If We Build It, Will People Stop Paying Attention?

I think the idea of building a giant wall across our southern border doesn't make very much sense. For one thing, I simply disagree with those who think we have a serious "too many Mexicans" problem in this country. Insofar as we do have a "too much lawlessness" problem related to the large number of illegal immigrants living here, I favor some form of "earned amnesty" as the most humane and economically reasonable method of regularizing the situation. Insofar as one is interested in seriously reducing the number of illegal immigrants, the thing that's needed is not a physical barrier but a well-designed system of employer penalties. People are coming here to get jobs, and if you can make it so employers don't want to offer the jobs to illegals, people will stop coming illegally.

Meanwhile, a wall is very unlikely to be effective. The country has a coastline, people overstay visas, you can hide people in the back of trucks, etc. People build walled borders to keep their citizens locked in, not as a method of immigration control. Meanwhile, the expense will be huge -- this is a very large wall indeed that we're talking about. On the other hand, like Tyler Cowen I can't help but wonder if a large, ineffective wall might be the best possible outcome for pro-immigration people at this point. It wouldn't really work, but it would sharply diminish political pressure to "do something" about immigration. Meanwhile, as a liberal I don't really have a problem with the idea of an enormous wasteful construction project. It's like a WPA-style jobs programs. And, of course, all the building trades work just north of the border will probably attract a lot of immigrants.

Comments

Look on the bright side, Matt. This wall will be a boon to the small watercraft industry in the U.S. and Mexico. The minuteman militia will finally disappear from CNN. And we'll keep those pesky jaguars at bay.

Posted by Murph | October 11, 2006 9:40 AM

I bet they'd need to use undocumented immigrants to build the wall. No, seriously, how on earth do you run a giant construction project on the southern borders of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas _without_ hiring illegal immigrants? And if they don't hire them, they will displace documented workers from other construction projects nearby, creating openings for the undocumented.

What a joke.

Posted by neil | October 11, 2006 9:44 AM

Maybe your remarks at the end of the post comparing this to WPA-style jobs programs were tongue-in-cheek. But as you know, the big difference between WPA-style jobs programs and this boondoggle is that the Works Progress Administration actually worked to improve America's infrastructure. I don't think useless fences were a part of that program.

Posted by Adam Durand | October 11, 2006 9:58 AM

Entschuldigen zie, bitte! I somehow overlooked your linked reference to the Berlin Wall. However, unlike the Wall, my complaint against your lame photo still stands.

Walls don't make good neighbors (as a more careful reading of Frost would indicate), and besides not being cost effective as a national barriers, they also may have unintended negative consequences, as in the case of sea walls and coastal erosion. This proposed wall won't likely stem the flow of illegals, since many enter with forged documents through customs, but it may impede the return of the jaguar to the US.

Posted by Bragan | October 11, 2006 9:59 AM

The wall idea is also classically asymmetrical. The cost of the wall is significantly higher than the cost to defeat the wall. In other words, it might cost $1,000,000 to build a wall, but only a few thousand for coyotes to invest in ladders to climb over the wall. The cost of making ladder-proof walls would elevate the cost even higher, but the cost of defeating any additional barrier is substantially less than the barrier itself.

Now we only need to make the cost of crossing the wall higher (on average) than the per capita net benefit of coming to the U.S.A. illegally. But coming to America is clearly VERY valuable, and the cost of keeping someone out is a huge multiple of the cost to that person to find a way around or over the wall. In the end, there is no way that an actually effective wall isn't going to cost the U.S. a ridiculous fortune--far more than the cost of simply assimilating the immigrants.

Posted by RWB | October 11, 2006 10:00 AM

A giant wall is a disgusting symbol. It says: We are unclever and paranoid.

Posted by Patrick | October 11, 2006 10:12 AM

Meanwhile, as a liberal I don't really have a problem with the idea of an enormous wasteful construction project.

Must you?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 11, 2006 10:13 AM

Well, the wall is a classic Republican program--it's not supposed to actually work; it's supposed to appease members of the party's base, securing a domestic poltical advantage.

See, e. g., tax cuts, faith-based initiative, homeland security, drug prescription benefits, etc., etc.--not to mention Iraq . . .

Posted by rea | October 11, 2006 10:17 AM

Agree with the post and all the above, except to add even more to it. A wall does no good unless you guard it and maintain it. So even *if* the wall can be built for less than who-knows-how-many billions, Many billions more will have to spent on the guards and other administrata. Not just the salaries, but really in the near--or actual--building of new towns. Guards are people. People have families. They need utilities, water, hospitals, schools, roads, radio stations, homes, grocery stores, etc., etc. I am from Arizona and have been through southern CA, AZ, NM, and TX many times. Believe me, there ain't much going on there right now and the region couldn't begin to handle a construction project like this--much less an influx of millions of new permanent residents.

