a third of which had been given by Congress while Trump had ordered the rest taken from the military budget. This funding was intended to build new fencing over 738 miles (1,188 km), at a cost of about $20 million per mile ($12.5 million per kilometer); this would cover a little more than half the approximately 1,300 miles (2,100 km) that had no fencing when Trump took office.[111][112]
A March 2021 review of the Trump work on the wall found only 47 miles (76 km) of new barriers where none had previously existed. While Trump had described the new wall as "virtually impenetrable", it was found that smugglers had repeatedly sawed through the wall with cheap power tools. Also, new dirt roads that had been used to access the wall construction served as new access roads for smugglers.[113]
Biden administration (2021–2025)
President Joe Biden signed an executive order[114] on his first day of office, January 20, 2021, ordering a "pause" in all construction of the wall no later than January 27.[115] The government was given two months to plan how to spend the funds elsewhere and determine how much it would cost to terminate the contracts. There were no plans to tear down parts of the wall that have been built.[116] The deployment of 3,000 National Guard troops along the border continued.[117] Furthermore, the Biden administration continued to seize land for construction of the border wall.[118][119] By December 2021, many contracts had been cancelled, including one requiring the possession of the land of a family represented by the Texas Civil Rights Project.[120]
In June 2021, Texas governor Greg Abbott announced plans to build a border wall in his state, saying that the state would provide $250 million and that direct donations from the public would be solicited.[121][122] On June 29, the Republican Study Committee organized a group of two dozen Republican House members to visit a gap in the border where Central Americans were crossing into the country. Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) stated that "obviously our president has advertised this and facilitated this invasion". Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) praised the effectiveness of Trump's wall and said that because of the halted construction, "thousands of migrants [pass] through this area on a regular basis ... because there's an open door that allows them to do that". In reference to wristbands on migrants used by Mexican cartels and smugglers to track them, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) stated, "They're basically treating people like Amazon products. ... There is no care that that is a human being, someone who has a soul, someone who has unalienable rights that predate any government."[123]
On July 28, 2022, the Biden administration announced it would fill four wide gaps in Arizona near Yuma, an area with some of the busiest corridors for illegal crossings.[7]
In October 2023, Biden announced he would restart wall construction due to the surge of migrant crossings, while White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that Biden believed that a border wall is "not effective".[124] In order to expedite production, the Biden administration would waive more than two dozen laws that "protect air, water and endangered species" such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.[125][126] The administration claimed that the money for the wall construction was "allocated during Trump's term in 2019." In 2021, the congress controlled by the Democratic Party ignored Biden's request to rescind the funds.[127][128] The decision was praised by former president Donald Trump and criticized by Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as "a step backwards" and Jonathan Blazer, director of border strategies for the American Civil Liberties Union as "doubling down on the failed policies of the past."[129][130]
Binational River Park
In 2021, in collaboration with the United States and Mexican ambassadors, as well as businessmen, a binational park was proposed along the Rio Grande between the border towns of Laredo, Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Supported by the No Border Wall Coalition, the park aims to create a shared recreational space instead of a border wall. Earthjustice estimated that the decision to not build a border wall in Laredo saved 71 miles (114 km) of river from destruction and over $1 billion in taxpayer dollars.[131][132][133]
Arizona container wall
In August 2022, Arizona governor Doug Ducey ordered the erection of a makeshift wall of shipping containers on the border with Mexico in Cochise County, Arizona. The construction began in the Coronado National Forest without authorization from the U.S. Forest Service, which operates the land. Ecologists at the Center for Biological Diversity argue that the construction, which imperils at-risk species including the ocelot and jaguar, violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and have sued to halt its construction.[134] Governor-elect Katie Hobbs stated that she would remove the containers after taking office,[135] and the U.S. Justice Department sued the state to remove the containers and "compensate the [U.S.] for any actions it needs to take to undo Arizona's actions".[136] Deconstruction of the container wall had begun by January 2023.[137]
Second Trump administration (2025–present)
 | This section needs to be updated. (June 2025) |
![[icon]](#/media/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2025) |
Trump has stated that during his second administration he will finish construction on the border wall.[138] In January 2025, he declared a national emergency to direct the departments of State and Defense to resume construction of the wall.[139]
On July 3, 2025, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which includes $46.5 billion to complete construction of the wall on the United States–Mexico border, along with:[140]
- $17.3 billion to support state and local law enforcement with border enforcement.[141]
- $10 billion to reimburse the Department of Homeland Security for costs related to border security.[142]
