Event Summary	Events > Event Announcement > Event Summary

On October 2, 2003, MPI hosted a Breakfast Briefing with Wayne Cornelius, Gildred Professor of Political Science and U.S.-Mexican Relations and Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California-San Diego. Dr. Cornelius presented an evaluation of the U.S. immigration control strategies of the past ten years, with an emphasis on the intended and unintended consequences of the approaches and the expectations for the future of immigration control.

He concluded that the enhanced border enforcement efforts which began in 1993, as demonstrated by a tripling of expenses and personnel on the border, have led to a redistribution of crossing points toward more remote areas, more permanent settlement of illegal immigrants in the United States, an increase in the costs of illegal entry and in deaths at the border by people attempting to immigrate, and a increase in anti-immigrant vigilante activities along the border.

Presentation
Dr. Cornelius began his presentation of data, graphics, and imagery slides by demonstrating the tripling of government spending on border enforcement over the past decade, to the point where the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s FY 2003 budget had reached $6.3 billion. Technological upgrades at the border have included stadium lighting, video surveillance, seismic and magnetic sensors, infrared night scopes, and thermal imaging. Despite this increase in resources, he questioned whether the enhanced border enforcement strategy has deterred unauthorized migration at the point of origin or whether it has decreased access to US jobs. He concluded that it has not.

To support his argument, Dr. Cornelius provided apprehension data that do not indicate an overall decrease in numbers. He also cited various estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States in 2000, which range from 7 million (INS estimate) to 8.5 million (Urban Institute estimate). Regardless of the exact number, these figures represent a significant increase in the illegal immigrant population during the 1990s, particularly the late 1990s. He suggested that data on “egregious recidivists” (those who have been apprehended numerous times) could help measure the effectiveness of the border-focused strategy, but these records have not been released to independent researchers.

Dr. Cornelius then posed the question of how to reconcile declining apprehension numbers in certain Border Patrol sectors with an overall increase in the undocumented population in the United States. One possible answer, according to Mexico survey data, is a reduction in circular migration, as the illegals who do manage to enter the United States stay longer than they did in the past because the risks and costs of going back and forth have increased so greatly. In addition, although apprehensions have declined along the traditional crossing points, they have increased in other sectors along the Southwest border during the same time period. Dr. Cornelius demonstrated how the enhanced border enforcement, in an attempt to prevent migration through a strategy of deterrence, has shifted illegal entry attempts away from urban areas and long-time crossing points (such as San Diego and El Paso) to new and more remote crossings (especially in the Arizona desert). Moreover, it seems to have led to an increased demand for smugglers, as the average coyote fee has tripled since 1993 to approximately $1,500.

The harsher crossing points, combined with better record-keeping, appear to have led to more deaths at the border. Over 2,700 migrants have died since 1993; current data reflect approximately one death at the border per day. Generally the deaths are caused by exposure to intense heat and severe cold, depending upon the season and the topography. The greatest percentage increase in deaths at the border has been in Arizona, reflecting the trend described above.

Before concluding with policy alternatives, Dr. Cornelius briefly analyzed the lateral repatriation pilot program that ran from September 8 – 23, 2003. In this program, apprehended migrants were flown from the point of capture (mostly in Arizona) to border communities in Texas to be repatriated. The Administration stated that it initiated the program to save lives. Specifically, it aimed to facilitate migrant returns while decreasing the incentives and ability to locate a smuggler and cross again. Dr. Cornelius expressed disappointment with the program, arguing that the majority of the repatriated migrants returned to Arizona anyway to reconnect with their contacts for another attempt at illegal entry.

Finally, Dr. Cornelius outlined what he views as the range of alternative policy options. Describing the four as bleak, he said they are:

1) a return to pre-1993 border operations dismantling the strategies that have been implemented over the past ten years
2) an extension of the current methods across the entire Southwest border
3) an increase in workplace enforcement to deter illegal entry
4) serious sending area development to create alternatives to emigration.

Dr. Cornelius said he believes that the first three are completely unviable politically and the fourth is a longer-term vision that would require commitment and resources. He added that border enforcement is empty without accompanying worksite enforcement and noted there were only about 300 agents doing worksite inspections last year compared to 9,500 Border Patrol agents.

Question and Answer
In the question and answer session, Dr. Cornelius focused on the idea of stimulating development in Mexico as a means to stem the flow of illegal Mexican migration to the US. He suggested possible coordination with state governments in Mexico as an alternative to working through the federal bureaucracy to stimulate movement on the issues. He noted that some migrants would opt to remain in Mexico if there were viable employment opportunities.

Dr. Cornelius also discussed the short-term options for decreasing illegal immigration to the United States. He emphasized the need for an increase in legal entry options for intending immigrants and argued that any temporary worker program must extend opportunities beyond the agricultural sector.