Why Physical Barriers Backfire: How Immigration Enforcement Deters Return and Increases Asylum Applications

Abstract

What, if any, effect do physical barriers have on cross-border population movements? The foundational claim that barriers reduce migration flows remains unsupported. We conceptualize barriers as a tool of immigration enforcement, which we contend is one form of state repression. State repression could reduce mobilization (reduce immigration), have no effect on mobilization (barriers as symbolic political tools), or increase mobilization (backfire). We evaluate the relationship between barriers and cross-border population movements using a global directed dyad-year dataset for the 1990–2016 time period of all contiguous dyads and nearby non-contiguous dyads. Using instrumental variables, we find that physical barriers actually increase refugee flows, consistent with the “backfire effect” identified in research on United States immigration enforcement policies on its Mexican border. Furthermore, we find that state repression (immigration enforcement) creates this “backfire effect” via a “sunk costs” problem that reduces movements of people and increases movement of status from migrant to refugee.

Why Do Leaders Build Walls? Domestic Politics, Leader Survival, and The Fortification of Borders

“…Yet, there is good reason to doubt the efficacy of border walls. They are easily circumvented, and their unintended consequences include a displacement of illicit activities and a reduction of cross-border trade (Carter and Poast 2017, 2020; Getmanski et al 2019; Jellissen and Gottheil 2013; Laughlin n.d.; Nanes and Bachus 2021; Schon and Leblang 2021). Thus, many argue that leaders favor border walls as purely symbolic efforts to reassure their citizens about the uncertainties of globalization, even knowing their relative inefficiency (Brown 2010; Linebarger and Braithwaite 2020).…”

“…Thus, even if walls are largely ineffective in securing a given border (e.g., Getmanski et al 2019; Laughlin n.d.; Linebarger and Braithwaite 2020; Nanes and Bachus 2021; Schon and Leblang 2021), their potent symbolic value can be used by leaders to signal to their citizens that “outsiders” are being kept out. This includes securing the state against threats that many perceive have emerged in the post-9/11 world, such as transnational terrorism and growth in immigration (Braithwaite 2013; Hainmueller and Hopkins 2014).…”

“…We note that many cross-national studies of the determinants of wall construction or effectiveness employ a dyadic research design (e.g., Avdan and Gelpi 2016; Carter and Poast 2017, 2020; Hassner and Wittenberg 2015; Linebarger and Braithwaite 2020; Schon and Leblang 2021). Dyadic designs are appropriate for analyzing border-specific traits that render a pair of states likely to construct a wall on their mutual border.…”

Changes in perceptions of border security influence desired levels of immigration

“…One widely held view in the literature is that borders facilitate divisions between insiders and outsiders, "us" and "them" (Longo, 2017;Mendez and Naples, 2014). Another view is that border security measures are usually counterproductive: i.e., they rarely meet their goals, be it curtailing immigration or countering terrorist attacks, and they have very little material benefits but significant ramifications to the nations that build them (Longo, Canetti, and Hite-Rubin, 2014;Carter and Poast, 2019;Schon and Leblang, 2021;Linebarger and Braithwaite, 2020). 2…”

“…Moreover, border barriers might increase unauthorized migration flows and asylum applications(Massey, Pren, and Durand, 2016;Schon and Leblang, 2021). Such changes in immigration flows might heighten hostility to immigration(Wright, Levy, and Citrin, 2016).…”