Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

March 22, 2006

Editorial makes the economic case for a border fence

Filed under: Border Security — by Christian Beckner on March 22, 2006

The LA Times ran an editorial piece late last week by Colin Hanna, proprietor of the website weneedafence.com, making the economic case that putting a physical fence along the southern border would be a cheaper option than creating a “virtual fence” using technology and an expanded Border Patrol:

To the extent that a virtual fence could be deployed, it would require at least 150,000 border agents — four shifts of 15 patrol agents per mile plus support personnel — to effectively apprehend the illegal aliens detected by cameras, motion sensors, drones and heat sensors. This is extremely impractical and cost prohibitive; we currently have only 11,000 active border agents.

The virtual fence option would only track — not prevent — illegal immigrants from entering the country. Even if we could apprehend a great number of them, that would put into motion an expensive deportation process, with taxpayers footing the bill.

The construction of a secure physical barrier along the southern border of the U.S. is an absolutely necessary component to any truly comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The estimate of a need for 150,000 agents with a virtual fence is a bit of hyperbole, but other than that, Hanna’s logic is sound. A comprehensive US-Mexico border fence should cost somewhere around $6 billion ($3 million/mile) with competitive bidding, using the Israeli wall as a comparable project in terms of price. (It shouldn’t have to cost as much as the San Diego border fence, given that the terrain that is much more rural and flat. If it does, then something’s wrong). Let’s assume it would then require $250 million/year in maintenance.

On the other side of the balance sheet, DHS has requested $2.4 billion for “Border Security between the Points-of-Entry” in FY 2007, most of which is for the Border Patrol – a 50% increase from FY 2005. This increase follows a decision by Congress in 2004 to authorize a doubling of the size of the Border Patrol over five years; after completing this process, the Border Patrol’s budget will have increased by at least $1.7 billion/year.

But if the government built a fence, it likely would no longer have a rationale to double the size of the Border Patrol, and this $1.7 billion/year increase could be rolled back and used to offset the new costs of a fence. The Border Patrol would still be needed to interdict people trying to jump or circumvent the fence, but it would no longer require large budget increases. Netting out other relevant factors, the payback period on a border fence is therefore approx. four years.

I still have a visceral dislike of the idea of a border fence, and I think any bill that includes a comprehensive fence needs to also include some kind of temporary worker program. But I have to admit that from an fiscal perspective, it’s quite likely that a fence would be a cost-saving response to the challenge of southern border security.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

3 Comments »

411

Comment by Jimbo

March 22, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

“visceral dislike”? That’s the best you can do in regards to a proposal to build a wall reminiscent of the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall and the wall in Palestine?

It’s an embarrassment that anyone in this country would even consider building such a thing.

493

Comment by Clyde

April 3, 2006 @ 1:35 am

Why is the proposed fence only 700 miles long and “virtual” when the border is nearly 2000 miles long? We should build it, and we should build it right. And why does no one mention that the US legally immigrates more people than any other country?

Pingback by Homeland Security Watch » Blog Archive » Border security theater and the National Guard

May 15, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

[...] Overall, this proposal has all the marks of being costly and ineffective. And this analysis doesn’t even cover the issue of the National Guard already being overstretched as a result of the war in Iraq and the Guard’s disaster management responsibilities, which is also a concern. If border states want to spend their own money sending their National Guard forces to the border, fine. But the federal government shouldn’t pay for it. Instead of wasting money on stopgap measures, we should accelerate the increase in Border Patrol agents, technology investment, or what is probably the best bet strictly from a cost standpoint (although detestable for symbolic reasons), building a complete border fence. [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>