1 Alexandra Musi Professor Flynn Capstone 4360 11 December 2012 Both Sides of the Fence: U.S.

- Mexico Border Borders, in many cases, are usually lines you are not truly able to see with the human eye that separate one territory from the next. However, if you ever go to visit the United States and Mexico border you would be able to clearly observe the different countries separated by a very apparent fence. The United States Department of Defense has spent several billion dollars to construct the border fence in order to prevent undocumented immigrants and drugs from getting into the United States of America. The government has also allocated funding to Customs and Border Protection to add additional border patrol officers to help contribute the further fortification of the Southwest border. Undocumented immigrants passing over the border between the United States and Mexico are entering the U.S., and the issue of immigration is a serious social problem. The Border Patrol apprehensions of undocumented immigrants were 724,000 in 2008 and approximately 463,000 in 2010. There are still hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross the border, but there is no way to know exactly how many people succeeded in crossing and were not apprehended. In addition to undocumented immigrants, another important issue is illegal paraphernalia that is passing over the Southwest border. Customs and Border Protection, seized $147 million dollars in currency (inbound and outbound) at and between ports of entry in 2010, a 34 percent increase from the previous year. These seizures include $29 million inbound and over $27 million outbound at Southwest Border ports of entry. Custom Border Patrol officers at Southwest Border ports of entry also seized 279 weapons, compared with 107 weapons seized

2 from 2009 (Budget-in-Brief 2012). Should the United States Department of Homeland Security continue to increase funding for continuing construction of the fence and additional personnel to fortify the United States and Mexico border? The stakeholders that support to continuation of allocating funds to work on the fence and for additional border patrol officers is the Obama administration and several Representatives from the various border states, as well as the Tea Party and the Federation for American Immigration Reform group. The issue these stakeholders have is that undocumented immigrants are costing taxpayers a lot of money and that the U.S. cannot afford to take care of more people, especially if they are not American citizens. The value this issue concerns itself with is fiscal savings, because the United States economy is not doing well and taxpayers are already spending so much as it is. The argument is that they should not be paying to support people who are not American citizens. The stakeholders also believe that illegal immigrants are coming to the United States and committing crimes and causing communities to be unsafe. Security is a value that all of the stakeholders hold to a high importance and feel it is imperative that the United States is a secure country. Both the value of safety, security and fiscal savings is something that these stakeholders feel are very significant values when discussing this social problem. The stakeholders who believe there are other measures the U.S. Department of Defense can take in order to decrease illegal activity at the border are immigrants, environmentalists and specifically the Sierra Club, some politicians and they are involved in the Texas Border Coalition. The environmentalists believe that the physical border fence has had a negative impact on the environment and as a result various species have suffered. This particular group values protecting the environment and focuses on how humans treat the land and the various

3 species inhabiting the Southwest border. The issue most of these stakeholders have with is this social problem is that they believe the government is spending too much money trying to secure the border. The groups think that there are other measures that can be taken to deal with undocumented immigrants and drugs that should be considered other than building a wall and sending more officials to patrol the border. The stakeholders also value fiscal savings and do not agree with spending billions of tax dollars to continue strengthening the fence and sending additional border patrol. Both sides have similar values in regards to fiscal savings and they have similar actions they participate in as well. The stakeholders from either side participate in lobbying their representatives and voting for politicians who share their same views. One of the stakeholders from the opposing side, Texas Border Coalition, has taken it a step further and actually presents as well as endorses particular bills and factual articles about issues taking place and how the government is handling it in order to inform the public. When exploring the different viewpoints regarding the border fence in relation to illegal immigrants and substances, it is necessary to look back at the history of this subject and examine immigration relations between the two countries. Throughout history the U.S. and Mexican border relations have changed and shifted in relation to the current state of the countries at the time. One of the main reasons for these shifts in U.S. immigration policy is due to the demand for cheap labor by growing industries and farmers. In the past one hundred years the United States officially welcomed workers into the country twice. One occasion was between 1917 and 1921 in response to World War I that allowed contract workers to come to the United States, and exempted immigrants from having to take literacy tests. The second instance was also in response to war, World War II, where the Bracero Program was set up as a

4 treaty between Mexico and the United States. This allowed for temporary employment of Mexican farm workers in the U.S. and was continuously extended due to the increasing demand for agricultural workers and ended up lasting from 1942 to 1964. This specific program impacted nearly 5 million Mexicans that migrated to the U.S. temporarily (Aguila 58). The earlier years of immigration before this current time reflects how the tolerance level in U.S. has changed in relation to unauthorized workers and immigrants based on the needs of the country. Then in 1986 a significant change to migration law took place with the Immigration Reform and Control Act. This provision included the authorization of a 50 percent increase in the immigration enforcement budget, imposed sanctions against employers who consciously hired illegal immigrants, and authorized an amnesty for long-term illegal immigrants, and more (Robinson 4). The purpose of this was to reduce illegal immigration in the United States. Yet, it was previously promoted for Mexicans to immigrate to the United States. After many Americans were losing jobs and the economy was facing a downturn, illegal immigration became a hot topic. During President Bushs last term as president, he mandated the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 allows the secretary of Homeland Security 18 months to get operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders by improving surveillance through personnel and technology as well as physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This then began the fence construction and allotted for at least two layers of reinforced fencing and additional barriers through 700 miles in parts of California, Texas and Arizona. The estimated cost by the Congressional Budget Office was $2.2 billion, or about $3.2 million per mile (Secure Border Fence 2006). This demonstrates that recently the United States has wanted to protect the country from outside threats and really focused in on the security of

