We do not need to build a wall across the 2,000 miles of our southern border. We need to tear down the walls and fences we have already built.
The wall would cost at least $22.4 to $49 billion to build.
The wall will not make us safer.
The wall would not stop illegal immigration.
The wall would be an environmental, ecological disaster.
In fact the walls and fences we have built are already a disaster for animals and have caused flooding.
The cost of building and maintaining the wall is prohibitively high
In 2011 the NY Times wrote Some Cheer Border Fence as Others Ponder the Cost
The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.
The SFGate back in 2007 cites a cost of at least $49 billion dollars.
The cost of building and maintaining a double set of steel fences along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border could be five to 25 times greater than congressional leaders forecast last year, or as much as $49 billion over the expected 25-year life span of the fence, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
A little-noticed study the research service released in December notes that even the $49 billion does not include the expense of acquiring private land along hundreds of miles of border or the cost of labor if the job is done by private contractors -- both of which could drive the price billions of dollars higher.
This cost does not include the cost of patrolling the walls and fences. If we were to monitor and patrol the full 2,000 miles, the cost would be tens of billions of dollars more per year.
At present drones monitor about 170 miles of the border and cost us at least $62.5 million to operate. That is $12,255 per [flight] hour.
The wall does not make us safer
By now I am sure many of you have heard that illegal aliens make up 27% of our prison population. It is a flat out lie! The GAO report [pdf] that is cited very clearly says that 27% of the prison population are aliens, not illegal aliens. 'Aliens' is defined as 'Any person who is not a citizen of the United States.' 'Criminal Aliens' is defined as 'Noncitizens who are residing in the United States legally or illegally and are convicted of a crime.'
Illegal aliens account for about 27% of the total population of aliens in America. So using the dubious assumption that illegal aliens commit crimes at the same rate as all aliens, illegal aliens account for about 7.3% of the prison population.
The 27% you quote is for federal prisons which only makes up about 6% of the total number of people in prison. The World Prison Brief puts the total number of foreign prisoners in all federal, state and local facilities at 5.9%. Once again this includes all aliens not just illegal aliens. Multiply the 5.9% by 0.27 and you get an illegal alien population of just 1.6% of the total prisoners in America.
What that 1.6%, compared to the federal 7.3%, suggests to me is that many if not most of the illegal aliens are in federal prison for the only crime of being in the U,S. illegally pending deportation. And what my meager analysis ignores is the study after study that show illegal alien crime is lower that the general population, so you can safely drop my 1.6% even lower.
Here are some highlights of a master thesis written for the U.S. Army.
JOHN T. SHERWOOD, MAJ, US ARMYBachelors of Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1995Fort Leavenworth, Kansas2008 [Links to external pdf]
14. ABSTRACT
The construction of a US-Mexico border fence has proved an increasingly divisive method for securing the southern US border since its initial construction as the San Diego Fence in 1990. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the construction of a US-Mexico border fence has morphed from a method to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico into a legislated method to prevent the entrance of terrorists. All terrorists except two have gained entrance into the US through manipulation of the US immigration system. Those two exceptions crossed the US-Canada border. This thesis analyzes what threat Mexico poses as a transit for terrorists attempting to enter the US by surreptitious means, and what deterrent or defeat effect a US-Mexico fence provides. The absence of a terrorist attempt to gain entrance into the US via Mexico indicates that Mexico does not provide the essential support required for an Al Qaeda terrorist, and that other countries and other means of entrance provide a more viable option and likelihood for success. The one support element that could provide a terrorist entrance from Mexico is that of the “coyote”. A strategy of vigorous enforcement against illegal immigration without combating the motives for illegal immigration has helped to enable the “coyote” to gain the capability to transport a terrorist into the US from Mexico. The US-Mexico border fence has a limited deterrent effect against terrorists as demonstrated by the migration of illegal immigrants to more remote crossing sites. Finally, this thesis provides recommendations to better secure US land borders.
The interviewed drug smuggler informs him that a drug smuggler would not smuggle a terrorist into the US because it doesn’t make good business sense.
