





































Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

33 / Pesso

Fencing Fears: The United States 
Border Fence and the Responsibility of 
Social Workers

Jen sCott

The October 2006 Secure Fence Act permitted the construction 
of over 700 miles of double reinforced fence along the United 
States-Mexico border. While perhaps not the one intended, the 
fence is having an impact: the death of migrants attempting to 
cross the border has increased and the construct of “illegality” is 
being reified, heightening the insecurity of individuals who live 
in the U.S. with illegal or undocumented status. In addition, the 
fence can be understood as a statement of exclusion that leads 
to the further erosion of societal unity among the people who 
live within the U.S. borders. This paper contextualizes the political 
discourse that presumes that the construction of a wall is a viable  
solution to national concerns about migration and security in 
the history of cross-border migration and legislation. In so doing 
it analyzes the fence by delineating its effects on undocumented 
migrants and the power imbalances already evident within the 
larger U.S. society. Finally, it concludes by asking social workers to 
act in accordance with their obligation to promote social justice. 

  in oCtober 2006 the united states ConGress passed legislation that 
symbolically defines its current policy with regard to the country’s 
southern neighbor. The Secure Fence Act permitted the construction 
of over 700 miles of double reinforced fence along the U.S.-Mexico 
border (Secure Fence Act, 2006). This policy was not a deviation 
from the norm: some form of border policing has been in place 
since the creation of the Border Patrol in 1904. The official “birth” of 
the modern fence can be traced to 1990, when the U.S. Border Patrol 
began constructing a barrier known as the “primary fence” on the 
California border (Nuñez-Neto & Garcia, 2007). The first 14 miles of 

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

34 / Fencing Fears



fence, completed in 1993, served as the “model” for the current fence 
project (Nuñez-Neto & Garcia, 2007). The latest construction strategy, 
the Southwest Border Fence Project, is part of the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative that committed to 
completing 670 miles of fencing by December 2008 (DHSb, 2008). 
Spanning the borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, 
much of the planned fence construction has been completed. Further 
plans include building through a number of major towns and across 
American Indian Nations, restricting rights previously protected by 
both the U.S. and Mexican governments (Seper, 2008).
               Policies regarding fence construction and other forms of increased 
border enforcement have resulted in excessive spending and negative 
consequences for the people on either side of its boundaries. Under the 
Secure Border Initiative, the Department of Homeland Security spent 
an estimated 625 million USD on 215 miles of fencing (Government 
Accountability Office 2002, a). Studies estimate that there have been 
between two and three thousand deaths along the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der since 1995 (Rubio-Goldsmith et. al. 2006, 2007; GAO, 2006). Re-
ports show that deaths along the border have doubled since 1995 
(GAO, 2006) and in 2005 a record 472 deaths were reported (Nuñez-
Neto, 2008). Deaths along the border are predominantly due to con-
ditions resulting from increased environmental exposure, including 
hypothermia and heat stroke, as migrants have been “funneled” into 
harsher terrain due to stricter U.S. immigration policies (Rubio-Gold-
smith et al., 2006, 2007; GAO, 2006; Cornelius, 2001).  

     While a complete historical analysis of U.S. immigration policy is 
beyond the scope of this paper, it is necessary to contextualize the 
problematic political discourse that presumes that the construction of 
a wall will resolve the complexities of migration and nationalism. This 
paper examines the fence from historical and legislative perspectives, 
analyzes its effects on undocumented migrants, offers a connection 
between the construction of the fence and power imbalances evident 
within the larger U.S. society, and asks social workers to act in acco-
dance with their obligation to promote social justice. 

United States - Mexico Border: History and Migration

        The region of the US-Mexico border has a complex territorial his-
tory. Originally owned by several Native American Nations, after over 
300 years of wars and purchases involving the U.S., Spain, and Mexico, 
the border was firmly established at its current location in 1853.

