Tighter enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border backfired, researchers find

[PAF]

The rapid escalation of border enforcement over the past three decades has backfired as a strategy to control undocumented immigration between Mexico and the United States, according to new research that suggests further militarization of the border is a waste of money.


“Rather than stopping undocumented Mexicans from coming to the U.S., greater enforcement stopped them from going home,” said Douglas Massey, one of the researchers and the Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton.

Advocated by bureaucrats, politicians and pundits, the militarization of the U.S. border with Mexico transformed undocumented Mexican migration from a circular flow of predominantly male workers going to a few states into a settled population of about 11 million in all 50 states, Massey said. From 1986 to 2010, the United States spent $35 billion on border enforcement and the net rate of undocumented population growth doubled, he said.

“By the 1990s border enforcement had become a self-sustaining cycle in which rising apprehensions provided proof of the ongoing ‘illegal invasion’ to justify more resources allocated to border enforcement, which produced more apprehensions, even though the actual number of undocumented migrants seeking entry was not increasing,” Massey said.

The research is detailed in an article, “Why Border Enforcement Backfired,” that was published by the American Journal of Sociology in March. The authors are Massey, Jorge Durand of the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica in Mexico City and Karen Pren, project manager of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton’s Office of Population Research.

The research was supported by funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development as well as the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

While advocates of increased border enforcement argued it would slow undocumented immigration, Massey said data gathered from communities throughout Mexico since 1987 on histories of migration and border crossings point to the opposite effect.

“Greater enforcement raised the costs of undocumented border crossing, which required undocumented migrants to stay longer in the U.S. to make a trip profitable,” he said. “Greater enforcement also increased the risk of death and injury during border crossing. As the costs and risks rose, migrants naturally minimized border crossing — not by remaining in Mexico but by staying in the United States.”

The authors say this is a good time to shift from a policy of immigration suppression to one of immigration management.

“Mass immigration from Mexico has ended and won’t be coming back owing to the decline of Mexican fertility from 6.5 children per woman in the 1960s to around 2.2 children per woman today, roughly replacement level,” Massey said. “Labor force growth in Mexico has dropped sharply and Mexico is now becoming an aging society in which fewer and fewer people are in the migration-prone ages of 15-30, so the pressure is off in a demographic sense.”

Most migration now is legal, Massey said, a situation that will continue so long as temporary work visas are matched with U.S. labor needs.

“The greatest need now is a path to legal status for the 11 million undocumented residents who are already here, who mostly have been here now for 15 years or more and increasingly have U.S. citizen children,” he said. “If we were to grant these people permanent legal status, many would actually return home, secure in the knowledge they could re-enter whenever they want.”

Mary Waters, the M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology at Harvard University who studies immigration, said the research highlights the folly and waste of American immigration policy.


“This is a very important article that looks at a long sweep of history and provides the very best data and analysis to lead to a conclusion that most Americans would find very counter-intuitive,” said Waters, who wasn’t involved in the research. “Throwing money at militarizing the border led to the growth of undocumented immigration and if we had just done nothing, undocumented immigration would be much lower.”


Waters said policymakers should pay attention to this research.


“This is social science research at its very best — addressing an important public policy question with state of the art methods and painstakingly collected empirical data,” Waters said.



https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/04/20/tighter-enforcement-along-us-mexico-border-backfired-researchers-find

[PAF]

This Current Administrations Target: Central America.

[Zippyjuan]

As I have said before, immigrants used to come for seasonal work, get some money, and go back home. Then the border got tougher to cross. Coming back became harder. So once they crossed the first time, they stayed and instead of going home, sent the money instead. But they missed their families so they started trying to bring them across to live with them here. That led to more illegal immigrants staying in the US instead of just coming short term. The tighter border increased the number of people living in the US illegally- the opposite of the intention.

[spudea]

I'm not convinced. There are a multitude of factors that are not being considered. Such as the growth of banking technology and low cost money transfers, they can just wire the funds back home instead of risking another journey across the border. Hmm or you know Mexico is such a great place to return home to with the cartel death squads and corrupt government, no wonder they stay in USA.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

The border is not even close to secure and border security works.

[PAF]

I'm not convinced. There are a multitude of factors that are not being considered. Such as the growth of banking technology and low cost money transfers, they can just wire the funds back home instead of risking another journey across the border. Hmm or you know Mexico is such a great place to return home to with the cartel death squads and corrupt government, no wonder they stay in USA.