5 the nation. When Bush was signing the bill he said, This bill will protect the American people, this will bill make our borders more secure. It is an important step in immigration reform (Goler 1). The issue of illegal immigration is something that has risen to the forefront in the nations recent times, and does not seem to be disappearing anytime soon. Currently, bills have been passed to continue efforts to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States and one of those particular bills is the Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012. The Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012 amends the federal criminal code to subject anyone who attempts or conspires to construct or finance construction of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses the international border between the United States and another country. The Act also makes it illegal to use a tunnel for smuggling, and makes a border tunnel offense a predicate offense for a money laundering violation and for authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. This would provide for the criminal forfeiture of proceeds of such an offense and the seizure of merchandise introduced into the United States through a tunnel. States that are located on the Southwest border and are directly connected to Mexico are California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The fence is located in all of the states, but there are a handful of areas that do not have a fence, but there are only a very few places without some kind of barrier. When discussing illegal paraphernalia it is necessary to realize that it does not exclusively mean drugs, but also includes weapons, money, automobiles ect. Politicians are frequently creating and cosponsoring additional bills to help prevent the social problem of illegal immigration and the United States will continue to work towards resolving this dilemma. A secondary issue that is beyond the scope of this particular research paper is the drug wars that are currently taking place in Mexico. The main part of this issue is that Americans are

6 funding the drug wars by purchasing illegal drugs that are being smuggled over the border. The violence that is occurring in Mexico is due to the illegal drug trade taking place at the border and is a severe issue. Another part of the subject matter is that it is illegal to own a firearm or produce firearms in Mexico the reality is Americans are participating in illegal activity because the drug cartels are getting a hold of weapons from the United States. A shocking eighty percent of the 75,000 guns Mexican authorities seized from criminals during the past three years came from the U.S. This fact underscores the need to reclassify control of gun sales along our frontier as a matter of national security (Lewis). The scope of the paper is limited and will not discuss role that Americans play in the drug wars and will not go into detail of how the border affects the Mexican side, but it does discuss how the American side views illegal immigrants and the various stakeholders opinions about the border fence. The further funding of the fence and border officers has proven to be an affective approach for many groups and individuals. This support towards handling the border stems from the main argument made by the stakeholders that undocumented immigrants are costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year once they have crossed the border and live in the United States. On that same note, the issue is also that immigrants that are illegal are taking jobs away from Americans because they are willing to accept lower wages. The value that the stakeholders are concerned with when it comes to these issues is fiscal savings. Another argument the involved stakeholders maintain is that undocumented immigrants are involved in crimes in the United States and are causing some communities to be unsafe. The values they hold to a high standard are the safety of American Citizens and the security of the nation. The current Obama Administration takes the security of the country very seriously and has supported the construction of the border fence that is in place at this time.

7 Before his presidency, in 2006 during Bushs administration, Barack Obama was a senator and he voted in support of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. During the presidents time in office so far, according to a 2011 Government Accountability Office study, 649 miles of the 652-mile fence mandated by Congress have been completed (Bingham 4). Other politicians have also been supportive with continuing spending to finish building the fence. Two specific individuals that are backing the construction are Texas representatives Ted Poe and Silvestre Reyes. Surprisingly, they are both from different political parties, Poe being a republican and Reyes a democrat. In spite of their differences, both representatives support the method of which the government is taking to try and secure the border. Democratic Representative Silvestre Reyes sponsored the Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, which makes it illegal to construct or finance construction of an unauthorized that crosses the international border between the United States and another country, or to use such a tunnel for smuggling (Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012). Similarly, Ted Poe was the sponsor of the National Guard Border Enforcement Act as a means to continue to add manpower to the border. This bill requested the Department of Defense to deploy at least an additional 10,000 members of the National Guard for border control activities (National Guard Border Enforcement Act). Both politicians are presenting bills to Congress in hopes of further securing the border with additional officers and restrictions. The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) states that it is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of American citizens that believe that United State's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest. The group says that they want to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interests. Their main platform is how much immigrants are costing

8 Americans, and they stated on their website that, Illegal immigrants cost American taxpayers $113 billion dollars a year (FAIR). The Let Freedom Ring group is in support of the border fence and the funding that is necessary to build it. They want to further increase the amount of border patrol officers on the Southwest border and believe that there should be a patrolman stationed every hundred yards or so. The group has a strong opinion with the amount of money that is being spent every year in the U.S. for illegal immigrants. This is why they believe that spending billions of dollars to fortify the border is reasonable considering how much the United States will save from the undocumented immigrants living in the United States (We Need a Fence). The major issues that the stakeholders have regarding undocumented immigrants and paraphernalia crossing the border support the construction of the fence and implementing additional officers as a means to protect the border are the costs, nationalism, security, and safety of the United States. The fiscal costs that illegal immigrants are putting on American taxpayers did raise the most concern between the various stakeholders. On the We Need a Fence website, they had information stating that in California alone, the annual estimated cost burden of providing education, healthcare and incarceration for illegal immigrants is over 10 billion dollars (Let Freedom Ring). The cost of assisting undocumented immigrants is an issue that all the stakeholders share. The groups are concerned with the wellbeing of fellow Americans, and their priorities are centered on that idea. The argument is that the U.S. is going through an economic crisis and cannot afford to take care of individuals that are in the country illegally. The money taxpayers pay in relation to undocumented immigrants is a reality that the stakeholders have an issue with. The facts state that the U.S. is home to 11.5 million illegal