So no, of course it won't work. Or, at least, American business better hope it doesn't. What is so sad is that the problem, as Matt mentions, could almost entirely be handled with better legislation. On one hand, guest-worker legislation that approaches something sensible. On the other, truly sanction employers who violate the law. But our Congress has no intention of doing so. It's too hard for them to figure out. So they "fix" the problem by building a wall because they can wrap their head around that one.

And, just to be a pest, we were attacked on 9/11 by Saudis and Pakastanis that came through our pourous _Canadian_ border. But our Army is in Iraq and the National Guard has been sent to Mexico. Now the wall. It's mind-numbing.

Posted by Travis | October 11, 2006 10:19 AM

While it would reduce pressure somewhat, I'm skeptical that it would really have that much of an effect on pressure to "do something". That's driven by people seeing brown people on the nightly news, or street corner, or otherwise in their daily lives, and that's not going to change.

Posted by ptm | October 11, 2006 10:26 AM

Matt, you're crazy. Your position gets it all wrong. We must be concerned about illegal immigration from a progressive viewpoint, because illegal immigration depresses the wages of those at the bottom (there are tons of empirical studies on this point -- Kevin Drum has cited them in the past). I'm sick and tired of the "illegal immigrants do work Americans won't do" when the reason they won't do it is that illegal immigrants are willing and able to do it for very little -- often because they are off the books (yes, there are some illegals who pay taxes, but most do not, and more importantly most employers don't pay employment taxes on them). The whole wall/no wall argument misses the point. We should have strong policies against companies hiring illegal immigrants, and punish them when we do. If jobs aren't available for illegals, then they will not come. Earned amnesty, or any other amnesty, simply encourages more illegal immigration. Considering how much of a problem poverty remains in many places in this country, the last thing we should be doing is enabling more people to come in to compete for unskilled jobs.

Posted by Darren | October 11, 2006 10:37 AM

Nice picture! Who ever could oppose a wall if it looks like that? Which side is Mexico?

Seriously, though, I do disagree with the idea that a wall will be ineffective. If other methods of entering the US were as easy as simply walking across an unwalled border, illegals would already be using them. By making it marginally more difficult, we will have a marginal effect on illegal immigration. The extent of the effect on illegal immigration is unclear, of course, but my suspicion is that it will be great enough to be felt - more than random noise.

Yes, employer sanctions would probably be more effective. But it is likely that they would have a greater downside (in terms of harming the economy) than building a wall, which is the reason that we aren't using them now. That's not to say that Matthew isn't correct that the good of using employer sanction outwieghs the harm.

The important thing is to simultaneously increase the number of legal immigrants as we decrease the number of illegal immigrants, so that we have a steady supply of cheap labor. The worst thing to do would be to ONLY decrease illegal immigration - since that would surely drive up labor costs.

Posted by Al | October 11, 2006 10:38 AM

Symbolically a wall is abhorrent. Practically a wall is ineffective.

Employer sanctions are not the answer. Living in Southern California, a high proportion of illegals are employed in off the books jobs like childcare and lawn maintenance.

As the owner of a small business I am already swimming in a sea of overburdensome regulations and unresponsive government. The political infrastructure in Los Angeles County and California, where I do business, is seriously broken (along with the schools). It isn't the fault of illegal immigration or immigration. If you got rid of all the immigrants, then you'd eliminate the scapegoat, and you'd still have a broken system.

Try running a small business before you start foisting responsibility for solving society's problems like illegal immigration and health care off on business owners. It's easy to look at business as big, faceless, corporations. Much of American business is small business. Small shop owners are the least equipped to be immigrant police; they can barely eke by and are overwhelmed by stupid regulatory requirements. (I have nothing against reasonable regulation but if you understood my business you'd know what I meant by "stupid" requirements).

Posted by Sherry | October 11, 2006 11:03 AM

People build walled borders to keep their citizens locked in, not as a method of immigration control.

Also, as to this - um, HUH? The Germans built the Berlin Wall "to keep their citizens locked in, not as a method of immigration control". But why would you ever posit the same as a general proposition???

People build walls as "a method of immigration control" all the time? I don't see how the irrelevant example of the Berlin Wall supposedly disproves that.

