Border Fence

R1) Crime spillover Varrack argues that a border fence would reduce crime spillover. The best way to gauge this is to analyze the GAO report he cited. He claims that the GAO report showed crime at the border decreasing after the 2006 border fence law. The results are more ambiguous than Varrack suggests. The border fence was passed in 2006. However, in 2006 the fence was not even built because it was passed that year. So 2004 – 2006 can be considered pre-fence. 2007 – 2011 can be considered post fence when results should be seen. I graph the results on violent crime and border counties (p. 39): The observations put a hole in Varrack’s argument. For Arizona, you see crime falling *before* the 2006 border law. It continues to fall afterward, but the rate is slower. If anything, it shows an increase in crime due to the trend change. California shows crime falling before, but crime fell faster after 2008. New Mexico shows an increase in crime from 2004 – 2006, a decrease in 2006 – 2009, and an increase in 2010 – 2011. New Mexico shows no real evidence. Texas actually saw an increase in crime from 2007 – 2009 before it fell. This shows no effect. So, of these, only California shows any effect from the wall. But there is a caveat: they had a border fence before 2006, so any changes could not be related to new fencing. This data does not support the fence-crime hypothesis. It shows no effect. There is a problem with this data: it has no control variable. Varrack noted how crime fell faster in nonborder counties than border counties. Border counties have a fence built, nonborder counties don’t, so nonborder can be our control. Does this analysis prove a fence worked? No. To quote the report, one state (NM) actually shows that the fence increased crime. “The decrease in crime rate in border counties (8 percent) was smaller than the decrease in nonborder counties (19 percent).” [1] As the report shows nonborder counties having a larger crime drop, it shows that fences may have increased the crime rate. California data shows no effect. According to the report, “For border counties, the [crime] rate was 26 percent lower in 2011 than in 2004. The violent crime rate in California’s nonborder counties generally decreased and was 25 percent lower in 2011 than in 2004.” As the difference was only 1%, and 1% variation could easily be caused by other factors. California does not prove that fences reduce crime. Arizona and Texas do show a fence-crime relationship. However, as NM and CA show no relationship at all, the data is ambiguous. There is no proof that fences have reduced crime. The data Varrack cited proves that fences have no effect. Varrack’s next argument is that immigrants cause crime, so reducing immigration with fences reduces crime. There are a few points: first, the fence may cause more deaths than they prevent; second, immigrants do not increase crime; and third, it assumes a fence works. The fence causes thousands of deaths by causing immigrants to go to areas where fences are weaker, are patrolled less, or alternate more dangerous routes. Border fences in San Diego and El Paso caused immigrants to enter the country through rugged and desolate terrain; enforcement areas also were avoided. Border fences are responsible for a doubling of immigrant deaths between 1990 and 2005 [2]. Although Varrack shows that many gangs use immigrants as members, most immigrants do not join gangs. In fact, the number of unauthorized immigrants in this country has almost quadrupled between 1990 and 2010, but violent crime has fallen 45% over the same time period [3]. Foreign born men also have much lower incarceration rates (0.7%) compared to native men (3.5%). These differences could not be attributed to immigrants being deported for their crimes or harsher immigration laws deterring crime [4]. They are simply less likely to commit crime. A new peer-reviewed study found that immigration actually reduces crime [5]. Fences could actually increase the crime rate, not decrease it. The GAO study shows spillovers are not significant; fences cause thousands of deaths; and immigration lowers crime. R2) Effectiveness Correlation does not equal causation. A decrease in illegal immigrant apprehensions explains the decline in the Mexican population; it suggests that fewer Mexicans are coming to the US. Varrack claims this is because of the border fence. But apprehensions actually fell well before the 2006 border fence laws. They began to fall—and fall dramatically—in 2000 [6]. Eventually, this lead to more immigrants leaving the country than those who came in. But as the decline in incomers occurred in 2000, not 2007, other factors than the border fence are causing the decline. The San Diego fence did not work. The number of immigrants apprehended in 1992 was about the same as those apprehended in 2004, ten years after the fence was built in 1994 [7]. Deterrence does not seem to work, either. 