Drug/Gun running courtesy of U.S. Gubermint? Also, aren't we working to decriminalizing drugs?

.gov is ALWAYS the problem. I don't want or trust them to fix any of the problems they created, all it is is a control/profit machine at peoples expense.

[PAF]

LOL

The border is not even close to secure and border security works.

Please provide a detailed study/source of data that backs up your claim.

You should know me by now, Swordy, I need hard data or I completely ignore it.

[Origanalist]

Drug/Gun running courtesy of U.S. Gubermint? Also, aren't we working to decriminalizing drugs?

.gov is ALWAYS the problem. I don't want or trust them to fix any of the problems they created, all it is is a control/profit machine at peoples expense.

Yep, let's get the wolf to guard the hen house. What could go wrong?

[Danke]

Please provide a detailed study/source of data that backs up your claim.

You should know me by now, Swordy, I need hard data or I completely ignore it.

Hungary? Israel? Only East Germany? etc. etc.

[PAF]

Hungary? Israel? Only East Germany? etc. etc.

For militarized police states, sure, let's emulate other countries. Why have them "hate us for our freedoms" when we can do that ourselves.

Do something Danke!

[Swordsmyth]

Please provide a detailed study/source of data that backs up your claim.

You should know me by now, Swordy, I need hard data or I completely ignore it.
Yale study finds illegal migrant numbers twice the accepted norm of 11 million (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526703-Yale-study-finds-illegal-migrant-numbers-twice-the-accepted-norm-of-11-million)

[Danke]

For militarized police states, sure, let's emulate other countries. Why have them "hate us for our freedoms" when we can do that ourselves.

Do something Danke!

¥ou asked, I provided, asshole. "Please provide a detailed study/source of data that backs up your claim."

[jmdrake]

LOL

The border is not even close to secure and border security works.

You know you just contradicted yourself right? No...I guess you don't. The point of the article isn't that border security doesn't work but rather the way it works is causing the unintended consequence that illegal immigrants choosing to stay rather than leave and risk not being let back in. So saying "border security works" actually fits the narrative that you are trying to debunk. Now maybe you mean "border security would work....if the border was secure." The problem with that logic is that much of Trump's border wall was actually built back in 2006. (I know you're against the border wall and simultaneously for it but since I've never seen you articulate what you mean by "border security" that's all I have to work from.) Trump is NOT going to put a fence along the entire border. He even said so. So...best case scenario...you will always have some place where people can cross without a wall.

[oyarde]

I can find lots of places to pick a spot and walk across . So , I dunno about it .

[jmdrake]

Yale study finds illegal migrant numbers twice the accepted norm of 11 million (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526703-Yale-study-finds-illegal-migrant-numbers-twice-the-accepted-norm-of-11-million)

That doesn't back up your claim that border security works. And the OP article claim is that the border enforcement is backfiring. Since we have spent billions building border fence already, one would expect, if the OP article is right, for there to be more illegal immigrants, just as your source shows.

[Swordsmyth]

You know you just contradicted yourself right? No...I guess you don't. The point of the article isn't that border security doesn't work but rather the way it works is causing the unintended consequence that illegal immigrants choosing to stay rather than leave and risk not being let back in. So saying "border security works" actually fits the narrative that you are trying to debunk. Now maybe you mean "border security would work....if the border was secure." The problem with that logic is that much of Trump's border wall was actually built back in 2006. (I know you're against the border wall and simultaneously for it but since I've never seen you articulate what you mean by "border security" that's all I have to work from.) Trump is NOT going to put a fence along the entire border. He even said so. So...best case scenario...you will always have some place where people can cross without a wall.
I said that we didn't have border security and that border security (which we don't have) works in countries that have it.

I have said many times how I would secure the border, I would bring home the troops and/or increase the BP and massively increase the patrols on the borders.

[Swordsmyth]

That doesn't back up your claim that border security works. And the OP article claim is that the border enforcement is backfiring. Since we have spent billions building border fence already, one would expect, if the OP article is right, for there to be more illegal immigrants, just as your source shows.
It back up my claim that the border is nowhere near secure, Danke already provided examples of border security working. (there are many more throughout history)

[PAF]

I said that we didn't have border security and that border security (which we don't have) works in countries that have it.

