How Border Enforcement Has Reshaped Mexican Migration to the United States

Wayne A. CorneliusDirector, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies

University of California-San Diego

U.S. Border Enforcement Expenditures

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Fiscal Year

05001000150020002500300035004000

Expe

nditu

res

(In R

eal 1

990$

M

iillio

ns)

Expenditures

Concentrated borderenforcement era

FY 2008 spending on border enforcement: $8.8 billionFY 2008 spending on border + internal enforcement: $13 billion

Secure Fence Act of 2006: 700 miles of new fencing

Currently: 75 miles of fencing + 50 miles of vehicle barriers on U.S.-Mexico border

Secure Fence Act of 2006 would build 700 miles of new fencing (fortify about 1/3 of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border)

President Bush’s latest immigration reform proposal would build 370 miles of new fencing + 200 miles of vehicle barriers + 300-mile “virtual wall”

Now underway:The Secure Border Initiative (a.k.a. “Virtual Fence”)

• Up to $2 billion project: Dept. of Homeland Security contract to Boeing Co.

• 1,800 high-tech towers to be built along U.S.-Mexico border (none on Canadian border)

• Equipped with advanced radar systems, video surveillance cameras

• Ground sensors to detect movement, sound• Vehicle barriers• Small unmanned aerial vehicles to be launched

from pickup trucks by Border Patrol• 28-mile “pilot” segment to be built in Arizona;

entire project to be completed within 3-6 years

10-story highProject 28

surveillance tower near

Sasabe, Arizona

Bush Administration’s border enforcement build-up willcost nearly $50 billion in next 4 years

Operation Jump Start

Deployment of NationalGuard to Southwest border,June 15, 2006 - present

Southwest Border Apprehensions

F Y 0 4 : 1 , 1 5 9 , 8 0 2

F Y 9 4 : 9 7 9 , 1 0 1

0

2 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 0 0 0 0 0

1 4 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 0 0 0 0 0

1 8 0 0 0 0 0F

Y 7

0

FY

71

FY

72

FY

73

FY

74

FY

75

FY

76

FY

77

FY

78

FY

79

FY

80

FY

81

FY

82

FY

83

FY

84

FY

85

FY

86

FY

87

FY

88

FY

89

FY

90

FY

91

FY

92

FY

93

FY

94

FY

95

FY

96

FY

97

FY

98

FY

99

FY

00

FY

01

FY

02

FY

03

FY

04

FY 06: 1,089,096

FY 94: 1,031,668

Homeland SecuritySecretary Michael Chertoffshows drop in borderapprehensions (news conference,October 30, 2006)

Total borderwide apprehensions in FY 2006: 1,089,096 (decrease of 8.4% from FY 2005)

Apprehensions were down 30% in 2nd quarter of 2007 Fiscal Year (ended March 31)

What explains the drop in Southwest border apprehensions in 2006-07?

• Reduced circularity: Fewer return trips = fewer apprehensions (if migrants aren’t going home, they aren’t getting caught when they return to their jobs in U.S.). Fewer apprehensions DON’T = true deterrence/Border Patrol efficacy

-- Migrants are bottled up within U.S. by tougher border enforcement. Cost (coyote fees) + physical risks of reentry are prohibitively high.

-- Migrants are delaying return trips in anticipation of “amnesty” legislation, don’t want to jeopardize their eligibility by being apprehended at border

• Increased use of coyotes = higher probability of successful entry; coyotes eventually will find new routes/modes of entry

• More crossings being made through legal ports of entry, concealed in vehicles or using false docs = lower probability of apprehension (over 200 million crossings/yr. are made through POES on US-Mex border; close scrutiny impossible)

• Less U.S. demand for labor: U.S. home construction industry is depressed, jobs magnet is diminished

Unauthorized Clearly atNew High — Trend Uncertain

Unauthorized Clearly atNew High — Trend Uncertain

3.9

4

3 3.3

5

2.5

11.1(2005)

8.4

Millions of Unauthorized Migrants Living in the U.S.

4-80 6-891-82 6-86 10-9610-92 4-00 3-05

Net growth, 2000-2005:500,000 per year

Stock of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, in millions (estimate by Pew Hispanic Center, March 2006)

Year

Generalization #1: Physical fortifications (walls) don’t stop determined economic migrants: They go over them, under them, around them.

SOURCE: Cornelius 2005

Major Border Patrol Operations New Migration

Routes

Migrants Take More Dangerous Routes Around Border Patrol Operations

Deflection of illegal entries away from central Arizona to California (San Diego) and Texas (El Paso, Laredo)

Generalization #2: Partial militarization of borders only rechannels unauthorized migration flows; it does not reduce them overall.

If the probability ofapprehension is notuniformly high, migrants will continue

to cross in areas where risk of detection remains low.

Generalization #3:The unintended consequences of border enforcement are usually more important than the predicted outcome (i.e., deterrence of unwanted immigration).

