BORDER SECURITY PROPOSALS

Building a Real Fence

The most obvious proposal to keep the border secure is to construct a wall along much more of the 2,000-mile US-Mexico border than the 800 miles of physical barrier that already exists. President Trump requested and received $45.5 billion in OBBBA to construct a border wall system along an additional 700 miles. That would leave the 500 miles that are deemed extremely difficult to build on without a physical barrier. The border wall plans include installing large floating barriers in 500 miles of the Rio Grande River, which comprises about two-thirds of the US-Mexico border, as well as walls on the US side of the river. Legislation would help ensure that the border wall system is completed and maintained through future administrations.

The Case For 

It is useful to think of border wall supporters as falling into one of two distinct categories. First, supporters in the restrictionist camp argue that physical barriers at the southern border are a moral necessity to protect Americans and uphold the rule of law. Second, pro-immigration wall supporters believe that while immigrants provide a net benefit to the country, we can only safely and fairly welcome them through a deliberate, structured system rather than tolerating chaos at the border.

Restrictionist supporters argue that a border wall is fundamentally about national sovereignty and a government’s most basic duty: keeping its communities safe. They contend that porous borders actively invite crime. Many argue a significant portion of those crossing illegally in recent years are violent offenders (see What the Evidence Says—Crime below). These supporters argue a deeper moral point: even if the percentage of those who commit additional crimes is low, a sovereign nation should never willingly expose its citizens to preventable danger by allowing unvetted individuals to bypass legal checkpoints.

Furthermore, restrictionists argue an unsecured border inflicts profound economic damage. They emphasize two areas of harm. First, they argue mass illegal immigration deeply hurts working-class Americans. When foreign workers bypass the legal system, they flood the blue-collar labor market. They contend that this replaces American-born workers and drives down wages and working conditions for native citizens already struggling to make ends meet (see What the Evidence Says—Jobs and the Economy below).

Second, restrictionist supporters of the wall argue that relatively open borders drain resources by inviting needy foreigners to rely on our country’s generous benefits and services, from education to healthcare. They argue it breaks the fundamental social contract to expect everyday American taxpayers to fund expensive support systems for individuals the nation did not invite. For this camp, it is a matter of profound fairness to the citizens who pay into the system and the legal immigrants who wait years in line.

Wall supporters who are otherwise pro-immigration approach the issue differently. They believe immigrants are a vital, positive force for America’s future, but argue this impact is only sustainable if we make deliberate decisions about who we welcome. By securing the border and channeling migration exclusively through legal pathways (the “gates”), we reclaim the power to choose. They argue that we can intentionally issue work visas to safely place vetted individuals in jobs where they are desperately needed, ensuring they do not displace native workers while verifying they have no criminal background.

Both restrictionist and pro-immigration wall supporters argue that fulfilling this fundamental government responsibility justifies the expense of a physical barrier. Furthermore, both camps point to the moral imperative of stopping the cartels that currently exploit our insecure border for extensive criminal enterprises, including drug smuggling and human trafficking. A wall allows Border Patrol to focus resources on high-risk areas. While no barrier is foolproof, proponents observe it forces crossers to slow down, giving agents crucial time to apprehend them, while deterring others from ever attempting the journey.

The Case Against

Border wall opponents argue that the wall is ineffective and does not justify its significant expense. At a price of $45.5 billion, opponents observe, we’re spending roughly as much on the wall as we do in a year on federal support for primary, secondary, and vocational education combined. They argue that even if the wall has reduced crossings at its existing locations, many successful crossings continue, including by cutting through, climbing over, or tunneling under the wall. These ways of defeating the barrier make it less effective and significantly increase its maintenance costs beyond the original construction, they argue.

Most opponents also argue that so much spending on the wall is unwarranted because undocumented immigrants have a net positive effect on the country. They argue that crime rates among those who are here without legal status are significantly lower than among native-born Americans (See What the Evidence Says—Crime below).