Posted by Al | October 11, 2006 11:06 AM

As to my last post, for example, here is an example of a border fence that is "a method of immigration control". After all, that fence isn't to keep Spaniards in, it's to keep Moroccan immigrants out. Which is exactly equivalent to the situation here.

Posted by Al | October 11, 2006 11:11 AM

I know you hate the environment with a fiery passion, Matt, but for the benefit of those who don't I'll point out that a wall (or fence or whatever) would be an environmental disaster. It would be ineffective at stopping human traffic, but very effective at isolating animal populations--and the thing about animal populations is that the more you divide up their habitat (isolating sub-populations from each other), the more likely it is that the population as a whole will die out.

Posted by Tom Hilton | October 11, 2006 11:45 AM

Too many fat, dumb and happy white people

This country most certainly does not have a problem with too many Mexicans. What we do have is way too many stupid white people lucky enough to be born on the third base that is this wonderful country, and think they hit a triple. Republicans, Minutemen, and members of other white supremacist hate groups give all of us native-born white people a bad reputation. They are not a credit to our race.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | October 11, 2006 3:00 PM

We were attacked on 9/11 by Saudis and Pakastanis that came through our pourous _Canadian_ border

Travis, you are wrong. It makes me furious that this kind of falsehood is still casually tossed around, years after the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. directly, many of them on student visas. Muhammad Atta, for instance, entered via Newark, NJ.

It's totally outrageous to bring Canada into this in such a fashion.

Incidentally, all of the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs, mostly from Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Tim Ross | October 11, 2006 4:38 PM

They *know* it would be an environmental disaster ... that's how they're going to get out of building it.

About 200 lawsuits by myriad environmental orgs are already in progress -- not to mention Mexico's international lawsuits & protests -- and these will lock this thing up for decades, by which point all illegal immigrants will have jet packs. There will be no stupid wall across a continent, meaning dangerous Mexicans will continue to come here and work their asses off doing crap jobs while continuing to bring delicious food to even the most redneck Taco Bell towns in the USA.

Posted by Ken Layne | October 11, 2006 5:51 PM

I can't help but wonder if a large, ineffective wall might be the best possible outcome for pro-immigration people at this point. It wouldn't really work, but it would sharply diminish political pressure to "do something" about immigration.

I'd completely agree, except that in two years' time, the debate would be 'build higher/thicker/spikier walls' or 'we need a moat, and sharks with fricking laser beams'. The people who don't want to look seriously at the immigration system -- i.e. people who've never encountered it -- aren't so easily dissuaded from their dumb ideas. rea's right: it's symbolic bullshit.

A serious immigration debate includes immigrants, legal and illegal. (Not that the latter dictate the terms, but they need to be heard.) A silly immigration debate involves making insecure white males in white areas feel like they have a bigger penis. Guess which one America gets?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 11, 2006 9:04 PM

I believe Hadrian's Wall in Roman Great Britian was quite effective for quite a while.

Posted by la | October 12, 2006 11:51 AM

Darren and Matt both argue that if we strangle the supply of jobs for immigrants they'll simply stop coming. That seems very unlikely. It's not only that we have to make it difficult to get a job here, we have to make it more difficult than it is in Mexico. And that by a wide margin, because that has to be the perception of any would-be immigrant. Otherwise we're just increasing the number of jobless illegals running around. Of course it's probably just as hopeless to stimulate the Mexican economy catch up enough to stop the influx, but I doubt either is going to be vastly more effective. At the least either is preferable to this fence nonsense, so I guess it's the right response. I just don't see any reason for optimism.

Posted by Mike | October 12, 2006 10:02 PM

Great Wall of China?

And you guys are the reality based community...

Sk

Posted by Sk | October 13, 2006 9:54 AM

I'm sick and tired of the "illegal immigrants do work Americans won't do"

I agree. I don't think that there's any work Americans won't do, so long as they're paid enough to support themselves doing it. I think the key here is to vigorously enforce our labor laws even (especially?) when complaints of labor violations come from those who work illegally. If an employer is paying substantially below the going rate for a job, he's got a thin argument for claiming he thought his employees were legal.

yes, there are some illegals who pay taxes, but most do not, and more importantly most employers don't pay employment taxes on them.

I think you're wrong here. I believe most illegal workers are on the books, using false social security numbers. They may work in construction, as hotel employees, in fast food restaurants, etc. Those employers can't hide their workers off the books, they simply claim that they're here legally. Social Security and income taxes get deducted from those paychecks, just like they do from the rest of us. Illegal immigrants simply never get around to claiming their social security checks.

Posted by Mike | October 13, 2006 4:19 PM