Unintended consequences include:

creating new opportunities for professional people-smugglers

making borders more lethal (increasing migrant fatalities.

higher rates of permanent settlement in migrant-receiving countries

Deaths due to unauthorized border crossings,detected in U.S.-Mexico borderlands (total: 4,235)

Source: Mexican Consulates/Mexican Ministry of Foreign Relations. Includes unidentified bodies and bodies found on both sides of border.

Bodies of undocumented border crossers discovered inPima County, Arizona

Migrant-sending towns being studied by CCIS

Tlacuitapa, Jal. Tunkas, Yuc.

San Miguel Tlacotepec. Oax.

Fieldwork completed, 2005-2007

2,188 standardized survey interviews: Jalisco, Zacatecas 2005: 603 Yucatán, 2006: 724 Jalisco, 2007: 861

120 semi-structured “life history” interviews, digitally recorded and transcribed

185 survey interviews done in U.S. receiving cities: Los Angeles, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Union City, CA; Oklahoma City, OK

Circular migration has declined sharply (among migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007)

• On most recent (or current) trip to U.S., 37% stayed longer than expected

• 48% of unauthorized migrants interviewed in U.S. had been living there continuously for at least 5 years

• 64% of interviewees in Tlacuitapa have at least 1 relative who has remained in U.S. due to border enforcement

Key indicators:

8

20

11.5 11

18

23.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pre-1980 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004

Year

Dur

atio

n of

Las

t Trip

(M

onth

s)

Average duration of duration of stay in U.S. has more than doubled during border build-up

Border enforcement build-up

Source: CCIS survey of migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007

Social gathering of recently returned

migrants, Tlacuitapa, Jan. 2005

Other measures of reduced circularity in migration

81% of migrants interviewed in U.S. receiving communities in January 2007 had not returned to hometown for annual fiestas

Why migrants didn’t return to hometown in 2007

Lack

of l

egal

p...

Wor

k re

spon

sibi

l...

Fam

ily re

spon

sib.

..

Lack

of m

oney

t...

Lack

of m

oney

t...

No in

tere

st in

re...

Resp

onde

nt's

he.

..

Oth

er

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Perc

ent

Unauthorized migrants

Legals

Whole families increasingly migrate together, leaving hometown houses vacant

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Year

No.

of U

ninh

abite

d Hou

ses

138

181

36

Uninhabited houses found in Tlacuitapa, Jal., 1995-2007

N=189

79%

21%

69%

31%

62%

38%

Not Caught Caught Not Caught Caught Not Caught CaughtPre-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006

0.2

.4.6

.8

Per

cent

of M

igra

nts

Apprehensions by Time Period

Source: UCSD survey of migrants from Tunkás, Yucatan, 2006

Apprehensions by time period, among Yucatan migrants

Apprehensions by time period, among Jalisco migrants

7 7 . 1 7 5 . 5

6 3

2 2 . 9 2 4 . 5

3 7

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0

P r e - 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 4 - 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 - p r e s e n t

( N = 8 3 ) ( N = 4 9 ) ( N = 1 0 0 )

Y e a r

Perc

en

t o

f M

igra

nts

(%

)

N o t C a u g h tC a u g h t

Source: UCSD survey of migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007, N=232.

Border Patrol apprehensions on most recent trip to U.S.(among unauthorized Jalisco migrants, 2007)

No apprehensions (entered undetectedon first try): 68.5%

1 apprehension: 19.8%

2 apprehensions: 5.4%

3 apprehensions: 2.7%

4 or more: 3.6%

(N=257)

92% of Jalisco + Zacatecas migrants (2005)were able to enter eventually, on same trip

97% of Yucatan migrants (2006) eventually succeeded, on same trip

92% of Jalisco migrants (2007) were able to enter eventually, on same trip

Probability of retry and success after a failed illegal entry(among those apprehended on most recent trip to the border)

Source: UCSD surveys of migrants originating in four migrant-sending communities in Jalisco, Zacatecas, and Yucatan, in 2005, 2006, 2007.

Most unauthorized migrants now hire coyotes,and pay more for their services

Migrants Migrantsfrom Yucatán from Jalisco

Used coyote on last trip: 89.8% 81.1%Crossed unassisted: 10.2 18.9

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Median coyote fee paid on last trip (real 2006$): $1,575 $1,743

Source: UCSD surveys of migrants from Tunkas, Yucatan (2006) and Tlacuitapa, Jalisco (2007). N= 304, 227, 165.

Coyote Use by Undocumented Migrants on Last Trip

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year of Crossing

Num

ber o

f Obs

erva

tions

Crossed without CoyoteUsed Coyote

Coyote Fee Paid (Most Recent Trip to U.S.)

613

980

1259

1585 1634

924

12321300

16911783

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1982-1992 1993-1995 1996-1998 1999-2001 2002-2004

Year Crossed

US

Dol

lars

Pai

d (in

200

4 D

olla

rs)

Median Fee

Average Fee

Coyote fee paid on most recent trip to U.S., among migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jalisco

Source: UCSD survey of January 2005.

More unauthorized entries are being made through legal ports of entry

• Passed through a POE: 29.3%• (How passed through POE?)

