Mexican border wall standoff in the debt ceiling negotiations

It is unsurprising that the Biden administration and the Democratic-majority Senate, on the one hand, and the Republican-majority House of Representatives, on the other hand, are having trouble agreeing on appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. If they cannot agree by October 1, they will need to pass a short-term continuing resolution or there will be a federal government shutdown.

One major point of disagreement between the parties relates to funding to expand the wall along the border with Mexico. Expanding the border wall was the centerpiece of President Trump’s immigration policy and Republicans continue to give it high priority. Conversely, President Biden halted construction on the wall shortly after taking office and has been selling construction materials that were shipped to the border during the Trump administration.

The border between the United States and Mexico is about 1,933 miles long. There are currently about 706 miles of primary barriers along the border. These barriers vary in size from low wooden fences that pedestrians can easily cross to 30-foot high concrete walls. President Trump built only about 52 miles of new primary barriers, although he also replaced 351 miles of old primary barriers with newer, larger barriers.

House Republicans would like to expand the current wall to at least 900 miles and, in particular, would like to require the federal government to either resume construction with materials that were shipped to the border during the Trump administration or require the federal government to donate those materials to southern border states so they can construct their own barriers. The Biden administration, on the other hand, wants to continue only to fill in gaps in barriers to address safety concerns and would like to reuse, transfer, sell, or scrap the $260 million of construction materials sitting at the border.

Relevant research

Immigration effects

It is difficult to estimate how effective the U.S./Mexico border wall has been in preventing unauthorized immigration from Mexico because many other factors also affect immigration and immigrants who are prevented from crossing in a particular location by a wall may simply cross in a different location. One study that relied on Mexican survey data estimated that border wall expansion from 2007 to 2010 reduced the number of Mexicans living in the United States by about 500,000 per year of wall construction. However, another study using Mexican consular data estimated that wall construction over that period reduced the number of Mexicans living in the United States by a total of only about 50,000. More generally, political scientist Wendy Brown argues that the Mexican border wall has had little effect on the number of immigrants, but has made immigration more expensive and dangerous by creating a large illegal smuggling industry.

Economic effects

Besides potentially affecting the overall level of immigration, the border wall might also affect the types of people who immigrate. For example, high-skilled workers who have more to gain from migrating to the U.S. may be more willing to bear the additional costs and risks that a border wall creates. On the other hand, low-skilled workers who are more desperate to escape poverty or dangerous situations in Latin America may be more willing to bear those costs and risks.

These models are even more challenging to estimate, because one must estimate not only the overall immigration effects, but also the effects for particular types of workers. One of the immigration studies referred to above also estimated these effects and concluded that expansion of the border wall from 2007 to 2010 reduced U.S. GDP by $1.5 billion. At the individual level, it estimated that wall construction harmed high-skill U.S. workers by about $2.73 per worker, but benefited low-skill U.S. workers by about $0.28 per worker. The authors concluded that the wall deterred more low-skill workers than high-skill workers from immigrating, which increased the relative supply of high-skill workers in the U.S. and decreased the relative supply of low-skill workers, resulting in those economic effects.

Environmental effects

Border walls designed to prevent people from crossing also prevent medium-sized and large animals from crossing. One study described how camera footage at the U.S./Mexico wall has shown it preventing cougars, mule deer, snakes, lizards, and frogs from migrating. Normally, environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act would require the government to consider potential environmental effects of additional wall construction. However, the 2005 Real ID Act gave the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to waive any laws that would slow the construction of the wall.

A group of scientists explained three broad areas of concern associated with additional wall construction: (1) bypassing environmental laws, (2) harming wildlife habitats, and (3) devaluing conservation investment and research. Relating to the second point, they identified 1506 animal species whose territories cross the U.S./Mexico border, including 62 species listed as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. Of the 346 nonflying animal species they analyzed, 17% would have ranges less than 20,000 square kilometers in the United States, which would increase the risk of extirpation in the United States. The authors expressed particular concern about larger animals like the Peninsular bighorn sheep, Mexican gray wolf, Sonoran pronghorn, jaguar, and ocelot.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently evaluated the environmental effects of border wall construction during the Trump administration. The GAO recorded examples of the wall disrupting natural wells, normal surface water flow, animal migrations, native vegetation, and normal drainage down mountainsides. It recommended that the Department of Interior and Customs and Border Protection work together to develop a strategy to mitigate environmental impacts from border wall construction.