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

35 / Scott



Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

Initially, the U.S.-Mexico border was poorly demarcated, sporadically 
policed, and easily traversed by migrant workers (Massey, 2002). As it 
has become more “solid,” a complex interplay of socioeconomic and 
political forces on both sides of the border has come to shape who is 
and is not allowed to move across it freely. Over time, the border has 
essentially come to represent the dividing line between the demand 
and supply sides of an international labor market.
               Until immigration policy dramatically shifted in 1986, immigration 
from Mexico to the U.S. reflected (or at least did not overtly prohibit) a 
pattern of circular migration. A variety of push and pull factors, linked to 
the economies of both states, influenced waves of migration during this 
period. Mexican workers migrated, legally or otherwise, to the U.S. for 
temporary work and then returned home (Massey, 2002). Migrants would 
fill U.S. labor needs for a period of time, but did not settle permanently 
in great numbers (Massey, 2002). Laborers experienced cycles of both ac-
tive recruitment from employers and active deportation from the U.S. 
government on several different occasions. Various legal mechanisms,
including guest worker programs, have facilitated this circular migra-
tion. The most well known, the Bracero program, began in 1942 and 
provided temporary visas to agricultural workers. Highly contested 
due to reports of civil rights violations by U.S. employers, this pro-
gram was repealed in 1964. While the passage of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act in 1965 provided few legal mechanisms for tem-
porary work, circular migration continued unabated (Massey, 2002).
    The passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act 
(IRCA) disrupted the characteristic pattern of temporary migration. 
The law discouraged immigrant outflow by promulgating policies of 
increased border security, fences, and actual or promised pathways 
to legal status (Massey, 2002). By coupling amnesty policies with in-
creased impediments to entry, the IRCA essentially made it more ben-
eficial for undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S., since reentry 
became more costly (in terms of money, time, and/or security). Addi-
tionally, a precedent that continued residence could potentially result 
in the granting of amnesty and legal resident status was set. Possibly 
for these reasons, many migrants who would have returned home for 
temporary vacations began to take up permanent residence in the 
U.S. After 1986, substantial growth in the undocumented population 
began to be seen (Passel, 2005).
           There  were  also  other  factors  that led to  an  increase  in  undocu-
mented immigration in the 1980s, including the collapse of the Mexican 

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

36 / Fencing Fears



peso and the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAF-
TA) (Massey, 2002). A significant challenge presented by NAFTA is its fail-
ure to loosen restrictions on the movement of labor despite relaxing the 
movement of capital and goods across the border (Massey, 2002). 
Little has been done to address the facts that the economic and social 
conditions of the U.S. and Mexico are still widely disparate, and that 
no viable system that permits sufficient or unrestricted movement of 
labor across the border has been implemented. Thus, in response to 
the persistent high demand for labor by the U.S., and Mexico’s will-
ingness to supply, undocumented migration has continued. Recent 
increases in barriers to entry, including the border fence, have only 
resulted in fewer immigrant departures. As of 2006, there are approxi-
mately 11.1 million undocumented people estimated to be residing in 
the U.S., a number that appears to be steadily growing (Passell, 2006). 

Border Fence “Justification”

    Supporters of the border fence justify its construction with 
two main claims. First, that it is necessary in order to curb the 
flow of undocumented immigrants, and second, that it will pre-
vent terrorism. The actual impact of the border fence, how-
ever, is more accurately seen in the increased death rate of mi-
grants attempting to cross the border; reinforcement of the 
construct of “illegality”; and heightened insecurity of the large pop-
ulation of families and individuals who live in the U.S. with undocu-
mented status.
       While reports from the border patrol and the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) often claim that their border enforcement 
efforts have been somewhat successful in curbing the flow of undocu-
mented migration, the number of undocumented immigrants enter-
ing the U.S. has increased (Ackleson, 2005). Whereas in the 1980s, 
approximately 130,000 undocumented persons arrived per year, in 
the period from 2000-2004, the number of yearly new arrivals was 
estimated to have increased to around 700,000 (Passel, 2005). Simi-
larly, the trends in apprehensions of undocumented migrants found 
crossing the U.S.-Mexico border--the measure DHS uses to estimate 
undocumented migration--do not necessarily connect construction 
of the fence to decreased migration. 