9 immigrants, which is what these stakeholders are concerned with (Department of Homeland Security). In regards to healthcare, a report commissioned by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition stated that, in 2000, county governments that share a border with Mexico incurred almost $190 million in costs for providing uncompensated care to unauthorized immigrants; that figure represented about one-quarter of all uncompensated health costs incurred by those governments in that year. When it comes to the topic of how much is being spent in the education sector the Pew Hispanic Center, analysts at the New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project reported that, for the 20032004 school year, total spending in New Mexico at the state and local levels for 9,200 unauthorized immigrant schoolchildren was about $67 million (United States Congress). In regards to detaining an illegal individual, according to the National Immigration Forum, the current cost to detain an immigrant is approximately $166 per day (Beato). All of these different subjects represent how much unauthorized immigrants cost the U.S. and exactly how much these costs amount to. Not only are undocumented immigrants an issue but illegal paraphernalia also threatens the security of the United States of America and having a secure country is imperative to all the stakeholders involved. There is a large black-market in relation to illegal drugs in the United States and a great majority of these drugs are brought in over the border. The sale of illegal drugs in the United States generates somewhere between $18 billion and $39 billion in annual wholesale proceeds for Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations. Geographically, for example, Mexican drug trafficking organizations are situated between the worlds largest producer of cocaine (Colombia) and the worlds largest consumer of cocaine (United States), leading Mexico to be a natural drug transshipment route between the two countries. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice cited that they seized a total of 1,510,932 kilograms worth of drugs

10 along the Southwest border. The drugs confiscated include cocaine that was 17,085 kilograms, heroin, MDMA (ecstasy), methamphetamine, and the majority being marijuana, which accounted for 1,489,673 kilograms out of the total amount taken (Frinklea, 6). Based on all the factual data the stakeholders feel it is evident that there is a severe drug issue that needs to be handled with force and border patrol officers are the physical enforces against dealings with illegal drugs. Transporting illegal drugs across the border is a crime, which lends the stakeholders to also speak upon the piece that there are criminals that enter the United States by illegally crossing the border. There are concerns that have been raised in relation to the violence taking place in Mexico and how that might spillover into the United States. The Wall Street Journal recently came out with an article in August discussing how the Obama administration implemented a nationwide Cross Check Operation aiming to deport illegal immigrants who are suspected criminals or fugitives. This action has sought out to arrest more than 3,000 foreigners. In the end, those arrested in the six-day "Cross Check" sweep included 1,477 illegal immigrants with felony convictions, including for murder, manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon (Jordan). The threat that the stakeholders feel that the United States faces when it comes to illegal immigrants is centered on the value to keep the American people safe. The action that the various stakeholders have taken has primarily been political action and involvement with different politicians. Lobbying their state representatives to continue to support the construction of the border fence has been a key tactic. For example, the Federation for American Immigration Reform offers helpful ways to send Congress a fax or email to let them know your stance on immigration issues. Also, the organization shares useful facts on how to lobby your legislators and if someone wants to take it a step further they can assist you on

11 how to start a local group to support the cause. The Tea Party organization also has an entire project on their website dedicated to assisting Americans to take action in the political sector. The section on their site is entitled The Tea Party Fax Project, which directly sends a fax to Congress and your state senators and representatives, written by the website, with a message stating views on certain subjects and what their stance is on the subject matter. Both organizations offer a mixture of ways to get involved and having your voice heard regarding social problems such as immigration. Politicians themselves also play a strong role and take action with the social problem, and they have sponsored an assortment of legislative bills in order to meet the needs of the people they represent. Ted Poe, a republican representative from the border state Texas, and was the sponsor of the National Guard Border Enforcement Act as a means to continue to add manpower to the border (National Guard Border Enforcement Act). Poe also had other politicians that were cosponsors and supported this bill. Democratic Texas Representative Silvestre Reyes sponsored the Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012, to prevent tunnels from being built as means of getting passed the fence undetected (Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012). Both representatives developed these bills in order to appease their public, and clearly Poe and Reyes saw a need that they felt must be met. This also can show that the issue crosses the boundary of being associated with not just one of the parties, because some democrats support it and other republicans do not and vice versa. The reality is that illegal immigration is a key topic that voters look at when choosing who they want to represent them and the legislators know this, especially if they live in a border state. There are others that do not believe that continuing to fund the construction of the fence and additional border patrol officers is not the answer to the problem of illegal immigrants and

12 paraphernalia from coming into the United States. The stakeholders that oppose this method of handling the situation understand that this is a social problem, but feel that the amount the government is spending towards this project is too much and not worth the monetary costs. The impact the wall has had on the environment also raises concern and certain groups are upset by the damage it has caused to the local wildlife. Another issue the stakeholders have is the safety of the migrants attempting to enter the United States because they lose their lives trying to get past the border fence. Besides fiscal savings, being rational when considering the local wildlife and the safety of the unauthorized immigrants are the other key values that this side feels are essential when discussing this social issue. Environmentalists care about this social problem and how it impacts the area located on and around the border. The Sierra Club is a specific stakeholder that is involved with this issue and cares about how the fence is affecting the local wildlife. The Sierra Club is an environmentalist group that looks at different situations taking place in the United States and examines how they are affecting the environment. Also, various scholars in the biology field have researched how the border fence has affected the surrounding species. Different biologists have studied the affects and have shown that the border fence has damaged the surrounding ecosystem and attribute the construction of the fence to other problems such as flooding in the nearby towns. The Sierra Club and the National Immigration Law Center both care about the safety of immigrants trying to enter this country. The border fence threatens the lives of many immigrants whether or not they are legally entering the United States. The groups value the safety of the people crossing the border and the rationality behind setting forth an obstacle, the wall, which causes the deaths of human lives. The National Immigration Law Center values equality and is