The wall would not stop illegal immigration
Splitting the Land in Two: Ecological Effects of Border Militarization
Many assume that walls will stop people from crossing the border. In fact, the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that border walls do not decrease cross-border traffic. Border Patrol apprehensions, which are used to gauge overall number of attempted crossings, dropped dramatically between 2005, the year before the Secure Fence Act was passed, and 2007, the year after. The greatest reductions in apprehensions, however, were seen in sectors that did not have walls. Texas’ Rio Grande Valley sector saw a 45.3% decrease in apprehensions, bringing them to a 15 year low. The Del Rio sector saw a 66.5% decrease. Neither sector had an inch of border wall before 2008. The areas that saw an increase in crossings were California’s San Diego and El Centro sectors, both of which already had border walls for over a decade. While unwalled borders witnessed dramatic decreases in crossings, heavily fortified San Diego saw a 20.1% increase.
In fact the walls and fences has unintended consequences. It does not keep people out, but it does block people from leaving.
Strengthening the US-Mexico Border Will Not Stop Illegal Immigration
Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey pointed out nearly a decade ago that measures to secure the border seemed to produce almost the opposite of what was intended. By making the northward crossing more dangerous and expensive, Massey and co-authors Jorge Durand and Nolan J. Malone wrote in 2002, the border buildup discouraged seasonal laborers from going back to Mexico when they were not working.
With increasing border enforcement, workers who used to shuttle between jobs in California or Texas and home in Zacatecas or Michoacán simply began to stay put and sent for their families, becoming permanent, if sometimes reluctant, residents. According to Massey, post-IRCA border enforcement may have increased the size of the permanent Mexican population in the United States by a factor of nearly four.
The wall is an environmental and ecological disaster
The wall does not stop human migration.
But it does stop animal migration.
The University of Texas at Austin
Construction of the proposed border wall will degrade and fragment over 500 acres of land, of which over 400 serve as wildlife habitat. Destruction and/or alteration of this habitat will impose additional stress on wildlife in a region that has already been cleared of 95% of its native vegetation. Major wildlife impacts border wall construction include at least the following: increased road mortality along access and patrol roads, loss of habitat cover and connectivity, altered wildlife behavior and range due to high intensity lightning/construction/operational noise, and the interruption of mating activities necessary to sustain wildlife populations over time. 26 These effects are significant and irreversible, and fly in the face of conclusion that the construction of a border fence “would not significantly increase impediments” to wildlife movement and migration in its vicinity.
The wall also impacts human communities along the border.
Splitting the Land in Two: Ecological Effects of Border Militarization
The border wall in Nogales caused severe flooding that buried downtown homes and businesses underneath six feet of water, drowning two people and costing millions of dollars in damages. Flooding in Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in 2008 was determined to have been caused by border walls built without regard to environmental law, and another flood there in 2011 knocked down a 40-foot section of border wall. The construction of massive berms and waterways to accommodate border walls near the Tijuana Estuary near San Diego has also contributed to flooding, as well as severe erosion and sedimentation problems.
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff used the unprecedented power bestowed on him by the Real ID Act to “waive in their entirety” thirty-six federal laws. Although Chertoff was an unelected Bush administration appointee, with the stroke of a pen he dismissed decades of protective laws passed by Congress and signed by presidents, all to circumvent court challenges to border wall construction. The waiver provision of the Real ID Act is a grave threat to the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, and constitutional challenges to it are pending. Note the variety of laws waived, including protections of archaeological sites, farmland, rivers, public health and freedom of religion:
National Environmental Policy Act
Endangered Species Act
Clean Water Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Clean Air Act
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Noise Control Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Antiquities Act
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Farmland Protection Policy Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
Wilderness Act
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Administrative Procedure Act
Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999
California Desert Protection Act
National Park Service Organic Act
National Park Service General Authorities Act
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Eagle Protection Act
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
National Forest Management Act of 1976
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960
Here is the short version of the Sierra Club’s Borderlands Team video
Wild Versus Wall
We do not need to build more walls. We need to tear down the walls that we have already built.