 Despite ongoing border fence construction, the number of ap-
prehensions has generally increased steadily, only showing signifi-

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

37 / Scott

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii



cant drops during three periods: from 1996 to 1997, 2000 to 2003, 
and recently, in 2006 (DHSOIS, 2006, 2008). These periods of de-
creased apprehensions coincide with other events: the initial passing 
of the new immigration law in 1996, the attacks of September 11th 
and subsequent economic downturn, and the burst of the housing 
bubble and subsequent global financial crisis. Given that undocu-
mented migration began to increase steadily in-between these 
two downturns despite the continued construction of the fence, it 
would be short-sighted to conclude that the fence caused them.  
      Proponents of the border fence assert that it is a necessary precaution 
in the war on terror. Supporters might argue that this is demonstrated 
by the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 
September 11, 2001. Yet in order for a claim that construction of the 
fence is necessary for the prevention of terrorism to hold, a connec-
tion must be made between the fence and the absence of terrorism. 
However, no such connection exists. Construction of the modern 
fence began in 1994, well before the terrorist attacks in 2001. Addi-
tionally, the majority of hijackers involved on September 11 held doc-
tored passports and visas, and none entered the U.S. by crossing the 
southern border illegally (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 
on the United States, 2004). Finally, if the illegal entry of terrorists via 
land borders was a legitimate concern, there would be similar anxi-
ety and advocacy for fence construction on the Northern border with 
Canada. Instead, the Northern Border Project consists of minimal sur-
veillance initiatives and no significant fence construction (DHS, 2008).  

Immigration Legislation 

      Comprehensive immigration reform that both provides for the 
large undocumented population currently residing in the U.S. and cre-
ates a legal means by which future U.S. labor demands can be met is 
desperately needed. Recent legislation, however, has predominantly 
focused on increased enforcement of border and labor laws and de-
terrence strategies, including the border fence. Two legislative pro-
posals that were recently passed, the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268) 
and the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006 (H.R. 6061), focus on “secur-
ing” the Southern border as the means of controlling illegal migra-
tion. The REAL ID Act grants the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) the power to waive certain laws that interfere with the con-
struction of physical barriers at the border, and waives the govern-

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

38 / Fencing Fears



ment from compliance with previous regulations imposed to protect 
environmental and indigenous rights. The Secure Border Fence Act, 
essentially an extension of many of the components of the REAL ID 
Act, authorized construction of 700 miles of double reinforced fence, 
security cameras, lights, and other measures to be used in or-
der to protect and defend the Southern border (H.R. 6061).
   Several policies aimed at addressing undocumented immi-
gration have since been proposed in Congress, though none of 
them garnered sufficient support to become law. Comprehen-
sive Immigration Reform bills have been proposed both in the 
Senate (as S. 1033, S. 2611, and S. 1348) and in the House of Repre-
sentatives (as the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act of 2005, the Secure America through 
Verification and Enforcement [SAVE] Act of 2005 and 2007, and the 
STRIVE Act of 2007). Despite their inclusion of some provisions for 
undocumented individuals and temporary work visa programs, they all 
propose considerable increases in funding for Secure Border Initia-
tives, in other words, for increased fencing along the southern border.

Impact of the Border Fence    

 The gravest consequences of the fence are felt by those 
attempting to cross the border. Construction of the border fence has 
funneled migrants into dangerous terrain, resulting in a dramatic 
increase in deaths along the border due to environmental exposure 
(Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2006; Nuñez-Neto & Garcia, 2007; Ackleson, 
2005; Cornelius, 2001; Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2006).  
A 2006 U.S. Government Accountability Office report indicated that 
the annual number of deaths of undocumented migrants along the 
border has doubled since 1995 (GAO, 2006). The same report estimates 
that there were over 2,000 deaths between 1998 and 2004, and a 29% 
increase in the number of deaths in this period (GAO table page 42, 
2006).

 The construction of the border fence also impacts the 
undocumented population by reinforcing the social construct of 
“illegal” status. Being illegal is not an inherent personal quality; it is a 
status resulting from a combination of immigration laws and economic 
opportunities. Though some assert that those with “illegal” status 
are by nature more criminal because they arrived in the U.S. without 
authorization, undocumented people currently living in the U.S. have 

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

39 / Scott



not been found more likely to commit crime than the documented 
citizen population (Rumbaut et al., 2006). Evidence indicates that 
the undocumented population contributes substantially to the U.S. 
economy despite the fact that they are granted limited access to its 
resources. It is estimated that undocumented immigrants pay 80,000 
USD more in taxes per capita than the amount needed to cover the 
costs related to their use of government benefits (Smith & Edmonston, 
1997). These tax payments come from a combination of sales and 
property taxes, and “voluntary” income tax payments through Income 
Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITNs) (instead of Social Security 
Numbers), which require immigrants’ employers to make mandatory 
deductions from their pay (Smith & Edmonston, 1997). Additionally, 
workers who use false Social Security Numbers, largely undocumented 
immigrants, are estimated to contribute 7 billion USD to Social Security 
and 1.5 billion USD to Medicare (National Council on La Raza, 2008).  