13 committed to giving opportunities to underprivileged immigrants and looks at the political and moral aspects of the social issue. Their mission is to help promote ways to advance just and humane immigration policies that are in-line with Americas core values of rationality and safety. The Texas Border Coalition consists of border mayors, county judges, and communities that focus on issues that affect border region quality of life and aim to promote not just Americas values, but specifically those of the border region. They state that they represent more than 2.5 million people from Brownsville to El Paso. They have economic and moral values when facing the issue and the organization expresses their fears explaining the economic concerns of how much is being spent on a wall and border patrol officers. They are a highly involved in the political sector and are made up of politicians that are able to help voice the opinion of the people involved. Another matter the coalition value is the treatment of immigrants and allowing the official border crossings to be functional while still securing the United States points of entry. The major values that the stakeholders have regarding undocumented immigrants and paraphernalia crossing the border are the fiscal costs, safety and the environmental aspect. The fiscal costs are in relation to the construction of the border fence and the issue for the stakeholders is the amount of tax dollars the Department of Defense is demanding from the taxpayers. For fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the Southwest Border Initiative program received about $3.6 billion in appropriated funds. Of this amount, about $2.4 billion has been allocated to complete approximately 670 miles of vehicle and pedestrian fencing along the roughly 2,000 miles of border between the United States and Mexico (Government Accountability Office). In addition to those expenses, the cost of occasional deployments of the National Guard, as

14 Obama has ordered again; the cost of electronic sensors, surveillance aircraft, training of local police; the cost of detaining, incarcerating and deporting illegal immigrants; and the countless other expenses associated with border security, and the bill runs us nearly $10 billion a year (Schrag). Articles that are against spending more to fund the construction of the wall say it is because they believe it will not stop the issue. Instead some state that the economy is what causes illegal immigration, which in turn will prevent it. The Texas Border Coalition has a strong stance on the economic aspect as well and does not agree with how taxpayers money has been allocated. The coalition does not feel that, spending additional billions of dollars on more Border Patrol agents, fencing-walls or exempting the Border Patrol from the rule of law should be lower priorities compared to making the official border crossings functional in securing our borders (Texas Border Coalition). The coalition worked to enact Secure Fence Act amendments, requiring the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to invest in the practicality of local government leadership's suggestions on how to strengthen security along the Texas-Mexico border and require consultation on border barriers. Another argument against the construction of the Southwest border fence is the harmful impact it has on the environment and surrounding communities. In Nogales, Sonora the wall contributed to severe flooding that buried downtown homes and businesses underneath six feet of water, drowning two people and costing millions of dollars in damages. Condemnation proceedings against border municipalities and landowners in Texas led to a wall that blocks people and animals from access to the Rio Grande River. The greatest human toll of the wall is the thousands of migrants that have lost their lives as the border wall funnels them deeper and deeper into harsh and remote terrain (Sierra Club). Environmentalists believe it is clear that

15 undocumented immigration is not a problem that can be solved at the border. Without a comprehensive effort to address the root causes of immigration, migrants will continue risking their lives to cross the borderlands and the wildlife and wild lands found along the border will continue to suffer. As mentioned in the previous paragraph two people drowned in flooding that was triggered by the border fence and this threatens the safety of people, which is a value that the stakeholders care about. An article in the Huffington Post stated that, In 2011 Border Patrol found 368 people dead, compared to 398 in 2007. The number of deaths to live interceptions rose to just over 0.11 percent in 2011 compared to some 0.05 percent in 2007. While the numbers may seem small, they indicate that illegal border crossings have become less common, but more dangerous (Moreno). This is what the stakeholders view as a severe matter because these are human lives that are being lost, regardless if they are legal or illegal that is not the primary concern when it comes to the safety of individuals. The stakeholders methods to approach these issues vary from group to group. The Texas Border Coalition works to develop innovative policies and legislation at the national, state, and local levels that will help border communities grow and prosper. They have very informative scholarly articles found on their website with factual information in order to educate the American people about the issues that are taking place at the border. The coalition worked to enact Secure Fence Act amendments, requiring the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to invest in the practicality of local government leadership's suggestions on how to strengthen security along the Texas-Mexico border and require consultation on border barriers. Overall, the coalition has successfully expanded the border communities resources by getting $27.5 billion for highways and bridges, $7.4 billion for water and wasteland projects,

16 $32.8 billion for Childrens Healthcare Expansion and have successfully had other needs met as well. The politicians involved with the Texas Border Coalition listen to the concerns of their residents and represent them by voicing their opinions to Congress and writing legislation. The Sierra Club has set up a specific campaign dedicated to the environmental issues involving the border. This campaign is entitled the Borderlands campaign, and believes that the money the United States government has spent on the fence is proving to be ineffective, costly, and is harmful to people and the environment. This organization, similarly to the other stakeholders mentioned, have a section on their website where you can contact your senators and voice your opinion on the environmental issues currently taking place. Also, the website shows legislation that the group opposes due to the environmental harm that they pose. Likewise, The National Immigration Law Center has a section specifically dedicated to showing bills that either should be voted for or voted against as means to protect unfair treatment towards immigrants. The organization also hosts conferences to inform the American public on the dealings of immigrants. At these conferences there are community leaders, organizers, attorneys, and other advocates from around the United States that share information and experiences, and develop strategies to tackle the core challenges facing low-income immigrants. This follows the trend of all the stakeholders mentioned that educating your public is the route to take when dealing with this particular social issue. Now that both sides and the stakeholders for these sides have been stated then the cases can be analyzed to decide the strengths and weaknesses are for each of the arguments that were made. On the topic of fiscal costs and security, side A maintains that the fence will preclude undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S., while side B says that this will not stop them from crossing the border. Both sides make valid points and neither side is necessarily right or