92-97% of those apprehended and sent back to Mexico will keep trying to cross the border until they are successful [10]. 97% of immigrants who try to cross the border eventually end up succeeding [11]. The efficacy of a border fence is questionable at best. If fences didn’t cause the decline, what did? The Mexican birthrate has been falling at a consistent rate since 2000 [8]. Lower birthrates mean fewer people will cross the border. Mexico’s GDP per capita has also significantly increased since 1999 [9]. If more Mexican people are wealthy, the financial reasons to move to the US decrease. And, of course, in 2007 and 2008 we hit a recession. The sluggish recovery since then is just another reason immigrants won’t come here. If things in Mexico are improving and things here are stagnating, there is no reason to come to the US. Varrack cites a CBO report, but the results are not good. The amnesty portion of the bill would be great for the economy, but the border security is actually a net negative. The CBO did estimate that unauthorized immigration would fall, and very small decreases social service spending would occur. But the report said that more border fences and enforcement would actually increase the deficit. To quote the report itself, and not a conservative newspaper, “[t]he increased spending on border security would further reduce the number of unauthorized residents in the United States. That reduction in population would reduce the taxes paid by, or on behalf of, unauthorized residents by $3.2 billion over the 2014-2023 period.” [12] Compare this to the decreases in spending coming from the border fence: -0.8 billion dollars. Building a fence would increase the debt by $2.4 billion. I have provided evidence that the decline in border crossings began before large fences were built. I also demonstrated how local fences in San Diego have questionable efficacy. I have given reasons why Varrack’s graph does not prove causation; other factors are causing the decline in immigration, not border walls. The CBO report, even though it assumes that a border fence works, proves that a border fence working would be a negative for the economy. If it works, Varrack loses—costs of building the fence are a waste, make economy shrink, increase debts. If it doesn’t, he still loses. R3) Economic harms The job displacement argument is false. The argument relies on a basic supply and demand model: supply increases, demand stays the same, so unemployment rises. But this model assumes nothing else changes. By its very definition, immigration changes everything. They increase demand for new goods and services. This causes economic growth. So for those who are displaced, economic growth means demand for workers increases, so another job opens up. Immigrants are cheap labor. This translates into lower prices which benefit everyone. A study by NBER says that illegal immigration increases employment for native born workers. Immigrants work for lower wages. This means labor costs decrease due to immigrants. Overtime, this means the employer has more money and is in a better position to create new jobs. The study mentions that both deportation and border enforcement—which includes fences—increase unemployment rates among native workers [12]. Reducing immigration would harm workers. Immigrants won’t kill social services, either. As noted, building a fence would reduce revenue from immigrants by $3.2 billion and only reduce spending by $0.8 billion [13]. This means fencing would increase deficits. Indeed, immigrants pay $11.8 billion in taxes every year [14]. Immigration opponents ignore one key social program: social security. Social security needs more younger people than older people. America has an aging population [15], which is worrisome for social security because you need more people paying into the system than those receiving. The conservative CATO institute argues that illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes but cannot reap any benefits, so they automatically help the system. Not only that, but immigrants come here when they are young. This means the younger population grows and can make up for our aging population. Immigrants, therefore, make the social security system work! According to the CATO study, “an increase in net immigration by 300,000 per year extends the solvency of the system by about one additional year.” [16] The CBO report Varrack cited shows that fences would add to the deficit, not decrease it. Immigrants benefit social security and pay taxes. Fences would increase costs, decrease employment, and harm social security. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...10. http://tinyurl.com...11. http://tinyurl.com...; 12. http://tinyurl.com...13. http://tinyurl.com...;14. http://tinyurl.com...15. http://tinyurl.com...