Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he plans to build more border wall between the United States and Mexico. This comes amid a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border made worse by the Biden administration’s policies and liberal rhetoric on immigration.
On this immigration issue, Abbott is correct: It is a good idea to add more physical barriers to the southern border, even if it’s unpopular.
While there is debate about the effectiveness of physical barriers on the southern border, it’s important to remember that the barriers themselves aren’t the entire solution. They are one part of many to deter some illegal crossings into the country. They’re effective when used with other tools.
San Diego is a prime example of where a physical barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border is working.
In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton approved a 14-mile stretch of border wall between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. It helped result in a massive drop in illegal crossings. As NPR reported in 2006, apprehensions dropped from about 100,000 per year to 5,000 per year. The assistant chief of the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector told NPR at the time that the border wall was “highly effective.”
Overall, from 1986 to 2017, illegal crossings in the San Diego sector of the U.S.-Mexico border wall dropped by 96%. Politifact says that the biggest drop in illegal crossings occurred after a triple-layer barrier replaced the initial fencing in the late 1990s. There were other factors too, such as an increase in Border Patrol agents, more vehicles patrolling the area, and more underground sensors to detect illegal crossings.
A November 2018 study from scholars at Dartmouth College and Stanford University looking at the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which added 548 miles of reinforcement fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, said that the project effectively reduced illegal immigration.
“In total, we estimate the Secure Fence Act reduced the aggregate Mexican population living in the United States by 0.64%, equivalent to a reduction of 82,647 people,” the study said. It also said that it raised wages for some low-wage workers.
Understand that a barrier is only one piece of the equation. It won’t stop all illegal crossings, nor will it stop the nearly half of illegal immigrants who are in the country as a result of visa overstays. Even when people can get around the barrier, however, it buys more time for border agents and makes their jobs easier, as Border Patrol agents told Fox News in 2017.
Most oppose building more border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and former President Donald Trump is part of the reason for it. Before Trump was president, there was more of a split on the issue; 46% favored a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, while 48% opposed in 2015, according to the Pew Research Center. However, as Trump’s political stock rose and people associated the idea with a brash, unpopular figure who doesn’t articulate ideas well, the wall’s popularity declined; in 2019, 58% opposed a wall, and 40% supported it, according to Pew. Just because Trump supports something, though, that doesn’t make it a bad idea.
There are other solutions states can use to combat illegal immigration, even if they’re not a border state.
Revoking incentives for illegal immigration is one way to address this. States can enact mandatory E-Verify to make it harder for businesses to employ illegal immigrants, and they can outlaw sanctuary cities, as 12 states already have. Also, there is no reason for states to grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, in-state tuition at state colleges/universities, occupational licensing, or any forms of welfare. Instead, states should tax foreign remittances with the money being refundable for those who file income taxes (as Oklahoma does). That way, the tax primarily hits illegal immigrants.
So, while there are many ways to deal with the illegal immigration problem, a physical barrier is part of the solution. Since the federal government won’t pay for it, a state that illegal immigration affects is making the right move to confront the issue.
Tom Joyce (@TomJoyceSports) is a political reporter for the New Boston Post in Massachusetts. He is also a freelance writer who has been published in USA Today, the Boston Globe, Newsday, ESPN, the Detroit Free Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Federalist, and a number of other outlets.