17 wrong. The fence will prevent some individuals from illegally passing over the border, but it will not fully stop this activity from taking place. Instead, the fence makes it more difficult to cross the Southwest border, but does not make it impossible to do so. Side A does have a stronger argument in relation to the impact the border fence has had over the past few years. Side A referenced government documents such as the Budget-in-Brief 2012 document that stated, Nationwide Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal aliens decreased from nearly 724,000 in FY 2008 to approximately 463,000 in FY 2010, a 36 percent reduction, indicating that fewer people are attempting to illegally cross the border (Budget-in-Brief 68). This demonstrates that the undocumented immigrants are still trying to pass over the border, but doing so as successfully than in previous years. People are still attempting to cross, which shows the issue is still there and leaves a possibility that there could be another method to reduce the number of illegal crossings that take place every year. In regards to fiscal costs, Side A claims that once the undocumented workers are living in the U.S. they are costing the country countless amounts of money each year. Side B also values fiscal costs, they believe that the amount being spent on the border fence and border patrol officers is a large cost to the U.S. Side A acknowledges that the fence costs several billion dollars, but they do not have an issue with the costs because they feel it is efficiently preventing undocumented immigrants from coming in the U.S. Side A does, however, have a problem with the amount that illegal immigrants are costing the U.S. government. The facts do justify that the social problem regarding the border has not gone away and that there are other alternatives to take and spend the money differently. After looking deeper into construction of the fence, it seems as though this structure is just a band aide to a greater issue. The United States prides itself in giving foreign aide to countries that need it, but yet Mexico faces corruption within their

18 government and the Mexican people are suffering due to the drug wars taking place there. There are other measures the U.S. can take by helping Mexico restructure and end the drug wars by sending military support instead of funding a literal barrier to be built between the countries to block people who are in need of refuge. Concerning the rights of these undocumented immigrants, Side B says the safety of these individuals should be a concern, even though they are illegal to the U.S. In contrast, Side A main concern is the security of the country and the safety of the American people. Side B has a stronger case than Side A. Side B focuses on an individuals safety and their well being. When analyzing someones safety Side B makes the point that hundreds of undocumented immigrants die each year attempting to cross the border. Side A argument focuses on the security of the United States because the country must have everyone accounted for that is living in the country. They make the point that there are millions of people living here without documentation and are here illegally, which is a very legitimate issue. This is a valid line of reasoning, but when considering that there are human lives that are being lost, Side B has a stronger argument than Side A. An additional concern that some of the stakeholders have is the impact the fence has had to the environment. When discussing this particular aspect it is clear that Side B has a stronger argument. This is because Side A never really addresses how the border wall has affected local wildlife and the land surrounding the fence and has a very weak argument, if any argument at all. Side B has made several strong arguments clearly demonstrating that the wall has negatively impacted the local area. One of the main examples is the flooding that has been taking place, which is a direct affect of the fence being constructed. Also, there are articles and pictures that show the piles upon piles of debris that have built up along the fence as result of all the

19 flooding. Unfortunately, Side A does not have a counterargument besides denying that the fence is harming the environment and it is doing more good to the area than bad. In fact in 2008, former DHS Secretary Chertoff waived certain laws, which include the Endangered Species Act, Farmland Policy Protection Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to build walls that would otherwise have been illegal. This does not help Side A, and in fact works against them because this is not moving forward this is instead allowing these environmental issues to take place.

In order to comprehensively assess this social problem of the border fence, integrating moral reasoning is necessary and needs to be considered. Since supporters of the border fence and additional border patrol officers focus is on the security of the United States, their primary obligation is to the American people. Currently having millions of people that are undocumented living in a country is a threat to national security. Side A emphasizes that making the journey to enter the United States more difficult will prevent this issue in years to come. However, once understanding that the journey into the United States is more challenging for undocumented immigrants then you must acknowledge the amount of human lives you are affecting. Whether it is legal or not the safety of illegal immigrants is a moral concern. The travelers continue to die in the dessert or when attempting to cross the wall and that should be alarming to either country. After considering the argumentation and moral reasoning that both sides have presented, I am against the border wall. The reason for this is because of how ineffective this wall truly is at preventing this social problem from continuing and also because of all the issues that come along with the border fence. First, I am very concerned with the financial aspect of the wall. The

20 project never seems to end and will continue to demand funds in order to keep up the structure and repair it from damage primarily due to the weather conditions, which is something you cannot control. The moral aspect that I found to be the most convincing is the amount of human lives being lost at the border. Though the undocumented immigrants are committing an unlawful act by crossing the border illegally that should not take away the impact that these are still peoples lives. Instead, we should examine why people are risking their lives to cross the border by examining the issue on a deeper level. This social issue does not call for a band aide such as a wall; it instead calls for a real solution that will work towards solving the issues that cause illegal immigration in the first place. To address the social problem of undocumented immigrants crossing the border illegally, I propose a two-part solution: implementing an extensive program educating Americans about drug use and to make it feasible for immigrants to cross the border with documentation. The reality is someone coming from El Salvador and reaches the border will not see the fence and just turn back around. In all actuality most of these immigrants have actually paid a few thousand dollars to even reach the border and will continue along the fence until they find a point of entry. The amount of illegal paraphernalia that crosses the border each year is an overwhelming issue that needs to be addressed. The United States is the country that is the largest consumer of drugs in the entire world and as a result staggering amounts of drugs illegally crosses the border on a daily basis. We need to take responsibility as a country and handle this appropriately by educating Americans about drugs and try preventing this behavior