- $7.8 billion for hiring Border Patrol agents and vehicles, with the aim of hiring 3,000 new agents.[141]
- $6.2 billion for border detection technology such as cameras, lights, and sensors.[141][143]
Border wall is being constructed in the areas of Tucson, Arizona [144] and San Diego, California area[145]. In early June 2025, Department of Homeland Security permitted 36 miles of wall to be built across Arizona and New Mexico with additional wall barrier to be built following waivers of environmental regulations.[144]
Remove ads
Impacts and concerns
Summarize
Perspective
.jpg)
Effectiveness
Different sources draw different conclusions about the actual or likely effectiveness of the wall. Experts on the subject have said that aside from the human crossings, drugs among other things will still be making their way to the United States illegally.[146][147] U.S. Customs and Border Protection has frequently called for more physical barriers on the Mexico–United States border, citing their efficacy.[148] However, research at Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University indicated that the wall, and border walls in general, are unlikely to be effective at reducing illegal immigration or movement of contraband.[149] By contrast, the American Economic Journal found that wall construction caused a 15–35% reduction in migration, varying with proximity to the barrier.[150]
Critics of Trump's plan note that expanding the wall would not stop the routine misuse of legal ports of entry by people smuggling contraband, overstaying travel visas, using fraudulent documents, or stowing away.[151] They also point out that in addition to the misuse of ports of entry, even a border-wide wall could be bypassed by tunneling, climbing, or by using boats or aircraft.[149][152][153][154] Additionally, along some parts of the border, the existing rough terrain may be a greater deterrent than a wall.[146] Trump reportedly suggested fortifying the wall with a water-filled trench inhabited by snakes or alligators, and electric fencing topped with spikes that can pierce human flesh.[155][b]
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has frequently called for more physical barriers, citing their efficacy. "I started in the San Diego sector in 1992 and it didn't matter how many agents we lined up," said Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott. "We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control."[156] Carla Provost, the chief of U.S. border patrol, stated "We already have many miles, over 600 miles (970 km) of barrier along the border. I have been in locations where there was no barrier, and then I was there when we put it up. It certainly helps. It's not a be all end all. It's a part of a system. We need the technology, we need that infrastructure".[157]
Over the wall's first three years, Mexican smugglers sawed through the wall multiple times per day, usually with ordinary power tools, according to maintenance records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Washington Post reported "891 breaches during fiscal 2019, 906 during fiscal 2020 and 1,475 during fiscal 2021." The government patched these holes, spending approximately $800 per incident and often leaving visible evidence of the repair.[158] One early report of this damage was in November 2019. People were sawing through steel bollards in areas where sensors to detect such breaches had not yet been installed.[159] Though Trump claimed it was "very easily fixed" by "put[ting] the chunk back in",[160] border agents argued that smugglers tend to return to previously sawed wall because the bollards are weakened.[159]
In January 2020, a few wall panels under construction in Calexico, California, were blown over by strong Santa Ana winds before the poured concrete foundations cured. There was no other property damage or injuries as a result of the incident.[161][162]
In October 2020, the DHS published data indicating that the new border barrier has been effective at reducing the number of illegal border entries. The barrier also reduced ongoing manpower costs in at least one area in which it had been built.[163]
Divided American Indian land
Tribal lands of three American Indian reservations are divided by a proposed border fence.[164][165]
On January 27, 2008, a Native American (Indian) human rights delegation in the United States, 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.[166][167] The obelisks were moved southward approximately 20 m (70 ft), 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.[168]
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.[169] There have been campus protests against the wall by students who feel it will harm their school.[3] 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. 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 UT-Brownsville campus will be part of a laboratory for testing new security technology and infrastructure combinations.[170] The border fence segment on the campus was substantially completed by December 2008.[171]
The SpaceX South Texas Launch Site was shown on a map of the Department of Homeland Security with the barrier cutting through the 50-acre facility (20 ha) in Boca Chica, Texas.[172]
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge
On August 1, 2018, the chief of the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley sector indicated that although Starr County was his first priority for a wall, Hidalgo County's Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge had been selected instead for initial construction, because its land was owned by the government.[173]
National Butterfly Center
The proposed border wall has been described as a "death sentence" for the American National Butterfly Center, a privately operated outdoor butterfly conservatory that maintains a significant amount of land north of the Rio Grande, but south of the wall's route.[174][175][173] Filmmaker Krista Schlyer, part of an all-woman team creating a documentary film about the butterflies and the border wall, Ay Mariposa,[176] estimates that construction would put 70% of the preserve habitat on the Mexican side of the border fence.[177] In addition to concerns about seizure of private property by the federal government,[178] center employees have also noted the local economic impact. The center's director has stated that "environmental tourism contributes more than $450m to Hidalgo and Starr counties."[174]