    Despite their significant economic contributions, undocumented 
immigrants face significant difficulties in the U.S. They are denied 
access to the majority of benefits that are afforded to documented 
residents and citizens. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible 
for the majority of government benefits--public school education 
and Emergency Medicaid being the sole exceptions (PROWRA, 
1996). Though they may have the capacity and training, as a result 
of their status, undocumented immigrants are often prohibited from 
obtaining high skills jobs and thereby precluded from obtaining 
higher economic status. A final impact of the fence is that in 
reinforcing the construct of illegality, it furthers the reality that life 
as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. means living in a state of 
perpetual awareness, if not fear, of detection and deportation. This is 
due to the reality of the U.S. immigration and deportation system as 
it now operates. In 2007 roughly 29,786 immigrants were detained by 
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) daily (ICE, 2007). 

A Call to Action for Social Workers  

           Social workers, as professionals bound by a Code of Ethics, are 
obliged to take action on problems created by the fence. Specifically, the 
core social work values of social justice and respect for the dignity and 
worth of every person drive this obligation. The value of social justice 
requires that “social workers pursue social change, particularly with 
and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of 

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

40 / Fencing Fears



people” (NASW, 1996). Respecting the dignity and worth of the person 
means that social workers are obligated to “promote clients’ socially 
responsible self-determination” (NASW, 1996). These values provoke 
questions with regard to the fence. Does the border fence serve to 
promote social change and break down barriers that create vulnerable 
and oppressed groups, or does it reinforce further oppression and 
the vulnerability of a certain group of individuals? Likewise, does the
border fence respect an individual’s right to determine what is right and 
necessary to best promote his or her survival and that of his or her family?  

  The Code of Ethics highlights that “social workers should engage 
in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people 
have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and 
opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to 
develop fully” (NASW, 1996). As the border fence does not grant all 
people equal access to resources, then, as the Code of Ethics asserts, 
social workers should be expected to address this through social or 
political action. For those living closer to the fence, it is possible to 
become involved in efforts to directly prevent more deaths along 
the border. Many agencies and faith-based organizations on both 
sides of the border currently offer relief to border crossers. Policy 
advocacy provides another avenue for engagement, as immigration 
and unnecessary death on U.S. soil are national issues that all 
representatives can be pressed to notice. If nothing else, on a personal 
level, education of friends and neighbors with regard to the border 
fence can help create national awareness about the issues that the 
fence generates. Social workers cannot “sit on the fence.” They must 
instead consider their ethical obligations in addressing the immensely 
complex reality of undocumented migration from Mexico to the U.S. 

   References

Ackleson, J. (2005). Fencing in failure:  Effective border control is not achieved by  
            building more fences: Immigration Policy In Focus. Immigration Policy Center, 
            4(2).
Center Policy Brief. Washington, DC:American Immigration Law Foundation. Secure  
            America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act of 2007, H.R. 4088,
            110th  Congress, (2007). 
Cornelius, W. A. (2001). Death at the border: The efficacy and unintended 
            consequences of   US immigration control policy. Population and Development 
          Review, 27, 661.