21 from taking place. A legal measure that can be taken is to have stricter drug laws and harder sentencing in drug related crimes. After extensive research of the topic of the Southwest border fence using a numerous variety of scholarly articles and government documents, it then was appropriate to proceed in interviewing two individuals that have a close connection to this particular social problem. The purpose of these interviews was to help better understand this social issue and all that it entails, while getting new perspectives in relation to the subject matter. Both individuals that were interviewed were asked six questions (See Appendix D), which addressed the issues and moral reasoning involved in the issue. The first interviewee was Scot Nicol. Nicol is from McAllen, Texas and is a vigorous activist and professor at South Texas College. Nicol is the Conservation Co-Chairman of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Sierra Club and also is the founder of No Border Wall. Nicol also has an active blog and website that he consistently updates with new information and legislation regarding the Southwest border wall. During his time at Sierra Club, an environmentalist organization, Nicol has also become the co-chairman of the Borderland team. Scott Nicol has an abundance of knowledge on the topic and is personally invested in this issue, which made him the perfect person to interview. The second interviewee was Melen Capiro, former marine, and Technical Manager at Ultra Electronics. Capiro has been working on a specific project on the border over the past year. This project is building Integrated Fixed Tower System as another means to secure the border, and his company is proposing their project to the Department of Homeland Security. To begin to better understand both of the professionals interviewed, it was important to get their stance on the issue and what has shaped their opinion and position. Nicol is very outspoken about his feelings towards the border fence and why he disagrees with it. He began

22 by saying it does nothing in terms of immigration and smuggling, and building a wall has not been doing any good just bad. He spoke about the condemnation of properties and that there is a lot of wildlife damage as well. Overall, Nicol believes that the border wall is not doing anything and was just a political act making the statement of exclusion by stopping the demographic reality from occurring and in turn erecting the wall that divides the United States from Mexico. In comparison, Capiro was more neutral towards the topic and expressed that he sees both sides of the issue. From his own experience, he said that he is impartial to certain immigrants entering this country illegally, because his father is a Cuban immigrant and he knows the struggles people face in other countries and that many of them are coming here for a better life. Capiro shared the fact that he strattles the fence, since he does see the level of poverty that people are faced with in Mexico, but that he also understands that there are criminals and drug dealers that cross the border as well. The responses from either interviewee show that this is a complex issue that involves many different things to think about when formulating your position about the border fence. The second question was in relation to the amount the government has spent to construct the border wall and whether or not it was worth the money to build it. In response to this question, Nicol did not feel that the border wall should have even been built in the first place and was a waste of time and resources. On the other hand, Capiro, who is currently working on a project to help better secure the border, feels that finances do need to be allocated to this project, but not necessarily how it has been done previously. Both Nicol and Capiro recognize that the current system is a huge money hole since the border constantly needs to be fixed and demands repairs on regular basis. This is why, specifically, Capiro feels strongly about the Integrated Fixed Tower system will alleviate these costs, because now whoever the government

23 decides to take this project will therefore be responsible for maintaining the towers and not putting the costs back onto the governments bill. The next question tagged onto the discussion and connected to a way to prevent undocumented workers from entering the United States illegally. Capiro continued to explain that the Integrated Fixed Tower system would be a better option for the Department of Homeland Security to monitor the activity at the border. He explained that the Integrated Fixed Towers initiative is a multi-million dollar effort to monitor Border Patrols gaps along the southern border. The system has sensors that are able to detect when someone is crossing and track where they are headed. When conducting additional research I found that, CBP has budgeted $91.8 million in its fiscal year 2013 budget request for the IFT program, which apparently is a winner-take-all competition CBP intends to take its time making a decision about (Kimery). This is the contract that Capiros company is competing with other companies to get. Nicol said that the only impact that the border wall has had is funneling people into different areas and specifically more remote areas, and the same amount of people are still crossing. Nicol stated that the process for immigrants to come here should be easier and provide more opportunities to receive a workers visa. Also, he added that the United States is consuming these illegal drugs and we should look further into this issue in order to help solve the other problems at hand. The fourth question asked was exclusive to the effect, good, bad or any at all, that the fence had on the environment. Both of the gentlemen had very different responses to this question. Capiro said that from his experience he has seen that the border fence had a positive effect on the surrounding environment. He explained that the government had to have environmentalist approve the fence in the different areas to verify that it would not negatively

24 affect the environment. He stated that there is a certain area that the fence is not over a specific height in order to continue to let the butterflies migrate across the border. He explained that the contractors had to receive permits in order to build, and if an environmentalist said it was not allowed that the construction would not be able to take place. In contrast, Nicol felt very strongly about the fact that the border wall does have a negative affect on the surrounding environment. Through his involvement with the Sierra Club there is a huge impact in terms of habitat fragmentation, particularly in Texas, and explained that Ocelots (which are on the endangered species list) and other animals cannot move from one habitat to another. Nicol also discussed the water issue that is a result of the border fence and the flooding that has taken place as well. There are three sections of the walls that they are pushing to construct the fence, but they are in the flood plains and basically it would act as a dam in the middle of the river and will not be able to evenly drain. This then causes flooding and as a result has negative affect on the surrounding areas. The next question examined how the interviewees thought the world might view the United States decision to build a wall separating the countries. The responses from both of the gentlemen were very interesting. Capiro approached the question by saying that the way he sees it is that more countries would rather be violent instead of spending money on a preventative measure. He then briefly discussed how other countries would automatically shoot an undocumented immigrant, and have done so. On the other hand, Nicol had actually met a German crew making a documentary about the border and also a French photographer that Nicol worked with that took photos of the fence. He stated, They shake their heads, and see it to be similar to the Berlin Wall. Also, Nicol brought up the point that why would the U.S. Government not put up a wall at the Canadian border, considering the fact that the only terrorist