In early December 2018, a challenge to wall construction at the National Butterfly Center was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the San Antonio Express-News, "the high court let stand an appeals ruling that lets the administration bypass 28 federal laws", including the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.[175]
Mexico–U.S. relations
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.[179]
In 2012, Mexican presidential candidate Enrique Peña Nieto campaigned at the Plaza Monumental de Tijuana, 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, referencing President Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech from Berlin in 1987.[180]
In January 2017, President Donald Trump's signing of his Executive Order 13767 soured relations between the U.S. and Mexico. Mexican president Peña Nieto addressed Mexican citizens via a recorded message, in which he condemned the executive order and again said Mexico would not pay for the wall's construction. Following a Twitter feud between the two leaders in which Trump threatened to cancel a planned meeting with Peña Nieto in Washington, Peña Nieto decided to cancel the meeting himself.[181][182] At the same time, while addressing supporters, Mexican opposition politician Andrés Manuel López Obrador condemned the wall order as an insult to Mexico and demanded the Mexican government pursue claims against the American government in the United Nations.[183]
In March 2017, Mexican congressman Braulio Guerra of Querétaro illegally climbed, and partially crossed, an existing 30-foot (9.1 m) border fence on American soil dividing San Diego and Tijuana, saying that more walls would be ineffective.[c][184][185]
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mexico opposed the border wall, and wrote that any Mexican company that participates in construction of the wall or supplies materials for construction would be committing "treason against the homeland".[186][187]
Other international reactions
At the annual summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in January 2017, representatives from Latin American and Caribbean countries condemned the wall proposal.[188]
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu applauded the plan, calling it as a "Great idea." Netanyahu said "Trump is right" and likened the proposal to the Israeli West Bank barrier.[189][190] After Mexican protests, the Prime Minister's office issued a statement saying that "[he] was addressing Israel's unique circumstances and the important experience we have and which we are willing to share with other nations. There was no attempt to voice an opinion regarding U.S.–Mexico ties."[189][191]
Pope Francis was critical of the project, saying in a March 2019 interview: "If you raise a wall between people, you end up a prisoner of that wall that you raised."[192] During his tenure he made references in several speeches, and in a tweet, to building "bridges, not walls".[193][194][195]
International reactions include artistic and intercultural facilitation devices. Projects have included exhibitions, signs, and demonstrations as well as physical adaptations promoting socialization such as a bright pink see-saw built through the wall that is accessible to people on both sides to enjoy together.[196]
Migrant deaths
Between 1994 and 2007, there were around 5,000 migrant deaths along the Mexico–United States border according to a document created by the Human Rights National Commission of Mexico and signed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[197] An April 2021 report by the University of Arizona's Binational Migration Institute said the remains of 3,356 migrants were found in Southern Arizona between 1990 and 2020.[198]
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.[17] In October 2004, the Border Patrol announced that 325 people had died crossing the entire border during the previous 12 months.[199]
U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector reported on October 15, 2008, that its agents were able to save 443 illegal immigrants from certain death after being abandoned by their smugglers. The agents also reducing the number of deaths by 17%: from 202 in 2007 to 167 in 2008. Without the efforts of these agents, hundreds more could have died in the deserts of Arizona.[200] 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% compared with 2007.[201]
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, New Mexico, and Texas, asserted that the fence endangered species and fragile ecosystems along the Rio Grande. Environmentalists expressed concern about butterfly migration corridors and the future of species of local wildcats, the ocelot, the jaguarundi, and the jaguar.[202][203]
By August 2008, more than 90% of the southern border in Arizona and New Mexico had been surveyed. In addition, 80% of the California–Mexico border has been surveyed.[204] About 100 species of plants and animals, many already endangered, are threatened by the wall, including the jaguar, ocelot, Sonoran pronghorn, Mexican wolf, a pygmy owl, the thick-billed parrot, and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. According to Scott Egan of Rice University, a wall can create a population bottleneck, increase inbreeding, and cut off natural migration routes and range expansion.[205][206]
In 2008 a resolution "based on sound and accurate scientific knowledge" expressing opposition to the wall and the harmful impact on several rare, threatened, and endangered species, particularly endangered mammals such as the jaguar, ocelot, jaguarondi, and Sonoran pronghorn, was published by The Southwestern Association of Naturalists, an organization of 791 scientists specializing in the zoology, botany, and ecology of southwestern United States and Mexico.[207] A decade later in 2018, well over 2500 scientists from 43 countries published a statement opposing the Border Wall, affirming it will have "significant consequences for biodiversity" and "Already-built sections of the wall are reducing the area, quality, and connectivity of plant and animal habitats and are compromising more than a century of binational investment in conservation."[208]