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

41 / Scott



Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual 
          Review of Anthropology, 31, 419-448. 
Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics (DHSOIS). (2006). 
            Border Apprehensions: 2005. Fact Sheet November 2006. Washington DC:Author.
Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics (DHSOIS). (2008). 
            Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2007. Retrieved from: http://
            www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement_ar_07.pdf .
Department of Homeland Security (DHSa). (2008). Northern border project website 
            description. DHS Website. Last viewed on January 11, 2009 at:http://www.cbp.gov/
            xp/cgov/border_security/sbi/projects/project_descrip/ northborder.xml.
Department of Homeland Security (DHSb). (2008). Secure border initiative Southwest 
            Border Fence. DHS Website. Last viewed on Februrary 17, 2009 at: http://www.dhs.
            gov/xprevprot/programs/border-fence-southwest.shtm 
Fix, M. & Zimmerman,W. (2001). All under one roof: Mixed status families in an era of 
            reform. International Migration Review, 35(2), 397-419. 
Government Accountability Office.  (2006). Illegal immigration: Border-crossing deaths have 
            doubled since 1995; Border patrol’s efforts to prevent deaths have not been fully 
            evaluated. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office. 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). (1996). 
            110 STAT 3009-546, Public Law 104-208.Immigration Reform and Control Act 
            (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603. 100 Stat. 3359 (1986). 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (2007). Fiscal year 2007 annual report: 
            Protecting national security and upholding public safety. Washington, DC:Author. 
            Retrieved from: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/ice07ar_final.pdf.
Massey, D. S., Durand, J. & Malone, N. J. (2002). Beyond smoke and mirrors:  Mexican 
            immigration in an era of economic integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.   
Morosi, R. (2005), Border crossing deaths set a 12-month record. Los Angeles Times, October 
            1,2005. Retrieved from:  http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/01/local/me-deaths1.
National Association of Social Workers  (1996).  Code of Ethics.  NASW Press:  Author. 
National Council on La Raza (NCLR) (2008). Five facts about undocumented workers in the U.S. fact 
            sheet. National Council on La Raza: Author. 
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. (2004). Staff Statement No. 
            1. Presented at the Seventh Public Hearing on January 26-27, 2004, Borders,     
            Transportation, and Managing Risk. Retrieved on January 8, 2009 from: www.9-       
            11commission.gov/staff_statements/ staff_statement_1.pdf.
Nuñez-Neto, B. & Garcia, M. J. (2007). Border security:  Barriers along the U.S. international       
            border.  
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress June 5, 2007.  Retrieved February 17, 2008       
            from: http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/CRS_border_fence_june2007.pdf
Nuñez-Neto, B. (2008). Border security: The role of the U.S. border patrol. Congressional    
            Research  Service Report for Congress November 20, 2008.  Retrieved January, 2009  
            from: http://digitalcommons.ilr. cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontentcgi?article=1577&context=
            key_workplace.
Passel, J. S.  (2005). Estimates of the size and characteristics of the undocumented population in    
             the  U.S. 
Passel, J. S. (2006). The size and characteristics of the unauthorized migrant population in the   
            U.S.: Estimates based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey.  Washington, DC: Pew  
            Hispanic  Center. 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Pub. L. No. 104-193. 

  110 Stat. 2105 (1996). 
Puleo, J.A. (1995). Foreign visitors who violate the terms of their visas by remaining in the United  
             States indefinitely. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the  
             Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress,
             first session, February 24, 1995. Washington DC: House of Representatives. 

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

42 / Fencing Fears



Report, March 21, 2005.  Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from: http://
           pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf
Rodriguez, Armado (2008). Walls, fences, and communication. Communication  
           Currents August 2008 Issue. Syracuse: National Communication Association. 
Rosenblum, M.R. (2000). U.S. Immigration Policy: Unilateral and Cooperative 
            Responses to Undocumented Immigration. International Studies Association. 
            Retrieved February 18, 2008 from Columbia International Affairs Online http:
            www.ciaonet.org/isa/rom01/index.html.
Rubio-Goldsmith, R., McCormick, M. M., Martinez, D., & Duarte, I. M. (2006). 
            The“funnel effect” recovered bodies of unauthorized migrants processed by 
            the Pima County office of the medical and examiner, 1990-2005.  Binational 
            Migration Institute: Mexican American Studies & Research Center at the 
            University of Arizona. 
Rumbaut, R. G., Gonzales R.G., Komaie, Golnaz, and Morgan C.V. (2006). Debunking 
            the myth of immigrant criminality: Imprisonment among first-and 
            secondgeneration young men. Migration  Information Source. Washington, DC: 
            Migration Policy Institute. 
Secure Fence Act (2006). H.R. 6061, Public Law 109-367.  
Seper, J. (2008). Southwest tribe calls for end of border fence construction. 
            The Washington Times. Friday, July 11, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.
            washingtontimes.com/  news/2008/jul/11/southwest-tribe-calls-for-end-of-
            border-fence-cons/   
Smith, J. P. & Edmonston, B. (1997). The new Americans: Economic, demographic, and 

  fiscal effects of immigration. National Research Council. Washington, DC: 
  National Academy Press, 334, Table 7.5.  

University of Texas at Brownsville. (2008). Original Proposal: US DHS 2007. UTB 
            website. Last accessed on February 25, 2009 at: http://blue.utb.edu/newsandinfo

 UpdateBorderFenceIssue.htm 

Journal of student soCial Work, volume vii

43 / Scott
44 / Shifting From Social Service to Social Change