They further argue that so much spending on a border wall to keep immigrants out is misplaced because these immigrants have a significant net positive effect economically, making us a more, not less, prosperous nation in two ways:

  1. Creating More Native Jobs—Wall opponents point to evidence that undocumented workers filling the jobs for which there aren’t nearly enough native workers actually creates more jobs for native workers and grows the economy for all Americans. They suggest that when businesses can hire more of the workers they’re short of, they expand and hire more in jobs that native workers are interested in and that generally pay better (see What the Evidence Says—Jobs and the Economy below).
  2. Pay More in Taxes than They Use in Services—Wall opponents point to studies finding that undocumented workers pay a substantial amount of federal taxes, even though by law they are not entitled to Social Security or Medicare. Combined with economic growth and new jobs they create, they argue that studies show immigrants actually help reduce the deficit by generating several times more revenue than they cost in government services (see What the Evidence Says—Taxes vs. Government Services below).

Opponents of the wall argue that the wall’s ineffectiveness becomes even clearer when considering asylum claims. The physical barriers are built entirely on US territory. That means that when migrants arrive at the border seeking asylum, they don’t even need to get past the wall for US law to apply. Border Patrol must get around the wall to reach the migrants on the other side to apprehend them and begin the asylum process.

Some also argue that the wall represents an unnecessary militarization of the border, dividing US and Mexican communities that have been linked for hundreds of years. Native American tribes argue that the wall bisects their native territories, cutting off tribal members from each other, in violation of treaties.

Opponents note that there are also many locations along the border that are owned by private entities. Gaining control is expensive, they argue, and disrespectful to American landowners’ private property rights.

Environmentalists note the wall’s impact on sensitive habitats and natural water flows that are governed by a US-Mexico treaty.

Finally, some opponents argue that surveillance technology is a more cost-effective and less intrusive way to secure the border.

What the Evidence Says—Crime

The best available research finds that, on average, undocumented immigrants are roughly 50% less likely than native-born citizens to be convicted of violent crimes and 75% less likely to be convicted of property crimes. Researchers suggest that a primary reason for the lower crime rates is that most come here to work and earn more money, and do not want to risk arrest and deportation for committing a crime.

What the Evidence Says—Jobs and Economy

Credible research confirms that immigrant workers (documented and undocumented) take the place of some native workers, which economists call the substitution effect. Reputable studies also confirm that when businesses can hire immigrant workers into jobs for which it’s especially hard to find native-born workers, they expand more and hire more native workers in other jobs needed at that business, which economists call the scale effect. The research also consistently shows that the scale effects are many times larger than the substitution effects. According to the best available evidence, then, is that the net effect of immigrant workers is actually to stimulate the creation of more jobs for native workers and significantly grow the economy.

Research finds that undocumented workers have a more negative effect on native workers than foreigners working here legally through a visa. Research finds that a high proportion of undocumented immigrants in an industry can depress wages and working conditions for native workers. The evidence suggests that employers sometimes take advantage of workers’ lack of legal status to cut corners on wage and safety laws, since they are less likely to file complaints out of fear of deportation.

–

What the Evidence Says—Taxes vs. Government Services

The best available research on whether undocumented workers pay more in taxes than they cost in government services finds the opposite at the federal versus the state and local levels.

  • Federal Level: Undocumented Immigrants Pay More than They Use—The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the additional surge in undocumented immigrants from 2021 to 2024 generated about four times as much federal revenue through the taxes they paid ($1.2 trillion) as they cost in federal government services ($300 billion). Consequently, CBO projected the federal deficit would be reduced by $0.9 trillion through 2026 due to those arrivals.
  • State and Local Level: Undocumented Immigrants Use More than They Pay—Another CBO study found that state and local governments spent $9.2 billion more on government services in 2023 at the peak of the surge for the additional immigrants than they paid in state and local taxes, like sales and property taxes. By far the highest cost at the state and local level is for K-12 public education. States are legally required to educate all children regardless of immigration status.