An initial 75-mile (121 km) wall for which U.S. funding has been requested on the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200 km) border would pass through the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge in California, the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge and Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge[209] in Texas, and Mexico's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site that the U.S. is bound by global treaty to protect.[210] The U.S. Customs and Border Protection plans to build the wall using the Real ID Act to avoid the process of making environmental impact statements, a strategy devised by Chertoff during the Bush administration. Reuters said, "The Real ID Act also allows the secretary of Homeland Security to exempt CBP from adhering to the Endangered Species Act", which would otherwise prohibit construction in a wildlife refuge.[211]
Remove ads
Legal aspects
Summarize
Perspective
On September 12, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a notice that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke would be waiving "certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements" to begin construction of the new wall near Calexico, California.[212] The waiver allows the Department of Homeland Security to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Noise Control Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Antiquities Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.[213]
In 2020, two contractors who were employed by Sullivan Land Services Co. to provide security for wall construction filed a federal complaint alleging that the company and a subcontractor had performed illegal acts such as hiring undocumented workers, going "so far as to build a dirt road to expedite illegal border crossings to sites in San Diego, using construction vehicles to block security cameras", which was approved by an "unnamed supervisor at the Army Corps of Engineers".[214]
Appropriations challenge
Following Trump's executive order to proceed with the wall's construction in February 2019, two separate cases were filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California alleging that the Trump administration had overstepped its boundaries by authorizing funds to use to build the border wall without Congressional approval, citing the Congressional restrictions they had passed earlier in the month. One was filed by the state of California and 19 other states, while the other was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union for the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition. Both cases were heard together by Judge Haywood Gilliam.[215]
On May 17, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice argued in court that, because Congress had not explicitly stated in an appropriations bill that "no money shall be obligated" for construction of the wall, the administration was free to spend funds that were not expressly appropriated for border security. Douglas Letter, the general counsel for the House of Representatives, responded, "That just cannot be right. No money may be spent unless Congress actually appropriates it."[216] On the following week, Gilliam granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from redirecting funds under the national emergency declaration issued earlier in the year to fund a planned wall along the border with Mexico. Gilliam ruled that "Congress's 'absolute' control over federal expenditures – even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important – is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one."[217] The injunction applied specifically to some of the money the administration intended to allocate from other agencies, and limited wall construction projects in El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona.[218] Gilliam's decision was temporarily upheld on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court on July 3, 2019.[219]
The U.S. Department of Justice petitioned the Supreme Court, and on July 26, 2019, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, issued a stay to Gilliam's ruling, allowing wall and related construction to proceed while litigation continues. The summary ruling from the majority indicated the groups suing the government may not have standing to challenge the executive order.[215] However, the plaintiffs will return to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court.[220][82] Rulings for both the states' and the environmental groups' cases were issued on June 26, 2020, with the Ninth Circuit affirming that the funds for constructing the wall were transferred illegally against the Appropriations Clause.[221]
The parties in the Sierra Club suit sought to have the Supreme Court lift their stay based on the Ninth's decision, but the Supreme Court refused to grant this on a 5–4 order on July 31, 2020, effectively allowing the wall construction to continue despite the decision of the Ninth; Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.[222] On August 7, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's ruling in both the California and Sierra Club cases on the questions of standing and the legality of the appropriations transfer.[223] On October 19, 2020, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case.[224]
The House of Representatives also filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the administration in 2019 for misappropriation of funds. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden dismissed the lawsuit in June 2019, determining the House could not show damages and thus had no standing to sue.[225] On appeal, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, in September 2020, finding that expenditures made without the approval of the House of Representatives are an injury for which the House has standing to sue.[226]
The case was made moot with the ceased construction and delegated to lower courts for any necessary further processing.[227]