I have said many times how I would secure the border, I would bring home the troops and/or increase the BP and massively increase the patrols on the borders.

Police state.

There are many ways to secure a border other than walls, border patrol/police state. Listen to RP's excellent insight, advocate that position, help convince others and maybe we can get a handle on things that would promote freedom and fiscal responsibility.

Unless you hate us for our freedoms. And like to burn my hard-earned money.

[Zippyjuan]

Yale study finds illegal migrant numbers twice the accepted norm of 11 million (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526703-Yale-study-finds-illegal-migrant-numbers-twice-the-accepted-norm-of-11-million)

Don't forget that the study indicated that crime rates for illegal immigrants were significantly lower than other research according to their study as well as the immigrants having a smaller impact on jobs. When you posted that study before and I pointed that out you then declared their data fake- yet you are still posting it?

[Swordsmyth]

Police state.

There are many ways to secure a border other than walls, border patrol/police state. Listen to RP's excellent insight, advocate that position, help convince others and maybe we can get a handle on things that would promote freedom and fiscal responsibility.

Unless you hate us for our freedoms. And like to burn my hard-earned money.
You can't secure the border without some active measures because you can't and shouldn't eliminate the natural incentives.
If you don't secure the borders you will be overwhelmed with those who come for the wealth and believe in using government to take it and liberty will die.

[jmdrake]

It back up my claim that the border is nowhere near secure, Danke already provided examples of border security working. (there are many more throughout history)

No you didn't. The OP article made the claim that tighter border enforcement was causing the unintended consequence of a greater number of illegal immigrants. And you posted an article showing a greater number of illegal immigrants. Logic is not your strong point.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't forget that the study indicated that crime rates for illegal immigrants were significantly lower than other research according to their study as well as the immigrants having a smaller impact on jobs. When you posted that study before and I pointed that out you then declared their data fake- yet you are still posting it?
It is fake on the soft side as I keep telling you, it also claimed that many illegal immigrants left during the financial crisis which kind of puts a hole in the theory that they don't leave because of border security, the border isn't secure and border security doesn't concentrate on people leaving.

[Swordsmyth]

No you didn't. The OP article made the claim that tighter border enforcement was causing the unintended consequence of a greater number of illegal immigrants. And you posted an article showing a greater number of illegal immigrants. Logic is not your strong point.
I was asked for proof that the border was nowhere near secure and that proves it, if you go there it even claims that many illegals left during the financial crisis which proves that the pitiful border security we have doesn't keep them here.

[Zippyjuan]

It is fake on the soft side as I keep telling you, it also claimed that many illegal immigrants left during the financial crisis which kind of puts a hole in the theory that they don't leave because of border security, the border isn't secure and border security doesn't concentrate on people leaving.

It claimed no change in the number of people in the country illegally over at least the last ten years. That means no crisis of people flooding into the US. Yet you keep trying to cite them? To disprove your own point?

From one of the authors:


“It’s not that we have zillions of people pouring across the border. If you actually look at the figures, you’ll see that the number has actually been flat for the last 10 years.”

[jmdrake]

I was asked for proof that the border was nowhere near secure and that proves it

No it most certainly does not prove that. What you apparently can't seem to grasp from the OP article.

While advocates of increased border enforcement argued it would slow undocumented immigration, Massey said data gathered from communities throughout Mexico since 1987 on histories of migration and border crossings point to the opposite effect.

The "opposite effect" of "slowing undocumented immigration" is "increasing undocumented immigration."

[Swordsmyth]

It claimed no change in the number of people in the country illegally over at least the last ten years. That means no crisis of people flooding into the US. Yet you keep trying to cite them? To disprove your own point?

From one of the authors:
The whole point is that they finally had to admit to lying all this time about how many were here on the short side, why should we believe them that no new illegals are coming when we have plenty of evidence that they are?

[PAF]

You can't secure the border without some active measures because you can't and shouldn't eliminate the natural incentives.
If you don't secure the borders you will be overwhelmed with those who come for the wealth and believe in using government to take it and liberty will die.

One of the key objectives to liberty/freedom is to take a step back, remain calm, seek ways to achieve liberty/freedom from an individual standpoint (Agorist), and then reaching out to others to advocate the same.

