how border enforcement has reshaped mexican migration to the united states wayne a. cornelius...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
Lac
k o
f le
gal
p..
.
Wo
rk r
esp
on
sib
il..
.
Fam
ily
resp
on
sib
...
Lac
k o
f m
on
ey t
...
Lac
k o
f m
on
ey t
...
No
in
tere
st i
n r
e...
Res
po
nd
ent's
he.
..
Oth
er
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Per
cen
t
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. o
f Uni
nhab
ited
Hous
es
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 Caught
Pre-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006
0.2
.4.6
.8
Pe
rcen
t 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
0
1 0
2 03 0
4 0
5 0
6 07 0
8 0
9 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
Per
cen
t of M
igra
nts
(%
)
N o t C a u g h t
C 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
Nu
mb
er
of
Ob
se
rva
tio
ns
Crossed without Coyote
Used 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 24.5
N=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: 14.9
3. More Border Patrol agents: 13.1
4. New fences (“el muro”): 11.2
5. Mexican police: 5.9
6. National Guard: 5.0
7. 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
http://www.ccis-ucsd.org