Showing false or borrowed papers: 40.4%Hidden in vehicle: 48.0Bribing a U.S. official: 7.7Paying a coyote: 1.9

Source: UCSD survey of migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007

Clandestine migrants and potential migrants are highly knowledgeable about intensified border enforcement

• 75% of unauthorized migrants from Jalisco, Zacatecas, and Yucatan in 2005-2006 knew about U.S. concentrated border enforcement operations

• 91% of Jalisco migrants + potential first-timersin 2007 had heard about new border fences approved by U.S. Congress (“el muro”)

• 73% of Jalisco migrants + potential first-timersin 2007 had heard about National Guard deployment (and 94% believed that National Guardsmen are armed)

(N=600-858)

• 97% of migrants and potential migrants from Jalisco (2007) believe it is “very dangerous” to cross the border without papers (81% of Yucatecan migrants, 2006)

• 80% of Jaliscomigrants know someone who died trying to cross border (12% of Yucatecan migrants)

Father of migrant who died in Arizona desert in 1998,

at son’s gravesite in Tlacuitapa, Jal.

Clandestine border crossings are perceived as very dangerous

Propensity to migrate to U.S. in next 12 months(among residents of Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007)

• 29.3% of experienced unauthorized migrants were planning to migrate again in 2007

Reason for not going to U.S. in 2007(among experienced unauthorized migrants in Tlacuitapa, Jalisco)

More difficult to cross border 18.1%

No economic need 12.8

Family responsibilities 9.6

Too old 8.5

Doesn’t like living in U.S. 7.4

Lack of money to make trip 7.4

Respondent’s health status 7.4

Lacks job in U.S. 2.1

Can get ahead in hometownwithout migrating

2.1

Other 24.5N=94

¿Cuáles cosas le preocupan al pensar en cruzar la frontera?

La Guardia Nacional

Clima extrema (desierto)

La Migra

El Muro

Autoridades Mexicanas

Los Minutemen (vigilantes)

Rateros

Measuring perceivedobstacles toillegal entry

Relative importance of deterrence factors(among unauthorized migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007)

(single greatest concern:)

1. Natural hazards (extreme climate): 48.0%2. Mexican bandits: 14.93. More Border Patrol agents: 13.14. New fences (“el muro”): 11.25. Mexican police: 5.96. National Guard: 5.07. Minutemen/vigilantes 1.4

(N=221)

• The cost/benefit ratio still strongly favors migration (high probability of success in entering or reentering after apprehension, and of gaining U.S. employment).

• There is very weak evidence that unauthorized migration is being deterred at the point of origin in Mexico, or at the border, but strong evidence that return migration from U.S. to Mexico is being discouraged.

Conclusions

Basic supply and demand forces are undermining border enforcement

• Strong and growing U.S. demand for immigrant labor, at all skill levels

• Extremely limited worksite enforcement, which has no industry-wide impact on demand for unauthorized migrant labor

• Real-wage gap between Mexico and the United States (at least 10:1 for most low-skilled jobs) continues to grow

• Family ties with U.S.-based relatives encourage and facilitate migration for family reunification

Potential migrants perceive high probability of gaining U.S. employment

Question: “How probable is it that you will find a job in the U.S., the next time you go (between 0 and 100%)?”

Median response: 80%

Source: UCSD survey of migrants from Tlacuitapa, Jalisco (2007), N=188.

Most migration is driven by U.S.-pull factors rather thanMexico-push factors

Question: “The last time you went to the U.S., would yousay that it was mainly to escape conditions in Mexico, orbecause of the opportunities that the U.S. offers?”

Migrants Migrantsfrom Yucatán from Jalisco

Conditions in Mexico: 19% 17%

Opportunities in U.S.: 81% 83%

Source: UCSD surveys of migrants from Tunkas, Yucatan (2006) and Tlacuitapa, Jalisco (2007). N= 226, 349

Social network ties encourage/facilitate migration(among residents of Tlacuitapa, Jal., 2007)

• Currently have at least one nuclear family member in the U.S.: 85% (among unauthorized migrants: 94%)

• Had at least one relative living in U.S. prior to first migration: 91%

• Obtained most of money to finance most recent migration to U.S. from relatives or friends in U.S.: 54%

• Obtained current U.S. job in through referral from relative or friend in U.S.: 71%

• Found coyote used on most recent trip to U.S.through relative or friend in U.S.: 34%

(N=193-732)

Policy recommendations• Focus less on walling ourselves off from the rest of

the world – especially Mexico – and more on increasing the rate of return on immigration by integrating immigrants and enhancing the human capital that they bring.

• Create alternatives to emigration in sending areas (targeted development programs that create higher-paying jobs)

• Legalize most unauthorized immigrants already here, to reduce vulnerability to employer exploitation and downward pressure on wages

• Provide more legal entry opportunities for new immigrants, both high-skilled and low-skilled, temporary and permanent (reduce “manufactured illegality”)

Questions and further information:

Wayne CorneliusCenter for Comparative Immigration Studies, UCSD

Tel. 858-822-4447

wcorneli@ucsd.edu

http://www.ccis-ucsd.org