25 in the history of the United States that has come across a land border came across the Canadian border, so why dont you put a border (wall) up in Washington. The final question to wrap up the interviews was to look at this issue as a whole, and think about the fence being a step towards progression or a step back to times of the past. Nicol views the border fence as a step back because it makes it more difficult to get to an actual solution now. The reason that it is harder is to do a complete 180 and for political leaders to say that the border wall was not effective is not a good idea for the government. Instead, Nicol believes, our government should have just strictly focused on immigration reform and how to improve our current system. Capiro, like Nicol, agreed that the fence is a step back. Didnt we just knock down a wall somewhere, Capiro chuckled, and then we put one up. Yet, at the same time Capiro discusses the concern of the drug cartels and keeping them out of the United States. Capiro explained that it is hard for him to judge the fence, but then again there are so many intellects in this country so did it have to come down to building a fence? He then began expressing his solution by using the Integrated Fixed Tower system. Both, Melen Capiro and Scott Nicol, confirmed my position on the social issue, and my overall decision to side with side B. Scott Nicol was extremely informed about all the issues when discussing the border wall. As an activist, he was very passionate and confident in his belief that the border fence is not a solution that prevents undocumented immigrants from entering the United States. Overall, he took from his personal experience of living on the border and the different organizations he is involved with to make a strong argument for the con side. Like the interview with Nicol, the interview with Capiro was very helpful and reaffirmed my tentative solution. Since he referred to his own experiences working on a project directly on the border, I found him to provide insight about new measures that are being taken to secure the

26 border that I did not know about previously. Also, his candidness and honest raw opinions helped me see new ideas I had not thought about before. Capiro solidified the fact the current border fence is not working effectively and helped solidify my stance. After extensive research, interviews, and contemplation I am in support of Side B and their position against the border wall. Both interviewers helped me gain confidence in my assessment of both sides and choice to favor Side B. After interviewing both Nicol and Capiro, it is a challenge to state that there is not a better solution for fixing the social problem of undocumented immigrants and illegal paraphernalia entering this country than a border fence. Based on the opinions of my interviewees and research, I still believe immigration reform is necessary and the United States needs to take a more active role and moving away from the border fence as a solution and continue to look into other options, such as Integrated Fixed Tower system. The civic engagement activity I took part in was volunteering at Casa Marianella, which provides shelter and services to immigrants from around the world. Once I was there I found out that they do open their doors to immigrants that come to the United States without documentation and to refugees as well. This is a widely known establishment in Austin that students from St. Edwards have visited and volunteered at. When I was there I took part in raking leaves around the property and also helped in the kitchen preparing lunch. I did have a chance to chat with a few of the Casa Marianella residents. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet anyone from Mexico, but I did become acquainted with several individuals from other countries. There were people from Afghanistan, several residents from Nepal and also from different countries in Africa. The man I spoke to for a while, Omar, was from Somalia. He discussed with me the struggles he has had to deal with being an immigrant in this country.

27 Omar has faced animosity from Americans and it has been hard for him to find work as well. Getting to hear the stories of people from all across the world was a great experience. Even though I did not meet anyone that had crossed the Southwest border, it still was a great opportunity to learn more about being an immigrant in the United States. After gaining a lot of knowledge regarding the border wall through my extensive library research and my interviews with two experts, I have successfully decided that the side that is not in favor of the Southwest border fence has a stronger argument. The expense of constructing the wall has cost too much and continues to demand money from the government and is not worth the results. These costs will continue because the wall will need to continuously be repaired and construction costs will never cease. I fully support looking into other measures to look into illegal immigration and finding a better way to avoid this activity through immigration reform and education. Thoroughly researching an issue is important to me and I have certain values, responsibilities and standards that I feel are important. The value of someones safety and also the fiscal savings aspect are things that I feel are imperative. As a daughter of an immigrant from Mexico, who is now an American citizen, I empathize with immigrants trying to come to this country for a better life. The process for my dad to come to the United States (legally) was costly and not an easy route to take. If the process was improved to allow more immigrants to come over here legally, then I feel that our country could focus on the real issue at our borders, which are the drug dealers and criminals trying to bring drugs and illegal paraphernalia into the United States. The real problem we need to address is within the U.S. itself. CBP Office of Air and Marine contributed to the seizure of 831,840 pounds of narcotics and seized nearly $55.3 million in currency during more than 150,000 flight and float hours (Budget-in-Brief, 68).

28 There is a huge demand for illegal substances and these criminals are just meeting the demands of Americans. If our government focuses on the root of this issue, the apparent drug abuse issue that is present in the U.S., then I feel that we could move towards fixing this social problem. According to the CIA website the United States is, the world's largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana (CIA). I believe that this, illegal drug use, is the real issue at hand. The governments resources should be focused on fixing that problem, which will in turn help reduce the amount of illegal activity at the border. In conclusion, due to the fact that undocumented workers continue to try and cross the border wall and illegal paraphernalia manages to pass over as well, I feel that this is an important issue for the United States to further examine. Considering the fact that there deaths that still take place at the border and that illegal immigration is continuing to occur the U.S. government needs to reform the current immigration laws. Educating American residents about drug use and the affects will potentially lead the U.S. in the right direction and help resolve this issue. After my interview with Melen Capiro, I think that Integrated Fixed Towers would ultimately be a better system to manage the border. The towers would allow CPB officers to be stationed in there and also have sensors that will notify CPB when someone is crossing and where they are located at. Conducting such beneficial research and interviews helped me better understand this social problem and all it entails. I came into this course with an open mind and a willingness to learn and understand different ideas, as it related to the social problem. Overall, I was able to gain knowledge on an important issue and formulate my own point of view in relation to the situation. In the future I hope to see that the Integrated Tower System turns out to be a better

29 option to secure the Southwest border. Also, I believe if there is an effort made to educate Americans about drug use and reform the current immigration process, then this problem would become less of an issue. Possibly, the future holds a better option than the current border fence that is in place now, which divides the two countries in many more ways than one, as seen through this paper.