Here are some examples:

Dog licenses are "mandated". Scratch that off.
Burning permits are "mandated". Scratch that off.
Registering the bike is "mandated". Scratch that off.
Building deck and other permits are "mandated". Scratch that off.
etc.
etc.

Because some do not believe in paying strangers extortion money just to say "ok I allow you".

And then the neighbors do the same. And then down the street. So on and so forth.

This way liberty doesn't die.

[Swordsmyth]

No it most certainly does not prove that. What you apparently can't seem to grasp from the OP article.
20+ MILLION invaders is absolute proof that the borders are not secure.




While advocates of increased border enforcement argued it would slow undocumented immigration, Massey said data gathered from communities throughout Mexico since 1987 on histories of migration and border crossings point to the opposite effect.

The "opposite effect" of "slowing undocumented immigration" is "increasing undocumented immigration."
That is garbage, we don't have border security and real border security works.

[Zippyjuan]

The whole point is that they finally had to admit to lying all this time about how many were here on the short side, why should we believe them that no new illegals are coming when we have plenty of evidence that they are?

They don't admit to any lying- you do. Zero change means same amounts leaving as coming. No crisis. But we need to scare people so we can get a bigger government to try to solve the problem.

[Swordsmyth]

One of the key objectives to liberty/freedom is to take a step back, remain calm, seek ways to achieve liberty/freedom from an individual standpoint (Agorist), and then reaching out to others to advocate the same.

Here are some examples:

Dog licenses are "mandated". Scratch that off.
Burning permits are "mandated". Scratch that off.
Registering the bike is "mandated". Scratch that off.
Building deck and other permits are mandated. Scratch that off.
etc.
etc.

Because some do not believe in paying strangers extortion money just to say "ok I allow you".

And then then neighbors do the same. And then down the street. So on and so forth.

This way liberty doesn't die.
That's nice.

The invaders don't share your beliefs and they will impose big government on you.

[Swordsmyth]

They don't admit to any lying- you do. Zero change means same amounts leaving as coming. No crisis. But we need to scare people so we can get a bigger government to try to solve the problem.
For years everyone told us there were only 11 Million and now they admit that there are 22 Million and that before the financial crisis there were even more, that is admitting to lying about the numbers for years.

We have plenty of evidence that millions more invaders come in every year so we know they are lying about the zero change.

[jmdrake]

20+ MILLION invaders is absolute proof that the borders are not secure.

No it isn't. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/22/visa-overstays-biggest-problem-illegal-immigration/


That is garbage, we don't have border security and real border security works.

So in other words you are simply rejecting the study out of hand without considering whether it is correct or not. Okay. But you still haven't proven anything.

[Origanalist]

That's nice.

The invaders don't share your beliefs and they will impose big government on you.

So what you're saying is illegals always follow the rules and insist you do too? ROFL

[PAF]

That's nice.

The invaders don't share your beliefs and they will impose big government on you.

Au contraire.


The problem is, most Americans, even todays "republicans", can't freaking stand others not paying their "fair share". That is why they want "documented" immigrants. That is why they complain that people who slip under the radar are "corrupt".

It is nothing but a "see something say something" society, where even "republicans" are sticking their noses into everybody else's business. Hell, they even advocate "government Eminent Domain" which was NEVER a Republican platform yesteryear. And "criminalizing" employers for hiring "undocumented" immigrants? What ever happened to Contract Rights between employer and employee? What's next, will republicans promote minimum wage in 2024?

See how far off the beaten path we've become?

[Swordsmyth]

So what you're saying is illegals always follow the rules and insist you do too? ROFL
No, like all communists they break the rules and try to make everyone else be forced to follow them.

Look at Mexico's immigration laws.

[Swordsmyth]

Au contraire.


The problem is, most Americans, even todays "republicans", can't freaking stand others not paying their "fair share". That is why they want "documented" immigrants. That is why they complain that people who slip under the radar are "corrupt".

It is nothing but a "see something say something" society, where even "republicans" are sticking their noses into everybody else's business. Hell, they even advocate "government Eminent Domain" which was NEVER a Republican platform yesteryear. And "criminalizing" employers for hiring "undocumented" immigrants? What ever happened to Contract Rights between employer and employee? What's next, will republicans promote minimum wage in 2024?

See how far off the beaten path we've become?
And the invaders vote for the people who will take us so far off the path that we will fall off a cliff.

[PAF]

And the invaders vote for the people who will take us so far off the path that we will fall off a cliff.


