Executive summary

The United States and Mexico share a common border that is located between the two countries. This border has historically stimulated job growth and the economy through individuals on both sides going to and from the other country. In modern United States politics, the southern border is considered a threat to the stability of the United States economy and infrastructure. Because of this perceived threat and the advancement of technology, it has become increasingly common for the United States to create new measures against unwanted border crossing. This increase in surveillance has caused hardship for citizens in both Mexico and The United States, economically and humanistically.

‍

Overview

Starting with the Clinton administration, it has become increasingly common to use modern day technology, either digital or analog, to stop illegal immigration. In the 2020’s, new technology is being implemented that disrupts the flow of immigration to and from the United States. 

1. Pointed Summary

• The effects on Families that encounter the Surveillance Technology that has been enforced since the Secure Fence Act of 2006.  
• Psychologists believe that surveillance systems cause unwanted stress and lead to a more hostile environment for both immigrant parents and children 
• Major Policies that have curated a need for this discussion are Operation Gatekeeper, America’s Shield Initiative and President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order.  

2. Relevance

This subject has become increasingly relevant alongside political tensions between the United States and Latin-American immigrants. From the 1990’s to the mid-2020’s, the United States has become stricter on the flow of immigration between the two nations. In 2025, tensions have risen to an all time high with President Donald Trump declaring a State of Emergency at the United States, southern border. Amidst these actions, there has been increased discussion around the  physiological, psychological and emotional effects immigration has on both the individual and their family.

History

1. Current Stances

The United States currently shares a 2,000-mile border containing 47 active land ports of entry. Since the Department of Homeland Security's creation in 2003, funding for staff and resources for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has nearly tripled from $3.3 billion to $9.6 billion as of 2024. A significant amount of the funds have been used to electronically monitor noncitizens through surveillance systems. Advocates for such technology claim that drones and sensors monitor illegal activity and immigration. Detractors of the technology believe that increased surveillance would result in significant psychological stress and fear in immigrant families. It has also been claimed that the technology would contribute to family separations and place vulnerable individuals at risk. Additionally, critics assert that surveillance imposes privacy issues on border residents, Indigenous communities, and immigrants.

2. Tried Policy

During the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, the Operation Gatekeeper program was passed to inhibit illegal crossings in urban areas. The operation included physical barriers, increased border patrol, and new surveillance technology at the southern border. Proponents of the program believe that the new surveillance infrastructure would enhance border security and prevent illegal migrants from entering. For instance, an estimated 531,000 unauthorized border crossings were recorded in the San Diego sector before Operation Gatekeeper. By 1997, after the policy had been in effect for several years, this number dropped to 148,000 crossings, representing a 72% decrease in illegal crossings in the area. However, many critics claim that the policy has led to severe risks for migrants. For example, migrants began to use more remote and dangerous crossing points, such as the deserts and mountains of Arizona, which increased the risk of injury or death.  Additionally, while the operation initially reduced border crossings in targeted areas, it led to longer stays by undocumented migrants as returning to their home countries became riskier. Ultimately, the Operation Gatekeeper program was key in developing surveillance infrastructure on the southern border to decrease migrant crossings.

Years later, the operation brought a series of new proposals for surveillance infrastructure, resulting in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The program authorized the Department of Homeland Security to enhance border surveillance infrastructure by increasing advanced technology, including cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles. These measures aimed to reinforce existing border infrastructure and improve the detection and prevention of illegal crossings. Proponents of the program argued that the law provided tools like vehicle barriers, fencing, and technological enhancements to support Border Patrol agents in monitoring and controlling high-traffic areas effectively. On the other hand, critics of the program argued that the bill led to significant federal expenditures for constructing and maintaining fences and surveillance infrastructure. In the end, The Secure Fence Act of 2006 resulted in the construction of over 600 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and the deployment of advanced surveillance technologies, leading to a partial reduction in illegal crossings but increased migrant fatalities due to riskier routes.

Policy Problem

A.  Stakeholders

1. Federal Agencies: The various agencies which are tasked with border security, including US Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, have considered the new surveillance infrastructure to be a “great asset” to help agents to their job. 
2. Defense contractors: Companies such as Andruil Industries and Elbit Systems have made lucrative deals with CBP for the construction of new towers. These tech and defense contractors wield immense influence and stand to make billions profiting off border surveillance. 
3. Border communities: Some of the land that the towers and other infrastructure is built on is private or tribal land, raising concerns about the potential disruption of property rights and protected land. Nearby communities near the border have gotten used to the presence of government and contracted technologies such as autonomous towers, blimps, sky towers, and biometric surveillance. 
4. Immigrants and asylum seekers: These already vulnerable groups often experience heightened scrutiny, human rights violations and increased risks of detection due to heightened surveillance. 
5. Taxpayers: Funding for these expansive, and commonly failing projects is on the taxpayers. 

