Gaps in the Border Wall

Republicans are promising to complete a wall along the southern border, but doing so isn’t so simple.

By
32
Migrants attempt to climb over the border wall from Mexicali, Mexico, to Calexico, California, on, May 13, 2023. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

McALLEN, Texas—Republican presidential candidates are vowing to finish former President Donald Trump’s long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But a host of issues—including securing land and navigating difficult terrain—makes it much more complicated than campaign promises make it sound.

The farther west you go along the southern border’s nearly 2,000 miles, the more likely you’ll encounter physical border barriers. Around 565—28 percent—of those 2,000 miles are on federal property, mostly in California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

But it’s different in Texas. 

There, private citizens hold the deeds to thousands of parcels along the Rio Grande, which comprises the U.S.-Mexico border in most places. Treaty provisions (a 1970 U.S.-Mexico treaty prevents barriers from obstructing the flow of the Rio Grande), tribal land, floodplains, and environmental habitats restrict where physical barriers can go. In the Rio Grande Valley, barriers often stand anywhere from 50 feet to a mile away from the river. 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
32
By
Comments (32)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Rossknode

    The whole "They're taking jobs from Americans" argument is ridiculous. I'm in Dallas, it's 100 degrees all this week and the roofing, landscape, and lawn mowing crews are all still out, busting their butts. And no surprise, they all speak Spanish amongst themselves. Pretty sure almost all are immigrants. What US born person wants, or will take a job that is manual labor outside in 100 degrees? Pretty sure very few. Mexicans and Central Americans are not coming here taking high paying, sought after jobs. They are taking brutal jobs no one wants to do.

    Collapse
  2. Token Liberal

    My impression is that currently most illegal crossings are done at official entry points where the immigrants immediately surrender to US aurlthorities and request asylum, and are then paroled into the US pending their hearing date, years in the future. A wall might help, but it alone won't solve the problem.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    JohnM.

    Very informative work, Harvest. I knew there was more to it, and now I know just how much more. Thank you.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    I think a physical barrier is needed, to the fullest extent possible. I’d go eminent domain in Texas and wherever else is needed. there is no other way. I’ve lived near the border most of my life, but never seen the thousands walking here every year for several years now.

    But a physical barrier is the cheapest and easiest component of securing the Southern border. 24/7/365 monitoring electronically and physically. Underground scans for tunnels and cementing them. Lawyers and judges for quick adjudication of legal asylum seekers who’ve applied first in their home country. The Sheer amount of tech/electronics and manpower is enormous— and won’t go down in cost.

    And, please, address visa overstays. Every other Western country has figured this out.

    It’s defense, so comes from the DOD budget.

    Collapse
  5. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    I don't have any problems with building the wall, but in most places, it is a waste of money. A wall is very useful in urban areas and worth the money there, not so much in remote areas. Most of illegal immigration is by overstaying a student or tourist visa or abuse of the asylum system. If you build a better wall in remote areas the coyotes will just shift into helping migrants get visas that they do not legally qualify for. They will fly right over the wall or drive through the checkpoint.

    The only way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is through comprehensive immigration reform. Primarily we need a way for some controlled number of economic migrants to apply for resident visas. Preference should be given to those that 1) speak the best English; and 2) are in the most impoverished countries.

    Collapse
  6. Brocka121

    Drones & infrared cameras & manpower to catch what is seen

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    PC Albright

    Important details is that the Trump administration constructed less than 100miles of new fence (far less than Bush2). It is also worth reminding everyone that Mexico paid for none of it.

    Snarkiness aside, the issue is border protection,for which barriers are just one thing in the toolkit. Border protection is a systems engineering problem (which CBP is ill equipped to address). In some areas of the border that are largely unpopulated what makes the most sense is a suite of sensors combined with adequate placement (and numbers) of response personnel to arrest illegals before they have entered the general population. Barriers here can perhaps slow down penetration into the US, and hence can mitigate the amount of resources needed for response, but in general the cost/benefit doesn't compute. In other areas of the border, one they are across they can melt into the population so barriers (again coupled with adequate response resources) make sense and are in fact mandatory. Much of the Bush deployments had that thinking in mind. What is desperately needed here is (as I said) some good systems engineering.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      The other thing that I like about this approach is that in the unpopulated areas, a wall won't be built that hinders the movements of wildlife. In populated areas, that movement is already hindered, so go ahead and build a wall. Seems like a common sense approach to border protection that also is kinder on the natural world.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    Some ideas just won't die. They sound good at first, but further exploration reveal serious problems and shortcomings that lead to them being abandoned. Most people never get beyond step 1, though, and the idea ends up being resurrected and re-proposed again and again. High speed rails falls into this category, and so does the border wall.

    It's certainly possible to resolve the land rights issues and build a wall that also overcomes the geographical problems. It'll probably provide some level of deterrence, but not much given the number of ways that human smugglers and migrants have already figured out to bypass existing barriers. So, you've got to ask the question of whether it's worth it? It doesn't even have to be a question of all or nothing - maybe you build sections of wall in high traffic areas as around San Diego. However, it's no panacea and the cost/benefit ratio is highly questionable. Unfortunately, now it's become something of an emotional issue as well - MAGA wants it for the symbolism and because the left opposes it. The left hates it because it's something that Trump and MAGA want. Well done, all.

    Collapse
  9. RaoD

    Turning an issue — any issue this large — into a wedge issue inevitably spells its doom. US is split nearly evenly on every such issue: wall, entitlements, “religious freedom”, abortion. You name it. Both parties cynically exploit this divide. I must say at this moment in our politics GOP is doing the gaslighting — blame rests with them (this from a life-long GOP guy).

    I think US should control migration from south. Border wall can be an important piece of such a strategy; it should not be the only piece we focus on. It takes both parties to come together and lay out a comprehensive strategy. I don’t see that happening until two inevitable eventualities hit both parties. GOP will have to realize that you simply can’t build big beautiful border wall using executive orders unless they are willing to declare some kind of emergency involving suspension of property rights and environmental laws. Democrats will have to realize that South and Central American immigrants are not necessarily reliable vote banks; I think this vote calculus is driving Democrats’ open border stuff. I’m deeply disappointed with some of the religious institutions that can help resolve this human tragedy.

    Collapse
  10. Vermin8

    " But a host of issues—including securing land..." The irony of this is that the GOP was the advocate of the small landowner via Kelo vs. New London. The GOP response would be that there was not a clear public need for the land in New London but the southern border is a bona fide national emergency. My counter response is that even if we do acknowledge an emergency, like New London city officials, the advocates of wall have not thought out all of the issues associated with the wall, primarily will the wall substantially alleviate the problem.
    John Kelly as DHS said it would not, that they needed people and equipment. And then there are planning engineering issues, eg, if the wall is not stable then it's not staying up and then it's no good at all.
    Do the planning and identify a viable alignment for border structures (which may or may not need to be a wall). Do the engineering while working with the property owners - but don't seize yet because geotechnical surveys may render a planning solution not viable.
    At this time, the wall is nothing but symbolism and an expensive symbol at that.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      "The irony of this is that the GOP was the advocate of the small landowner via Kelo vs. New London."

      Aside from one Donald J. Trump, this claim is simply not true:
      https://reason.com/2016/07/20/republican-platform-denounces-kelo-the-e/

      Collapse
      1. Vermin8

        I'm not sure why you say my statement is untrue. The GOP platform denounced the Kelo decision and thus stood up for the small landowner.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JohnM.

          I blew it. I'm sorry.

          Collapse
Load More