Public opinion

American public opinion toward a border wall has changed over time. A 2019 analysis in the Federalist averaged results from numerous polls conducted from 2007 to 2018. That analysis showed that a narrow majority of Americans supported building a border wall from 2007 to 2014. However, starting in 2015, public opinion turned against the wall so that, by 2018, about 60% of Americans opposed the wall. Their analysis further determined that this change in public opinion was caused entirely by a steep decline in Democratic support for the wall, which dropped from 44% in 2015 to 12% in 2018; Republican support actually continued to increase slightly over the entire period, from 60% in 2007 to 72% in 2015 to 75% in 2018. The author argued that the sudden drop in Democratic support was a reaction to President Trump’s harsh rhetoric about immigrants during his presidential campaign and presidency.

Recent polls have shown a slight increase in public support for a border wall since 2018, but it remains a politically divisive issue. An August 2022 NPR/Ipsos poll found that 46% of Americans, including 75% of Republicans but only 23% of Democrats, supported building a wall along the entire border. And a May 2023 Quinnipiac poll found that 44% of Americans supported building a border wall, including 89% of Republicans but only 11% of Democrats.

Equity considerations

The border wall is intended to reduce the number of unlawful crossings by Latin Americans. As a result, it necessarily has a disproportionate impact on U.S. residents with friends and family members in Latin America. Of course, residents have no expectation that friends and family members should be permitted to unlawfully enter the United States, so this disproportionate impact may not deserve consideration as a policy matter.

The wall has other disproportionate impacts on Hispanic and Latino Americans, however. As Rev. David Maldonado explained, “the wall … is symbolic of the fear many white Americans have toward Latino immigrants, and by extension, other Latinos living in the United States.” Therefore, the wall is both a product of, to some extent, and a contributing factor to discrimination towards Hispanic and Latino Americans. The wall also disproportionately impacts Hispanic and Latino Americans because they disproportionately comprise U.S. border communities, which are the communities most affected by the wall, environmentally, economically, and culturally. Indeed a 2016 survey of people living in seven U.S. border cities found that 72% of residents opposed building a wall.

Legal considerations

There are no significant legal issues associated with the federal government’s construction of the border wall. As noted above, in the Real ID Act of 2005, Congress authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security “to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of” the border wall. Various environmental groups have sued to challenge the Secretary’s continued use of this waiver authority, but federal courts have consistently upheld the Secretary’s authority to waive any laws impeding construction of the border wall. The Secretary has relied on this waiver authority to waive provisions of 48 different federal laws.

As I explained above, however, one alternative that House Republicans are advocating is requiring the federal government to donate unused wall construction materials to southern border states so those states can resume wall construction on their own. This proposal has greater legal risk. First, the U.S. Constitution grants immigration authority to the federal government, so state construction of a border wall may overstep state authority. Second, state governments would not benefit from the Real ID Act waiver provision discussed above, so they would be required to comply with all relevant federal laws, which could be a significant obstacle to wall construction. Third, state governments would need to purchase the necessary land from private landowners, which has been challenging even for the federal government, as many of those landowners have challenged the government’s eminent domain authority.

Conclusion

House Republicans’ proposal to expand the U.S./Mexico border wall may have small positive effects in terms of preventing unlawful border crossings, but it would have more significant negative effects on the U.S. economy and the border area environment. The proposal almost certainly would be supported by a large majority of Republicans, but opposed by an even larger majority of Democrats. Additional wall construction would contribute to discrimination against Hispanic and Latino Americans and would disproportionately affect border communities where those Americans are overrepresented. Forcing the federal government to resume wall construction would not involve significant legal considerations, but allowing state governments to resume that construction with donated federal materials would be more complicated legally.

Our grades for the House Republicans’ proposal:

Effectiveness: C

Equity: D

Legal Feasibility: B-

Social Acceptability: C-

Overall: C-