B. Risks of Indifference

As of now,  the public is largely unaware about how much information is being collected and how it is being used. Furthermore, ignoring the broader societal impacts of border surveillance may result in wider erosions of privacy as historically, borderlands have served as a testing ground for military surveillance to be deployed in domestic law enforcement contexts. If used without oversight and proper public scrutiny, these surveillance technologies may disproportionately target certain communities, especially people of color or low-income immigrants, further contributing to systemic inequalities in the US. 

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

Despite superficial differences in policy, there is large support in Congress for heightened border security measures. Conservative lawmakers argue that the rise of border surveillance is crucial for protecting the country to reduce crime, human trafficking, and illegal immigration. Legislation is slow to come however because of issues related to a new budget reconciliation bill. Contrarily, progressive groups and human rights organizations have highlighted the negative impacts of this surveillance arguing that it could violate civil liberties, increase racial profiling, and lead to an increase in militarization on the border. 

Policy Options

Around 2004, the new America's Shield Initiative (ASI), a program that included a system of sensors, cameras, and databases formerly known as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, was instituted to detect, characterize, and deter illegal breaches to the northern and southern U.S. borders. Less than a year later, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the ASI had numerous unresolved issues necessitating a total reevaluation. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said, "What we found was a camera and sensor system that was plagued by mismanagement, operational problems, and financial waste. 

Most recently, the National Emergency Declaration at the Southern Border has been declared. As of January 2025, President Trump has declared a national emergency at the southern border. This declaration aimed to allocate additional resources and expedite the enhancement of border security measures, including surveillance infrastructure, such as aerial systems. This policy is projected to increase the amount of deportations and detection of unauthorized migrants.

Conclusions

While proponents argue that technological advancements and improvements in infrastructure build border security, reduce illegal immigration, and fight crime, critics stress the negatives, including the violation of private life, increased risks for migrants, and high financial costs. Operation Gatekeeper and the Secure Fence Act of 2006 are among a number of similar initiatives that have historically implemented surveillance and physical barriers as methods of deterring migrant crossings. But, in practice, such programs have achieved rather ambiguous results: thwarting migrants in one place and simultaneously forcing them onto other routes that are significantly more perilous. The balance between ensuring national security, civil liberties, and individual privacy and human rights characterizes current debates over border policy. It illustrates the ongoing trade-offs inherent in attempting to manage U.S. border security.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Anagha Nagesh, Tyler Rubenstein, Nolan Ezzet and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.

References

1. “Border Militarization Separates Families and Erodes Civil Liberties | ACLU of New Mexico,” October 13, 2021. https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/news/border-militarization-separates-families-and-erodes-civil-liberties.
2. “Fact Sheet: The Secure Fence Act of 2006.” Accessed January 25, 2025. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061026-1.html.
3. “Operation Gatekeeper.” Accessed January 25, 2025. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/9807/gkp01.htm.
4. United States Department of State. “U.S. Relations With Mexico.” Accessed January 25, 2025. https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mexico/.
5. “USDOJ/OIG Special Report.” Accessed January 25, 2025. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/9807/exec.htm
6. America. 2025. “Homeland Security.” Elbitamerica.com. 2025. https://www.elbitamerica.com/homeland-security.
7. “Anduril.” n.d. Www.anduril.com. https://www.anduril.com/hardware/sentry/.
8. Bustillo, Ximena, and Lexie Schapitl. 2025. “Trump’s Homeland Security Pick Pressed on Domestic Terrorism in Hearing.” NPR. January 17, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5245988/trump-cabinet-picks-kristi-noem-confirmation-hearing.
9. Davis, John. 2022. “A Watchful Eye | U.S. Customs and Border Protection.” Www.cbp.gov. January 4, 2022. https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/watchful-eye.
10. Electronic Frontier Foundation. n.d. “Border Surveillance Technology.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/issues/border-surveillance-technology.
11. Kapur, Sahil. 2025. “Republicans Shoot down Democratic Request for a Bipartisan Immigration Bill.” NBC News. January 23, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-shoot-democratic-request-bipartisan-immigration-bill-rcna189033.
12. Maass, Dave. 2023. “CBP Is Expanding Its Surveillance Tower Program at the U.S.-Mexico Border–and We’re Mapping It.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. March 20, 2023. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/cbp-expanding-its-surveillance-tower-program-us-mexico-border-and-were-mapping-it.
13. ———. 2024. “U.S. Border Surveillance Towers Have Always Been Broken.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. October 21, 2024. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/10/us-border-surveillance-towers-have-always-been-broken.
14. Roy, Diana, Amelia Cheatham, and Claire Klobucista. 2024. “How the U.S. Patrols Its Borders.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2024. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-us-patrols-its-borders#chapter-title-0-4.
15. Staff, NPR. 2025. “Senate Confirms Kristi Noem as Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security.” NPR. January 25, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/25/g-s1-44753/immigration-senate-kristi-noem-confirmation-vote.