Environmental legal challenge
In April 2017, the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, and U.S. Representative Raúl Grijalva from Arizona, the ranking Democratic member on the House Committee on Natural Resources filed a lawsuit in federal court in Tucson. In their complaint, Grijalva and the Center argue that the government's wall construction plans fail to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and seek to compel the government to carry out an environmental impact study and produce an environmental impact statement (EIS) before building the wall.[228][229] The lawsuit specifically seeks "to stop any work until the government agrees to analyze the impact of construction, noise, light and other changes to the landscape on rivers, plants and endangered species – including jaguars, Sonoran pronghorns and ocelots – and also on border residents".[230] Two separate cases, also arguing about the government's failure to complete an EIS, were later filed, one by the groups the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the second by California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra.[231]
The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single case within the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.[231] Oral arguments were heard in February 2018, and Curiel ruled by the end of the month in favor of the government, citing that the Department of Homeland Security has several waivers in its authorization to expedite construction of border walls, which includes bypassing the EIS statement. Curiel had written his opinion without consideration of the other political issues regarding the border wall, ruling only on the environment impact aspect.[232] The ruling was challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, but the Court denied their petition for writ of certiorari by December 2018, allowing Curiel's decision to stand.[233]
Eminent domain
About two-thirds of the U.S.–Mexico border runs along private or state-owned lands, and the federal government would need to acquire such land through purchase or seizure (eminent domain) to build any border wall. The "process is likely to cost the government millions and could take years of complex litigation", as was the case for pre-existing border walls.[234] In his budget request to Congress, Trump requested funds for twenty U.S. Department of Justice lawyers "to pursue federal efforts to obtain the land and holdings necessary to secure the Southwest border".[235] In 2017, he also revived condemnation litigation against land owners that had been dormant for years.[234] There are 162 miles (261 km) of it in Southern Texas; 144 miles (232 km) are privately owned. By December 2019, the Trump administration had acquired three miles (4.8 km).[92]
Religious freedom
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville has challenged the government's right to build part of the wall on the grounds of a historic chapel, La Lomita Chapel in Mission, Texas. At a hearing in McAllen, Texas, on February 6, 2019, U.S. District Judge Randy Crane said the diocese must allow surveyors onto the grounds. It was said that if the government did not reconsider, then the diocese would plan to assert its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law which prohibits the government from placing a "substantial burden" on the practice of religion.[236] According to Mary McCord, a Georgetown University ICAP attorney representing the diocese, "a physical barrier that cuts off access to the chapel, and not only to Father Roy and his parish but those who seek to worship there, is clearly a substantial burden on the exercise of religious freedom."[237]
Remove ads
Polling
Summarize
Perspective
| This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (April 2024) |
A Rasmussen Reports poll from August 19, 2015, found that 51% supported building a wall on the border, while 37% opposed.[238]
In a January 2017 study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 39% of Americans identified construction of a U.S.–Mexico border wall as an "important goal for U.S. immigration policy". The survey found that while Americans were divided by party on many different immigration policies, "the widest [partisan split] by far is over building a southern border wall. Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (67%) say construction of a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border is an important goal for immigration policy, compared with just 16% of Democrats and Democratic leaners."[239]
A February 2017 Pew Research Center study found that "As was the case throughout the presidential campaign, more Americans continue to oppose (62%) than favor (35%) building a wall along the entire U.S. border with Mexico."[240] 43% of respondents thought a border wall would not have much impact on illegal immigration, while 54% thought it would have an impact (29% thought it would lead to a major reduction, 25% a minor reduction).[240] 70% of Americans thought the U.S. would ultimately pay for the wall; 16% believed Mexico would pay for it.[240] Public opinion was polarized by party: "About three-quarters (74%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents support a border wall, while an even greater share of Democrats and Democratic leaners express opposition to building a wall across the entire U.S.–Mexico border (89%)."[240] Younger Americans and Americans with college degrees were more likely to oppose a wall than older Americans and those without college degrees.[240]
A survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council found that 89% of border patrol agents said a "wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border". 7% of agents disagreed.[241]
A poll conducted by CBS on June 21 and 22, 2018, found that 51% supported the border wall, while 48% opposed.[242]
A poll conducted by the Senate Opportunity Fund in March of 2021 found that 53% supported finishing construction of the border wall, while 38% opposed.[243]
Remove ads
See also
References
Further reading
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads