#Pelco
US Border Security. Land, sea, air borders.
The US has two land borders — the northern one with Canada (8,900 km long, 1/3 of which runs along rivers and lakes) and the southern one, 3,200 km long, running at an altitude of up to 1,500 m over rough terrain.
Their protection is entrusted to the US Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security [5,6].
The annual budget of CBP in 2006 is $7.1 billion (in 2007 — an increase of 10%), of which ~1.7 billion goes directly to security [19].
CBP personnel in 2006 — about 42 thousand people (including those employed in customs and maritime border protection), of which about 11.1 thousand paramilitary agents directly guard the land border [5,19].
In accordance with the tasks and threats being solved, the personnel saturation on the Mexican border (9.6 thousand agents at the end of 2005, projected at ~11 thousand by the end of 2006) is 20…30 times higher than on the Canadian border.
The Mexican border is divided into 9 sectors (Fig. 1), which in turn are subdivided into 76 monitoring posts.
The average length of a sector is ~350 km; the minimum is about 100 km (San Diego, 10 posts), the maximum is 650 km (El Paso, 12 monitoring posts); the area of responsibility of a post is on average 40 km.
The sector is a relatively independent division of CBP, has its own staff.
Agent density varies from 16 people/km (San Diego) to 5.3 people/km in Arizona and a minimum of ~2 people/km in New Mexico, with an average of ~3.5 people/km [20].
Fig. 1 — 20 sectors of the US state border [20]
Despite the fact that back in 1996
Congress called on the government to increase (up to 1,000 people per year) the number of agents on the southern border and bring it to 16-20 thousand people, this was not done due to budgetary difficulties [7].
The 2004 Congressional Security Reform and Counterterrorism Act (the «9/11 Act») established an increase in the number of border security service by 10 thousand employees (i.e. up to 21 thousand people) over five years, but the increase in personnel until 2006 is still happening slowly, by about 200 people per year [3].
Protecting the US border from intruders is (after the tragedy of September 11, 2001) a national priority and has been under close scrutiny by Congress and the public in recent years.
In general, the protection of the US border is carried out by an operational method, with the main «burden» borne by personnel carrying out patrols and other operational and service activities with the use of individual and collective technical means of signaling cover and surveillance.
Reconnaissance is widely used, including space, aviation and intelligence (in the border zone).
Patrolling of the US border is carried out in a routine mode by a team of 2 people, is 100% motorized; in difficult-to-reach places, small single-seat all-terrain vehicles and horses are used, the standard mode of transport is jeeps [1].
Aerial reconnaissance of the border area is carried out by helicopters and small aircraft equipped with television cameras and infrared (IR) thermal imagers.
The main threat to national security is illegal migration — in 2005 alone, ~1.2 million people were detained, of which 97…98% entered the United States through the southern border with Mexico [3].
The reason is purely economic: the difference in wages for the average worker in Mexico and the minimum wage in the United States is 5 times greater [22].
According to experts, who do not differ much from the official assessment, only 20…25% of violators are detected — illegal immigrants [3,4].
This explains the fact that in the USA (according to various sources) at present there are from 10 million (Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2005; Center for immigration Studies, 2004) to 20 million (Bear Stearns Report, January 2005) and more illegal immigrants.
Since 2000, more than 6 million of them have been expelled from the country, but this procedure is expensive and ineffective [3-6]. With such a migration flow, the economy is undermined (losses are estimated at between $400 and $1,000 billion per year), and the crime situation is aggravated, especially in the southern border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
A huge flow of drugs flows in from Mexico along with migrants — in 2005, more than 20 tons of cocaine and 650 tons of marijuana were confiscated [3,5,7].
According to experts, the annual drug trafficking volume is more than $65 billion per year, the bulk of which passes through the southern border.
In the millions of illegal immigrants, about 2% are criminal elements — bandits, murderers, rapists, etc. (in 2004, ~22,000 people were detained), and 0.3% (in 2004, about 650 people were detained) — the so-called «trained» violators: spies or potential terrorists («alien from a special interest country») [3,7].
If we take into account that a maximum of 1/5 of them are detected, then, according to the forecast of American experts, this means that the number of spies and terrorists penetrating the USA during the year is more than 2 thousand people! [3,4,8].
The majority of violators are Mexicans (in 2004 — about 94%), but in recent years the share of residents of Latin American countries has been inexorably growing — Brazil, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. The influx of even more «problematic» illegal immigrants from Muslim countries is growing — Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and the influx from Africa (Qatar, Yemen) is increasing.
As one expert sarcastically writes, «the world is gradually learning what Mexicans have known for a long time — the US border is wide open to anyone» [3].
Since 1997, the US border has been covered by the national integrated alarm system ISIS (Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System), which is essentially a global geographic information system (GIS) for security.
The system supports the GPS format, transmits information via dedicated VHF radio channels, telephone and wired (mainly fiber-optic) lines, GSM, and the Internet.
In 2004, ISIS became part of the overall American security system ASI (America’s Shield Initiative), which in November 2005 was transformed into SBI (Secure Border Initiative) or the “Secure Border Initiative” [2].
The prime contractor for ISIS was International Microwave Corp. (IMC), later acquired by L-3 Communications, which is known for its innovative developments in night vision devices and the REMBASS signaling and reconnaissance system. Over the 7 years up until 2004, more than 20,000 passive radio-channel autonomous detection systems (SO) and about 800 visible and IR television cameras were installed on the US border — range, which provided the main signaling component of ISIS [21].
About $430 million was spent on equipping the border TSO within the framework of ISIS, the cost of television equipment was $240 million.
A fixed observation or monitoring post (station) is the basic element of ISIS, covers a border area of responsibility from 10 to 60 km long (depending on the degree of threat) and is serviced around the clock by at least two operator-officers who have received special training.
Monitoring posts send information to the central border sector security post; the main response forces (patrols) are concentrated at the posts or near them.
Signals from the TSO are identified by operators as corresponding to events of intrusion of violators, using day and night television surveillance and reconnaissance.
The data is then transmitted to a mobile unit to detain the violators.
In order to strengthen the border in some places, physical barriers have been installed — fences to prevent people from entering (metal mesh or thin profiled sheet), concrete obstacles — to prevent vehicles from passing.
Despite the fact that the budget for border protection increases by ~10% from year to year, by the beginning of 2006, monitoring posts permanently monitored (by means of alarms and television surveillance) no more than ~5% of the border.
According to the unanimous statement of various organizations, experts and employees, its effectiveness is unacceptably low, especially on the southern borders, which threatens the security of the state [3-6]. And this is associated with the lack of a single continuous security system and alarm barriers along the border.
Monitoring posts are located mainly in places with the greatest intensity of the flow of violators — near border towns and roads.
Near the posts, as a rule, net fences are installed, but on ~ 97% of the border there are none (until 2006).
The most intensive flow of illegal immigrants and drug trafficking runs through the 230 km Mexican border with the state of California (2 sectors), so this section is heavily monitored. A similar route for migrants runs along the border river Rio Grande (Texas), which is monitored by patrol boats. The «hot» sectors of the southern border are the posts near the border cities of El Paso (West Texas), Yuma (Arizona), McAllen, Brownsville (Texas).
The most difficult situation has developed in the post zone, 23 km long, which actually separates the cities of San Diego and Tijuana (Mexico) [9].
The alarm fence made of profiled metal (in some places — concrete), 3 to 4.5 meters high, erected practically within the city limits in 1993, has largely contained the flow of illegal immigrants [8,19].
According to Senator D. Hunter, the number of illegal crossings after installation in this place decreased by 95%, but no one wanted to count how the number of intrusions increased in places adjacent to the fence.
In addition, the erected fence has design flaws (Fig. 2), allowing more sophisticated violators to freely invade (undermining).
The linear cost of the alarm line, which also included detection equipment and television equipment, was about $1,100/m.
Fig. 2 — «Holes» in the metal border fence near San Diego [20]
Therefore, in 2005, it was along it (at a distance of 40 m into US territory) that construction began on a new two-line mesh fence 4.3 m high; between the fence lines there is a dirt road for patrolling.
The fence is equipped with a stationary alarm system, security lighting and television surveillance, which significantly increases the effectiveness of security as a whole.
At the same time, construction of new alarm fences has begun along some urban border zones (Arizona, Texas), also equipped with television surveillance and alarm systems, which are monitored at the nearest post.
Fig. 3 shows a view of a 4.3 m high barrier made of profiled metal sheet and a nearby signaling strip of land; the linear cost of the barrier equipment is about $2,600/m [20-22].
Fig. 3 — View of the new signaling barrier in the city of Naco (Arizona) [22]
In addition to improving the signaling function, the fence also ensures the delay of violators, which is necessary for the successful response of security forces, but its construction, as experts note, causes significant damage to the environment (animal migration, air pollution) and the irrigation system.
However, a “frightening” fence can be a significant psychological factor that deters potential violators [3].
It is significant that the construction of even an imperfect and incomplete fence on the California border allowed the number of illegal immigrants to be reduced by 3.5 times by 2005 compared to 1995 [10].
By the beginning of 2006, only ~5% of the US border was equipped with stationary alarm and video surveillance systems around monitoring posts, usually near cities where the flow of violators increases [2].
Other places in the posts' area of responsibility can be monitored by various radio channel alarm systems and sensors.
The means of signaling weapons are integrated into a single security complex of the post and district through ISIS, which includes [7,11,19]:
- stationary high-resolution television cameras installed on masts or platforms, operating during the day in natural light, and at night — with signal light (if there is one, as in San Diego);
- stationary infrared (IR) video cameras or thermal imagers on platforms;
- intelligent video detectors that process information from television video cameras in automatic mode (recently);
- stationary radars on masts in places with flat terrain, sensitive to the «unsophisticated» movement of violators and vehicles;
- mobile radars on cars for reconnaissance in hard-to-control places;
- mobile television and IR cameras operating on cars, helicopters, small aircraft, balloons;
- stationary (rare) and radio-channel passive detection devices installed in/on the ground — mainly seismic, as well as magnetometric and IR — passive;
- auxiliary systems, including security lighting, microphones, etc.
At the top of the television surveillance station up to 10 m high there are 4 stationary high-resolution television cameras (2 — visible range and 2 — IR), directed in opposite directions, providing a viewing area of a length (potentially) up to 1.5 km.
Potential visibility of a human silhouette (“spot”) is provided at a distance of up to 3 km, while the tilt of the camera relative to the surface eliminates its illumination in the morning and evening.
In the San Diego sector, 75 television stations are installed on a perimeter of 100 km, i.e., the average observation zone is about 700 m [11].
Radars (rarely, if the terrain allows) and antennas for transmitting radio signals are also installed at this station.
The cost of one television station (Fig. 4, left) is about $250,000 (in 1997 prices); the world's leading television equipment manufacturers Pelco, L-3 Communications, Cisco, etc. were involved in the equipment [2,12].
Video signals from stationary cameras are transmitted to the observation post via fiber optics [21]; if the distance is relatively large (tens of kilometers), or the conditions for laying the optical cable are unsatisfactory, then the information is transmitted via a dedicated radio channel.
Fig. 4 — Left: corner television station on the southern border of the USA;
right: simplified design of a television mast on the northern border [6,8]
In some places (usually on the northern border), more simplified television masts (15…25 m high) were installed, equipped with one camera (on a rotating platform) or two (Fig. 4, right); their cost is about $30,000 [8].
Experts note that on the southern border of the United States, television cameras function much more reliably; on the Canadian border, the percentage of camera failures in some places after a year of operation reached tens of percent [19].
In places near border cities, the flow of alarms (true and false) from the TSOs used is so great that it disorganizes the work of service operators and agents who are required to respond to every event.
For example, in the El Paso sector (650 km of the border) an average of 40 such events occur per hour; at some monitoring posts the intensity of events reaches 2…3 per minute, while the operator must monitor up to 26 television cameras to confirm alarm signals [8].
Despite the widespread use of television surveillance, American experts noted its inherent shortcomings, one of which is the deterioration of detection capability in bad weather (rain, snow, fog), with a sharp change in temperature, when installed near trees.
Another shortcoming is the subjectivity of the situation assessment, which depends on the experience, observation, and responsibility of the operators at the posts.
Video detection with automatic alarm signaling, probably due to its low efficiency on the perimeter, was not used in early versions of ISIS [12].
In later versions, starting in 2003, automatic recognition of visual targets is one of the main areas of technical modernization of the border TSO, for which quite significant funds are allocated ($25 million in 2006).
For example, the Object Video company received 2 contracts to equip the TSO with new video detectors with artificial intelligence [12].
Due to the abundance of television screens and the continuous flow of incoming events, monitoring post operators cannot effectively manage patrols.
In this regard, measures are being taken to create a more ergonomic environment; for example, the RGB Spectrum corporation is developing a new integrated SSIS with a 50-inch LCD screen (Sony) [15].
It will display information from 12 or more television cameras, multiple radio-channel SO (seismic, IR and magnetometric), while using national and cable television channels, special and satellite communications.
It is noted that the global problem of protecting the US border is not only increasing the efficiency of managing security forces, but also the rapid and adequate response of patrols to an established intrusion [11].
Large distances, ignorance of the direction (azimuth) of movement of violators and their speed, rugged terrain and vegetation make it extremely difficult to find violators, leading to breakdowns of transport, the repair of which is often carried out by the agents themselves.
Saturation of the border strip with alarm sensors leads to an increase in the already large flow of false alarms, reaching 90% of all alarms.
The detection capability of sensors is also significantly lower than that of video cameras [2,7]; for example, on the southern border, about 57% of violators are detained thanks to television surveillance, while alarms are “responsible” for only 1% of those detained.
Even surveillance of the border zone by local residents and timely notification of alarming situations, as practice shows, gives a greater effect [2].
The most common cause of false alarms are wild animals and cattle grazing near the border [11].
It is noted that seismic SOs are the least noise-resistant, but they are also the most sensitive, and therefore the most widespread.
IR-SOs work poorly when the ambient temperature approaches 36 0C, magnetometric ones are insensitive to intruders who do not have ferromagnetic objects in their equipment, clothing, or footwear [19].
Most of the radio channel detection systems used at the border have already exhausted their service life or are obsolete (developed in the 80s), and therefore require replacement with more noise-resistant or “intelligent” ones [20].
CBP agents note that there are still not enough alarm sensors, no matter what they are.
In this regard, CPB is making efforts to:
1) saturate the border zone (including depth) with new radio channel detection systems (acoustic detection has been added to the three basic passive physical detection principles), for example, the REMBASS-II (L-3 Com) type;
2) the construction of a powerful global SSIS, which, based on a large input flow of information (from various signaling sources) and embedded “artificial intelligence”, assessed incoming alarms as true or false [1,2,20,26]. For example, such a computer giant as Hewlett Packard is working in the field of developing such SSIS.
The widespread absence of barriers on the border (as of the end of 2005) provided violators with the opportunity to freely invade in hard-to-reach places where patrolling and the use of signaling devices are difficult [7,9].
In order to somehow limit the mobility of violators, the practice of constructing anti-vehicle ditches 2…3 m wide and up to 2 m deep came into force.
For example, 60 km to the east of San Diego there is no fence, but there is a ditch [19]. In the last 3 years, concrete barriers — anti-tank obstacles — have been erected instead of ineffective ditches.
The most common violator is a group (typically up to 10 people) crossing the border on foot.
In Mexico, as noted by FBI agents, there is a criminal syndicate for smuggling illegal immigrants, the average cost of the service is $1-1.5 thousand.
If such violators encounter an obstacle on their way, it is overcome in the standard way — by «climbing over» and «digging under» (metal fence), or by «cutting through» (net, barbed wire).
Sophisticated methods of penetration, such as digging a tunnel near the city limits, are rare [25].
Since September 2001, there have been 21 such cases (one on the northern border), mainly for drug smuggling.
The tunnels range in size from 10 to 730 m (San Diego), and there are tunnels with lighting and ventilation (2005, northern border, length 110 m).
The Arizona desert and mountains are the most problematic section of the border, characterized by the greatest penetration of immigrants and drugs, — the temperature in the summer reaches +50 0C, settlements (places of concentration of CBP agents) are located far away and at a great distance from each other.
The maximum number of people die during the crossing in these places (229 people out of a total of more than 500 in 2005).
According to experts at hearings in the US Senate, the probability of detecting violators in this difficult to control place does not exceed 0.05 [13].
For example, the uncovered fact of illegal penetration into the mountainous part of Arizona of a group of 25 Chechen terrorists in July 2004 was widely discussed in the press [14].
In these same places, groups of Arabs suspected of having ties to Al-Qaeda have been found several times.
To increase the effectiveness of border protection in difficult climatic and geographical conditions, non-standard solutions are used.
For example, a special reconnaissance and search unit, «Shadow Wolves», has been created to patrol «difficult» sections of the border, consisting of native Indians, including those using horses.
The natural instinct of the hunter-trackers, solid pay and the established prestige in the eyes of the nation ensured the successful actions of the detachment in conditions where technology (including signaling) is less effective.
In 2003, a 40 million contract was signed with the Lockheed Martin Corporation for the development of a high-altitude, remote-controlled balloon filled with helium and powered by solar batteries, with a flight altitude of up to 20 km.
The 150 m long and 50 m in diameter device can hover over the desired point for months and, unlike space satellites, is capable of landing for equipment upgrades and maintenance.
The prototype of the new aircraft of the forces is expected to appear in 2006 and will be equipped with highly sensitive IR cameras.
Tethered mini-aeronauts of the TARS (Tethered Aerostat Radar System) type with radars are already used on the border to detect mainly low-flying targets and vehicles [23].
In case of bad weather (low clouds), when their effectiveness decreases, proven small aircraft such as the P-3 Orion (cost ~$36 million), equipped with radars and television cameras, are used to patrol the border [20,23].
The unfavorable situation on the southern border of the United States led to Senate hearings in December 2005 [13], as a result of which the bill H.R. 4437 was adopted, regulating actions to significantly strengthen the protection of the southern border, and, above all, the engineering and technical components.
The construction of about 1,400 km of alarm and anti-vehicle barriers, wider use of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, reconnaissance and alarm systems such as EIDS (HARRIS RF-5400 Falcon), reconnaissance and telecommunications satellites, and aerostats with radars installed on them have been approved.
The basis of the border TSO, as before, should be television and IR cameras (Fig. 5) of stationary and mobile deployment [1,2,7,15,16].
Congress recommended considering the possibility of building barriers on the Canadian border, where there are none. In 2006 alone, $25 million was allocated for R&D on TSO.
Fig. 5 — IR — image of violators crossing the Mexican border at night [6]
The press has expressed doubts about the economic efficiency of using unmanned aircraft, despite their undoubted advantages [20,24].
The main disadvantages are recognized as a relatively short service life and susceptibility to accidents, which is approximately 100 times higher than for the mentioned small P-3 aircraft.
Nevertheless, the Hermes 450 drones produced by Elbit/Silver Arrow (Israel) will patrol the border in Arizona; they have a flight duration of only 20 hours at an average speed of 110 km/h (at an altitude of 2.9…5.5 km).
Their cost is $2 million, weight ~500 kg, wingspan 10 m, length 5.5 m.
The General Atomics Mariner UAV (USA), used by the Navy for reconnaissance, is significantly larger in size (length 26 m, wingspan 16 m) and more expensive, but it can remain in flight for 50 hours or more [24].
Therefore, traditional types of aerial reconnaissance and border patrol using small single-seat aircraft or helicopters (such as the Blackhawk, costing $9 million) will likely remain in operation for a long time.
In order to reduce the influence of the human factor in assessing television surveillance, various systems for automatic video detection of alarm situations at the border continue to be developed and implemented, in particular by VistaScape Security Systems [12].
Similar systems from ObjectVideo are based on artificial intelligence technology: current images are compared with those recorded in memory, and if the algorithmic conditions are met, an alarm signal is generated.
Digital Infrared Imaging offers to compare two images simultaneously to improve recognition efficiency: a regular television image and a thermal image obtained using an IR camera or thermal imager.
On May 15, 2006, in a televised address to the nation devoted to measures to combat illegal immigration, George Bush announced the deployment of 6,000 National Guardsmen to the Mexican border for a year, noting that the United States does not yet have full control over this border, «… but we are determined to change that.»
He asked Congress for additional funding to «dramatically» improve technology and increase personnel on the border; Congress agreed in principle.
So, combined with the current contingent, the personnel density on the southern border in 2006 will reach 5 people/km, with at least half of them being officers.
By 2008, the number of CBP agents will be increased to 16 thousand people, which will proportionally lead to saturation of the southern border (including guardsmen) to ~7 people/km.
The guardsmen will rotate once a month, so that in a few years most of them will have acquired experience in border protection.
Their tasks are: management and control of security systems, analysis of intelligence data, construction of chain-link fences, automobile barriers and patrol roads — the latter circumstance is extremely important for a quick response to violations, increasing the effectiveness of protection as a whole.
Bush noted that “…new technologies such as infrared cameras (all-weather), motion sensors and drones will be used… new barriers and lighting will be installed in urban areas, vehicle barriers – in rural areas.”
Mobile thermal imagers on a vehicle base will become more widespread, and all patrols will be equipped with individual night vision devices.
In May 2006, the US Senate approved the construction of a new three-row, 595 km long, mesh alarm barrier on the border with Mexico, erected near cities — places of the largest flow of migration [20].
Additionally, automobile barriers with a total length of ~800 km will be erected in remote and hard-to-reach places, primarily to counter drug trafficking to Arizona and Texas.
The mesh alarm barrier will run along the border from El Paso (West Texas) to San Diego [22].
The mesh fence, naturally, will not be continuous and will block only ~25% of the border, but its whole «pieces» will be tens of kilometers long, making «bypassing» difficult.
In the long term, the number of monitoring posts should be increased, and their concentration should be brought to one per 20 km of the border. Funding (~$2 billion) for this fence project was approved by the Senate in early August 2006.
Western Arizona is the «Achilles heel» of the Mexican border, with an estimated 1.1 million trespassers crossing there [17].
Fence construction here, as in any mountainous area, is extremely difficult, so the focus will be on new security and intelligence technologies, anti-vehicle ditches (2-3 m wide) and barriers.
The natural and geographical conditions on the Mexican border are extremely diverse — from the subtropical plain (maximum temperature +50 0C, California) to the desert foothills of Arizona (altitude 1400 m, minimum temperature -13 0C).
In general, compared to the Kazakh border of the Russian Federation, the average annual temperature is positive (~15 0C) and much higher.
This has a positive effect on the service life of autonomous radio channel alarm systems, SO.
In general, the relatively sunny average annual weather provides additional opportunities for powering television cameras and alarms using solar batteries [8].
The three-row fence being erected near cities will apparently not fully correspond to the one erected by Israel on the border with the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank of the Jordan River.
It has been recognized as useful:
- digging two trenches up to 2 meters deep on each side of the fence and edging the soil in the form of a reinforced embankment, which will not only prevent the passage of vehicles («battering ram»), but also make it difficult to overcome the fence by «climbing over» using improvised means (ladders, stepladders); in addition, such ditches also serve as irrigation ditches;
- installation of barbed wire or AKL tape on top of the main mesh fence;
American society (quite active, unlike Russian) does not remain aloof from border security issues. There are several non-governmental organizations (for example, Border Safety Initiative, BSI), Internet sites where border security issues are widely discussed, mainly the Mexican one [8,18].
The main slogan is: «If the government can't protect us yet, then let's protect ourselves today!»
For example, in May 2006, the organization «The Minuteman Civil Defense Corp» began construction along the border with Mexico (on the border lands of private owners) of the first stage of a «public» fence 42 km long, costing less than $100/m, mainly with the help of volunteers.
A radical solution to the issue of increasing efficiency is associated with the construction of a continuous triple «national» mesh alarm fence 2,300 km long, similar to the one erected in Israel to demarcate the Palestinian territories.
The construction of such a fence, according to various sources, is estimated at between $4 and $8 billion, the running cost will average about $2,600/m (as in Israel).
With the use of volunteers, simplification of the design and reduction of alarm support, it is expected that the cost will be reduced by tens of times.
It is proposed to place the fence at a distance of about 20 m from the actual border line into the territory and to equip it with special warning signs visible from “the other side” (Fig. 6).
To equip the “national fence”, it is proposed to install, among other things, radial autonomous seismic sensors (movement) with a detection radius of about 25 m.
Upon their alarm, video cameras can be initiated and transmit information to the control panel (it is assumed that there will be 1 control panel for 64 cameras or, on average, for 25 km of the protected border).
And, of course, all public mass media are urging the border population to “be more vigilant” and “report” at the first suspicion – as is well known, this means is much more effective than all others.
Fig. 6 – One of the options for a “national” fence with Mexico [18]
The “national fence” project is being lobbied by influential politicians, including governors of the southern states.
One of the effective arguments is the experience of building an «electronic» illuminated fence in the San Diego area, whereby the number of detained violators decreased by 6 times with the «pre-fence» time, and the probability of their detection increased several times.
Another argument is the experience of building a global Israeli fence, which reduced the number of terrorist attacks by 95%!
In addition, the construction of such a fence (and its subsequent maintenance) will create new jobs and reduce social tensions, primarily in border areas.
The fence project encountered weak verbal «resistance» from environmental public organizations, but their voice was lost among the general «chorus».
An interesting “public” solution for strengthening the border with one’s own efforts is the installation (on the US side) of individual radio-channel video cameras operating in “freeze-frame” mode (Fig. 7), with subsequent distribution of interesting images to CBP and FBI agents, and generally to anyone interested, using the Internet [8].
Such frames, depending on the capacity of the ROM, can alternate with an interval from 30 ms to 5 s and be supplied with geographic coordinates.
The cameras can be supplied with an audio channel and masked to ensure greater efficiency.
The range of the radio channel can be 25 km, the field of view is on average up to 400 m (depending on the landscape), the camera can be powered by a solar battery (with a battery).
In general, the protection of the US land border, up to the present time, is carried out in an operational manner (automobile patrols, reconnaissance) with the involvement of TSO, the basis of which is television surveillance (in the visible and IR — range) and radio channel autonomous signaling systems based on passive physical principles of detection — seismic (primarily), as well as IR and magnetometric.
All personnel have technical education or skills that allow them to use and maintain fairly complex technical equipment — stationary and mobile.
The southern (Mexican) border of the United States is experiencing very strong «pressure» due to the flow of illegal immigrants, amounting to about 5 million people per year.
Crossing the Canadian border, 50% of which runs along rivers and lakes, is practically inaccessible to «ordinary» violators.
Therefore, the personnel density proportional to the threats on the Mexican border is tens of times higher and amounted to ~ 3…3.5 people/km at the end of 2005.
Taking into account the National Guard, in 2006 it will increase to 5 people/km.
In 2005, only about 5% of the sections of the southern border of the United States were equipped with fences, anti-vehicle barriers and alarm barriers.
Experience of operation has revealed their undoubted advantages — a decrease in the flow of violators and an increase in the probability of their detection, primarily with the help of television surveillance.
The huge flow of illegal immigrants, against the backdrop of which truly criminal elements and even terrorists are penetrating the United States, sharply reduces the effectiveness of protecting the southern border due to the impossibility of adequately responding to each event.
Currently, the probability of detecting «ordinary» violators is estimated at a low level of ~0.20, and for so-called «trained» violators, it is apparently close to zero. The average false alarm rate of autonomous alarm systems, traditionally inferior to stationary systems by 10 or more times, remains unsatisfactory.
The increasing flow of violators has led to an increase in border crime (drug couriers, thieves, bandits, murderers), and indirectly caused a significant increase in budget expenditures.
Since 2005, American society and the government, concerned about the unsatisfactory situation on the southern border, have made serious efforts to improve the situation — legislation has been passed, an additional budget has been approved, new security technologies are being developed, and civil initiatives are in effect.
The number of personnel will be doubled by 2008, new, more effective means of detection and surveillance, means of displaying and analyzing the operational situation will be introduced on the border. Troops are being deployed to the southern border, the rotation of which will ensure that most of the National Guard is trained in security functions over the course of several years.
The main technical idea for increasing the effectiveness of security, adopted including taking into account the current experience of Israel and the past experience of the USSR, is the construction of an electronic three-row alarm fence along the southern border of the United States. The first stage of construction of such a fence (length ~ 600 km) has already begun.
In the foothills and deserts of Arizona and New Mexico, where building a fence is difficult or impractical, anti-vehicle barriers (~800 km long) will be erected, and the border strip will be reinforced with radio channel signaling, unmanned aircraft and balloons with television cameras and radars.
Perhaps, with the advent and steady expansion of the «national» signal fence, in the coming years the southern border will transition from an operational method of border protection to an operational-military or even a military one.
In this case, the main emphasis will be placed not on reconnaissance and search activities of CBP agents, but on signaling cover of the border with the help of technical security equipment.
What's Happening at the U.S.-Mexico Border in 2021.
The U.S. Border Patrol reported more than 1.6 million migrant encounters along the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2021, more than four times the number of encounters in the previous fiscal year and the highest annual total on record.
The Border Situation in 2021.
Encounters fell to just over 400,000 in fiscal 2020 as the coronavirus outbreak slowed migration in much of the world.
But cases at the southwest border surged in fiscal 2021 and eventually surpassed the previous annual high set in fiscal 2000, according to newly released data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that includes the Border Patrol.
Migrant encounters refer to two different types of events: removals, in which migrants are immediately sent back to their home country or last country of transit, and apprehensions, in which migrants are detained in the United States, at least temporarily.
Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, most encounters have resulted in removal from the United States, in contrast to before the pandemic, when the vast majority instead ended in apprehension.
The Trump administration began expelling migrants in March 2020 under a public health order aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19.
The Biden administration continues to expel migrants under the same order.
Below is a more detailed look at the dynamics of displacement at the southwest border, based on recent CBP statistics.
Most of these statistics are for federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to September 30, rather than calendar years.
It’s also important to note that encounters refer to events, not people, and that some migrants are encountered more than once.
Encounters at the southwest border increased to the highest level on record in fiscal year 2021.
The Border Patrol reported 1,659,206 migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border last fiscal year, slightly above previous highs of 1,643,679 in 2000 and 1,615,844 in 1986.
The high number of encounters in fiscal year 2021 eclipsed the total during the last major wave of migration on the southwest border, which occurred in fiscal year 2019.
The Border Patrol recorded 851,508 encounters that year.
While the number of encounters was the highest on record last fiscal year, the number of people encountered was significantly lower.
That's because more than a quarter of all migrant encounters at the U.S. border in both fiscal years 2021 and 2020 (27% and 26%, respectively) involved repeat border crossings, according to CBP statistics.
By comparison, the repeat border crossing rate was much lower in fiscal year 2019 (7%), before the Border Patrol began routinely expelling migrants during the coronavirus outbreak.
(These repeat border statistics include cases at all U.S. borders.
While separate statistics are not available for the U.S.-Mexico border alone, cases at the southwest border have accounted for more than 97% of total cases in recent years.)
A record number of encounters in fiscal year 2021 involved people from countries other than Mexico.
Mexico was the single most common country of origin of migrants encountered at the border in fiscal year 2021.
The Border Patrol reported 608,037 encounters with Mexican citizens last year, accounting for 37 percent of the total. The remaining 1,051,169 cases, or 63%, involved people from countries other than Mexico, by far the highest number for non-Mexican nationals in CBP records since 2000.
The majority of non-Mexican encounters in FY 2021 involved people from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
Last fiscal year, there were 308,931 encounters with people from Honduras (representing 19% of all encounters), 279,033 with people from Guatemala (17%), and 95,930 with people from El Salvador (6%).
The Northern Triangle region has been a major source of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years.
In fiscal year 2021, encounters increased sharply in some countries that historically have not been typical sources of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.
For example, encounters involving people from Ecuador increased more than eightfold, from 11,861 in fiscal year 2020 to 95,692 in fiscal year 2021.
There was also a sharp increase in encounters involving people from Brazil (from 6,946 to 56,735), Nicaragua (from 2,123 to 49,841), Venezuela (from 1,227 to 47,752), Haiti (from 4,395 to 45,532) and Cuba (from 9,822 to 38,139).
Economic, social and political instability in some of these countries likely played a role in the sharp increase in encounters along the U.S.-Mexico border last fiscal year.
In Ecuador, widespread economic problems and the COVID-19 pandemic have driven many migrants north.
Meanwhile, Haiti has faced a number of challenges in recent years, from natural disasters to the assassination of its president in July.
The increase in encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border has not only affected people from Latin America or the Caribbean.
Encounters involving people from Romania rose from 266 in fiscal year 2020 to 4,029 in fiscal year 2021, while cases involving people from Turkey increased from 67 to 1,366.
In fiscal year 2021, encounters with migrants increased across all demographic groups, but single adults continued to make up the vast majority.
Encounters with unaccompanied children increased from 30,557 in fiscal year 2020 to 144,834 in fiscal year 2021, and encounters with people traveling as families increased from 52,230 to 451,087.
By far the largest number and share of encounters involved single adults. There were 1,063,285 encounters with single adults in FY 2021, up from 317,864 the year before. More than six in 10 encounters (64%) involved single adults, though that rate is down from 79% in FY 2020.
Encounters with migrants more than doubled in every sector along the U.S.-Mexico border in FY 2021.
The largest numerical increase occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector, which saw 549,077 encounters last fiscal year, up from 90,206 the year before.
But the largest proportional increase occurred in the Yuma Sector, where encounters increased thirteenfold, from 8,804 in FY 2020 to 114,488 in FY 2021.
Since the onset of the coronavirus outbreak, most migrant encounters have resulted in expulsion from the United States rather than apprehension within the country.
In March 2020, former President Donald Trump's administration invoked Title 42, a public health order that allows the Border Patrol to immediately expel migrants in an attempt to control the spread of the coronavirus within the country.
President Joe Biden's administration has continued to expel migrants under Title 42, though to a lesser extent than the Trump administration.
About two-thirds (66%) of all migrant encounters resulted in expulsion between April 2020, the first full month after Title 42 was invoked, and September 2021, the end of the 2021 fiscal year. The remaining 34% resulted in concerns.
But under the Biden administration, the share of encounters resulting in expulsion has declined.
In September 2021, 54% of encounters resulted in expulsion, compared with 74% in February 2021, the first full month since Biden took office.
Seasonal migration patterns have changed in recent years.
Since 2000, border encounters have typically peaked in the spring — most often in March — and then declined during the hot summer months, when migration travel becomes more dangerous.
But since 2013, the pattern has shifted, with the annual peak occurring in months other than March.
July was the peak month for fiscal year 2021, with encounters (200,658) far exceeding the total recorded in March (169,216), even though temperatures in July are typically much warmer.
How Americans view the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, its causes and consequences.
80% say the U.S. government is doing a poor job of handling the influx of migrants.
The growing number of migrants seeking to enter the United States at the Mexican border has strained government resources, divided Congress, and become a contentious issue in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The vast majority of Americans blame the government for its handling of the migrant situation.
But beyond that, there are deep divisions — over why migrants are coming to the U.S., proposals to address the situation, and even whether it should be called a “crisis.”
Factors Driving the Migrant Influx
Economic factors—either poor conditions in migrants' home countries or better economic opportunities in the United States—are widely seen as the main reasons for the influx of migrants.
About seven-in-ten Americans (71%), including majorities in both parties, cite improved economic opportunities in the United States as the main reason.
There are broader partisan differences on other factors.
About two-thirds of Americans (65%) say violence in migrants’ home countries is the main reason why so many immigrants have arrived at the border.
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are 30 percentage points more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaning voters to say this is the main reason (79% vs. 49%).
By contrast, 76% of Republicans say believing U.S. immigration policy will make it easy for them to stay in the country once they arrive is the main factor. About half as many Democrats (39%) say the same.
For more information on Americans' views on these and other issues, see Chapter 2.
How Serious is the Situation at the Border?
A significant majority of Americans (78%) say the large number of migrants trying to enter the country at the U.S.-Mexico border is either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%), according to a Pew Research Center poll of 5,140 adults conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024.
Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to call the situation a «crisis»: 70% of Republicans say so, compared with just 22% of Democrats.
Democrats mostly view the situation as a big problem (44%) or a minor problem (26%) for the United States.
Very few Democrats (7%) say it is not a problem.
In an open-ended question, respondents express concerns about the influx of migrants.
They point to a variety of issues, including concerns about how migrants are being cared for and general problems with the immigration system.
However, two issues emerged most frequently:
- 22% cite the economic burden associated with the influx of migrants, including the strain migrants place on social services and other government resources.
- 22% also cite security concerns.
- Many of these responses focus on crime (10%), terrorism (10%), and drugs (3%).
When asked specifically about the impact of the influx of immigrants on crime in the United States, most Americans (57%) say that the large number of immigrants trying to enter the country leads to an increase in crime. Fewer (39%) say it has little impact on crime in this country.
Republicans (85%) overwhelmingly say that the influx of immigrants leads to an increase in crime in the United States. A much smaller share of Democrats (31%) say the same; instead, 63% of Democrats say it has little impact.
The government has been widely criticized for its handling of the migrant influx.
For the past several years, the federal government has received poor marks for its handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border.
(Note: The wording of this question has been slightly changed to reflect the circumstances at the time.)
However, the current ratings are extremely low.
Only 18% say the U.S. government is doing a good job of handling the large number of migrants at the border, while 80% say it is doing a poor job, including 45% who say it is doing a very poor job.
Republicans are overwhelmingly negative (89% say it is doing a poor job), where they have been since Joe Biden became president.
73% of Democrats also give the government negative ratings, the highest rate recorded during Biden's presidency.
What policies could improve the situation at the border?
Of the nine policy proposals included in the survey, there is not a single one that a majority of both Republicans and Democrats believe would improve the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border.
There are areas of relative agreement, however.
A majority of 60% of Americans say that increasing the number of immigration judges and staff to make asylum decisions more quickly would improve the situation.
Only 11% say it would make things worse, while 14% say it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Almost as many (56%) say creating more opportunities for legal immigration to the U.S. would make things better.
A majority of Democrats say each of these proposals would improve the situation at the border.
Republicans are less positive than Democrats; however, about 40% or more of Republicans say each would make things better, while far fewer say they would make things worse.
Opinions on other proposals are more polarized.
For example, 56% of Democrats say adding resources to ensure safe and sanitary conditions for migrants arriving in the U.S. would be a positive step forward.
Not only are Republicans far less likely than Democrats to view the proposal favorably, but far more say it would make things worse (43%) than better (17%).
Building or expanding a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border has been one of the most divisive policies of Donald Trump's presidency.
In 2019, 82% of Republicans favored expanding the border wall, compared to just 6% of Democrats.
Today, 72% of Republicans say a significant expansion of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border would make things better.
Only 15% agree Democrats, with most saying it would either not make much of a difference (47%) or would make matters worse (24%).