30 Appendix A H.R.6061 -- Secure Fence Act of 2006, Sec. 2. (a) In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following-(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers. (b) Operational Control Defined- In this section, the term `operational control' means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. (c) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States in accordance with this section.

31 Appendix B Pictures of Southwest Border Fence

CBP Border Patrol agent monitors the Yuma sector of the Arizona border. (Budget-in-Brief 2012)

Integrated Fixed Towers (Kimery)

32 Appendix C DHS Funding Breakdown

Budget-in-Brief 2012

33 Appendix D Capstone Interview 1. Do you support the border wall or not? What would you say is the main reason you do/dont? 2. One of the issues with the border wall, is whether or not it was worth the money spent to construct it. Where do you stand on that issue? 3. Do you feel that the fence is the best way to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering the United State, or is there another more beneficial way to handle this issue? 4. Do you think the border fence has a negative or positive affect on the environment, why? 5. How do you think the world viewed the United States decision to build a border wall? 6. Do you see the border wall as a step forward towards the progression of our country or as step back to the times of the past, why?

34 Work Cited Aguila, Emma, Alisher Akhmedjonov, and Ricardo Basurto-Davila. United States And Mexico [Electronic Resource]: Ties That Bind, Issues That Divide. n.p.: Santa Monica : RAND Corporation, 2012., 2012. St. Edwards Univ's Catalog. Web. 4 Oct. 2012.

Beato, Greg. "Aliens vs. bureaucrats: our costly, record-breaking system for dealing with illegal immigrants." Reason Mar. 2012: 16+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Sep. 2012.

Bingham, Amy. "On Immigration, Obama and Romney Agree On Virtually Nothing." ABC News. N.p., 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy. "People Crossing Borders: An Analysis Of U.S. Border Protection Policies." (2010): 54. GalleryWatch CRS Reports. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.

CIA. "Illicit Drugs." World Fact Book. Web.

Federation for American Immigration Reform. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

Fix, William A. "Offense, Defense, Or Just A Big Fence? Why Border Security Is A

35 Valid National Security Issue St. Mary's University School Of Law Center For Terrorism Law." The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review On Minority Issues 14.(2012): 741. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 17 Sept. 2012.

Garrett, Terence M. "The Border Fence, Immigration Policy, And The Obama Administration." Administrative Theory & Praxis (M.E. Sharpe) 32.1 (2010): 129-133. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

Garrett, Terence, and James Storbeck. "The DHS Border Fence In The Rio Grande Valley." Administrative Theory & Praxis (M.E. Sharpe) 33.4 (2011): 530-548. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.

Goler, Wendall. "Bush Signs U.S.- Mexico Border Fence Bill." Fox News. Fox News Network, 26 Oct. 2006. Web. 4 Oct. 2012.

Finklea M. Kristin, Coordinator, Analyst in Domestic Security. "Southwest Border Violence: Issues In Identifying And Measuring Spillover Violence." (2011): 50. GalleryWatch CRS Reports. Web. 20 Sept. 2012.

Jordan, Miriam. "Illegal Immigrants Suspected of Crimes Arrested in Crackdown." Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 03 Apr. 2012: A6. Business Source Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

36 Kimery, Anthony. "CBP Taking Time Examining Bids for Integrated Fixed Towers for SW Border." HS Today U.S. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.

Lasky, Jesse R., Walter Jetz, and Timothy H. Keitt. "Conservation Biogeography Of The USMexico Border: A Transcontinental Risk Assessment Of Barriers To Animal Dispersal." Diversity & Distributions 17.4 (2011): 673-687. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. Lewis, Ted. "The United States Should End the War on Drugs and Strictly Control Gun Sales." Mexico. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "U.S. Should Help Mexico by Ending 'War on Drugs' and Easy Weapons Supply." Seattle Times 16 Sept. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Sep. 2012.

Moreno, Carolina. "Border Crossing Deaths More Common as Illegal Immigration Declines." Huffington Post 17 Aug. 2012: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct. 2012.

National Immigration Law Center. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.

Robinson, Robert K., and Diana L. Gilbertson. "The Immigration Reform And Control Act Of 1986: Employer Liability In The Employment Of Undocumented Workers." Labor Law Journal 38.10 (1987): 658-664. Business Source Complete. Web. 3 Oct. 2012.

Schrag, Peter. "Strengthening the US-Mexico Border Will Not Stop Illegal

37 Immigration." Illegal Immigration. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Why Strengthening the U.S.-Mexican Border Leads to More Illegal Immigration." Washington Post 18 July 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Sep. 2012.

Tea Party. N.p., n.d.Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

Texas Border Coalition. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.

United States Congress, comp. The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments. Rept. no. 2500. Washington D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 2007. Print.

United States. Cong. House. National Guard Border Enforcement Act. 112th Cong. H. 152. THOMAS. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

United States. Cong. House. Secure Fence Act 2006. 112th Cong. H. 6061 (enacted). THOMAS. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.

United States. Cong. House. Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012. 112th Cong. H. 4119 (enacted). THOMAS. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.

United States. Department of Homeland Security. Budget-in-Brief FY 2012. Pub.

38 Washington: Department of Homeland Security. PDF file.

United States. Government Accountability Office. Service Border Fence Construction Costs. Pub. Washington: Congressional Committees. PDF file.

We Need a Fence. Let Freedom Ring, Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

Wood, Daniel B. "Where the border fence is tall, it works." Christian Science Monitor Apr. 2008: 1+. Newspaper Source. Web. 24 Sept. 2012.