Yet you advocate eminent domain, or at least don’t have a problem with it. I have not seen you once come to the defense of people’s private property at stake. Where is the outrage?

Oh, and see my sig.

[Swordsmyth]

Yet you advocate eminent domain, or at least don’t have a problem with it. I have not seen you once come to the defense of people’s private property at stake. Where is the outrage?

Oh, and see my sig.

I have objected to eminent domain many times and I would not choose a wall if I had the choice because of it but eminent domain at the border for the purpose of border security is one of the few cases where it is arguable.

Are you under the impression that the people the invaders vote for are against eminent domain or that it will be eliminated in the communist regime they will impose?

[PAF]

I have objected to eminent domain many times and I would not choose a wall if I had the choice because of it but eminent domain at the border for the purpose of border security is one of the few cases where it is arguable.

Are you under the impression that the people the invaders vote for are against eminent domain or that it will be eliminated in the communist regime they will impose?

I can’t and won’t speak for other people, I have no idea. I know that MIC, pharmaceutical and other lobbyists control both sides of the isle, the people are never told the truth about any of their objectives, and they really don’t care about whether the people are immigrants or citizens.

This wall business, and I’m certain RP understands this, is a way to desensitize the people for a great cause (security!) to forfeit property rights, force labor “fairness”, and get more people to fund the Fed, to make way for more security/surveillance apparatus down the road. It’s a tough pill but we’ve been down this path many times before.

Get government out of the way, let the free market solve the problem. That is what we must do.

[Swordsmyth]

I can’t and won’t speak for other people, I have no idea. I know that MIC, pharmaceutical and other lobbyists control both sides of the isle, the people are never told the truth about any of their objectives, and they really don’t care about whether the people are immigrants or citizens.

This wall business, and I’m certain RP understands this, is a way to desensitize the people for a great cause (security!) to forfeit property rights, force labor “fairness”, and get more people to fund the Fed, to make way for more security/surveillance apparatus down the road. It’s a tough pill but we’ve been down this path many times before.

Get government out of the way, let the free market solve the problem. That is what we must do.
They desensitized people to eminent domain long ago.
It was already a dead issue when they drove a stake through its heart:

"Little Pink House," the Susette Kelo story (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521369-quot-Little-Pink-House-quot-the-Susette-Kelo-story-new-movie)

[enhanced_deficit]

Media never gives MAGA credit for anything, he has also shown big heart and loves Mexican people. That even angered his base:

https://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/amdon.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtRe5cGXQAE444b.jpg
Jared Kushner, Trump and his daughter Ivanka after Kushner received highest award Mexico gives to foreigners, Order of the Aztec Eagle, from Pena Nieto.
30 Nov 2018

[jmdrake]

Media never gives MAGA credit for anything, he has also shown big heart and loves Mexican people. That even angered his base:

https://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/amdon.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtRe5cGXQAE444b.jpg
Jared Kushner, Trump and his daughter Ivanka after Kushner received highest award Mexico gives to foreigners, Order of the Aztec Eagle, from Pena Nieto.
30 Nov 2018

LOL. Some might not click on the links.

https://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/amdon.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtRe5cGXQAE444b.jpg

It's going to be really funny when Trump's base figures out he's betrayed them. He's not the man many think he is. In fact I think I could like him but for (some) of his supporters.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL. Some might not click on the links.

https://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/amdon.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtRe5cGXQAE444b.jpg

It's going to be really funny when Trump's base figures out he's betrayed them. He's not the man many think he is. In fact I think I could like him but for (some) of his supporters.
DACA didn't happen and it isn't going to.

[enhanced_deficit]

Also, there is no proof that his tweets caused the border rush and emergency as some had suggested few months back during MAGA's bipartisan summit with Democrats.

[brushfire]

Unintended consequences... Be thankful you dont get the government you pay for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnicMKKSReY

[jmdrake]

DACA didn't happen and it isn't going to.

And what will you do if/when it does happen?

[Swordsmyth]

And what will you do if/when it does happen?
Condemn it loudly, just as I did the bumpstock ban.
I will also place it on the negative side of the scale when deciding whether to vote for Trump in 2020.

[jmdrake]

Unintended consequences... Be thankful you dont get the government you pay for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnicMKKSReY

3:25 "We're not on the border. We're in America." Yeah right!