## 5 Results
### Main Estimates
However, additional research may be conducted to examine this argument, as previous findings suggest a possible relationship between the real exchange rate, the anti-immigrant environment, and border crossings flow. However, such a relationship should be viewed with caution, as we provide no strong evidence to support such findings. If tourism and shopping are two of the main reasons for Mexicans to cross the border [4; 26], an increase in an anti-immigrant environment may diminish the economy of border cities. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**California**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Texas**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Other**} \\ \hline Variables & & & & & & 2004M01 2020M02 & & & & \\ d(In Real Exch. & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 \\ Rate) & \(-0.271\)** & \(-0.213\)* & \(-0.207\)* & \(-0.286\)** & \(-0.185\) & \(-0.176\) & \(-0.239\)** & \(-0.189\)* & \(-0.178\)* \\  & (0.118) & (0.117) & (0.114) & (0.111) & (0.120) & (0.118) & (0.094) & (0.109) & (0.097) \\ d(In IGAE) & 1.259** & 1.240** & 1.242** ** & 0.965** & 0.932** & 0.936** & 1.078** & 1.057** & 1.062** \\ d(In Real Gas Price) & \(-0.018\) & 0.011 & (0.112) & (0.122) & (0.119) & (0.118) & (0.106) & (0.105) & (0.102) \\ d(In Real Gas Price) & \(-0.018\) & 0.011 & 0.000 & \(-0.059\) & \(-0.012\) & \(-0.028\) & \(-0.035\) & 0.003 & \(-0.018\) \\  & (0.036) & (0.037) & (0.035) & (0.045) & (0.050) & (0.047) & (0.049) & (0.055) & (0.051) \\ dummy\_uscrisris & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.004 & \(-0.005\) & \(-0.005\) & \(-0.006\) & 0.000 & 0.001 & \(-0.001\) \\  & (0.007) & (0.007) & (0.007) & (0.008) & (0.009) & (0.008) & (0.009) & (0.009) & (0.010) & (0.009) \\ d(InBEMS) & \(-0.014\)** & & \(-0.010\)** & \(-0.021\)** & & \(-0.015\)** & \(-0.024\)** & & \(-0.020\)** \\  & (0.006) & & (0.005) & (0.007) & (0.007) & (0.007) & & (0.007) & \\ d(InImm) & & & \(-0.054\)** & \(-0.046\)** & \(-0.046\)** & \(-0.090\)** & \(-0.078\)** & \(-0.058\)** & \(-0.043\)** \\  & & & (0.013) & (0.013) & (0.018) & (0.019) & & (0.017) & (0.018) \\ C & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.002\) & \(-0.003\) & \(-0.002\) \\  & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) \\ R2 adj & 0.435 & 0.445 & 0.454 & 0.291 & 0.331 & 0.353 & 0.395 & 0.368 & 0.413 \\ AIC & \(-3.242\) & \(-3.261\) & \(-3.271\) & \(-3.028\) & \(-3.087\) & \(-3.115\) & \(-3.262\) & \(-3.218\) & \(-3.287\) \\ DW & 2.828 & 2.833 & 2.813 & 2.839 & 2.791 & 2.772 & 2.940 & 2.971 & 2.915 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The standard errors reported are robust to heteroscedasticity. *, **, and *** denote 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: OLS regressions results of personal vehicle crossings clustered by regions (2004–2020M02). However, in terms of elasticities, a 1% increase in Imm in Texas results in a \(-0.127\%\) decline in pedestrian crossings, which is slightly greater than the \(-0.090\%\) elasticity of personal vehicles. These differences are statistically significant (5% significance level), using the Stata's suest-based test of equality of coefficients. This indicates that pedestrian crossings are more sensitive to changes in Imm. Second, in all regions, the Mexican economic cycle represented by IGAE is statistically significant at the 1% level. As expected, when Mexicans have more resources, they cross the border more frequently. However, gas price is not statistically significant, suggesting that most people who cross the border may be motivated by shopping, tourism, or leisure activities rather than purchasing gasoline. Lastly, except for the pedestrian models in California (Table 7), the BEMS index is statistically significant in all models. This might imply that economic motivators may be more important in influencing pedestrians' border-crossing decisions in California than in the other regions. However, future research may further analyze this line of reasoning.