19

One of the biggest areas of disagreement on the wall is its cost efficiency.

Republicans claim it will save us money by preventing the need to support illegal immigrants who enter the US, while Democrats argue the wall is just too expensive to ever be a cost efficient approach to addressing illegal immigration. I'm looking for hard numbers regarding this claim. Can we compare the potential costs to potential savings and figure out whether it has a positive ROI (return on investment)?

For now I'm trying to look at a few things:

  1. Long term costs after the wall is built (total construction cost, maintenance, repairs, staffing, etc.).
  2. To get an idea of potential economic benefit, if any, after being built as a result of the wall doing its intended job.
  3. Perhaps, if applicable, how many years it would take to recoup the cost of building the wall based off of money saved in the previous point.

On one side I'm looking for the most accurate number on cost savings on lowering illegal immigration. What does the government estimate the cost of illegal immigration to be currently? What is the economic gain or loss per year on preventing illegal immigrants from entering the US? What are the numbers if we presume the wall hypothetically stops 100% of Mexican non-overstay illegal immigration? It's unlikely any action will stop 100% of illegal immigration, so can you cite any source(s) that give a more reasonable percentage expected to be stopped by the wall if built and what that equates to in potential costs/savings?

On the other side of the calculation, what would be the cost of maintaining the wall, i.e. manning it, repairing damage to it, and generally keeping the wall functional after it is built? How would this maintenance cost compare to the economic impact on the US citizens in stopping some illegal immigration?

Since we're looking at long term costs here, the original cost of building the wall is only relevant in the lost opportunity cost (in layman's terms, what benefit would we get out of the money if we spent it elsewhere). You are welcome to try to include opportunity cost as a factor for 'costs' of the wall. That is assuming you can find a valid way of measuring it, it's hard to place an opportunity cost on a less-than-rational government budget since assuming money not spent on the wall would go to a cost effective alternative, rather then being wasted on some inefficient endeavor, is not always a safe assumption. Though I suppose claiming the interest on the national debt, on the argument the money used for the wall would otherwise not be spent and thus pay off (or not require borrowing against) the debt, would probably be a semi-valid minimum estimation of opportunity cost.

I'm looking for hard numbers from cited sources or valid statistical calculations for this question, some degree of rigor to prove the accuracy of claims. I am looking only at direct financial cost of building the wall, I'm not interested in any other claimed advantages/disadvantages of the wall, such as environmental impact, or whether the wall will lower crime from illegal immigrants, I've already asked a question about that latter claim.

I would like answers that can say whether the wall was cost effective before the government shutdown nonsense started. If for some reason you really wanted to address how the government shutdown changes the numbers you can, but I'd like to know what the anticipated ROI would have been even if government shutdown never occurred.

dsollen
  • 9,440
  • 6
  • 40
  • 61
  • 20
    The fundamental problem with answering this question would be agreeing on the definition of what constitutes "Return on Investment" from the wall. While I agree it may be possibly to attribute X cost to Y program from illegal aliens, it is not, IMHO, possibly to fully equate $ value to the "return" part of the ROI in altering the flow of immigration. Too many externalities to apply to the value of a human life to properly calculate return here. There is a cultural shift that cant be priced accurately. – David S Dec 26 '18 at 21:02
  • I like the question, but it does depend a lot on hypothetical situations. I personally am mostly concerned with the qualitative aspects of the wall. Things that can't be counted. Among the questions I would ask would be, how effective will it be? How will it affect communities on the border? How will it affect nature that straddles the two borders? – Karlomanio Dec 26 '18 at 22:54
  • 5
    I don't see how this question can be close-voted as opinion-based when the OP is specifically asking for hard data on the matter. – Wes Sayeed Dec 26 '18 at 23:35
  • 28
    As far as I'm aware, credible studies of illegal immigration conclude that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the economy, not a net cost. So the only economic benefit of the wall would possibly be to improve the efficiency of Border Patrol operations on the southern border. But you also have to take into account the fact that there are be much more cost-effective ways to improve that efficiency. – phoog Dec 27 '18 at 00:32
  • 9
    @phoog: Yes, I wonder who they think is going to be picking fruits & vegetables, or all the other hard and low-paid jobs that most Americans won't do, in the absence of immigrants. (And for the record, I have - working in a field, hearing someone shout "Migra!", and suddenly finding yourself all alone is a learning experience :-)) – jamesqf Dec 27 '18 at 05:41
  • 2
    @DavidS There are a ton of difficult to measure things, but that doesn't mean that measuring them is an opinion. The fundamental questions are: 1 - are undocumented immigrants currently a net gain or a net loss for the economy 2 - will a wall reduce the number of undocumented immigrants 3 - how much will a wall cost to initially build 4 - how much will a wall cost to maintain – David Rice Dec 27 '18 at 16:05
  • 1
    @phoog If you can provide links to some credible studies of that sort it would be a complete answer in itself; though the studies I've seen have not come to that conclusion so I'd be interested in seeing the studies your referring to. – dsollen Dec 27 '18 at 16:08
  • 1
    @dsollen here's a good start (the sources linked, not the wiki itself) - it's really complicated and as far as I can tell there's no definitive answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_impact_of_undocumented_immigrants – David Rice Dec 27 '18 at 16:19
  • 1
    @dsollen since the question is closed, it is not possible to post an answer. I also don't have time to look for studies, but here are a couple of articles about Riverside, NJ: Town Battling Illegal Immigration Is Emptier Now (28 July 2006) and Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants (26 Sept 2007). Also, credibility of studies is a matter of opinion and will be contentious. – phoog Dec 27 '18 at 16:26
  • @DavidRice The contention here isn't purely economic. If it was, this would be better asked on economics.SE. Being political, there is a difference between the perceived "return" based on an ideological perspective. Here is where the $ value becomes opinion. If the scope of the questions were limited to cost of building and maintenance, then it is off topic here and the question should be moved to the appropriate SE. Anything beyond construction details are laced with assumptions and opinion that must be considered carefully. – David S Dec 27 '18 at 17:04
  • 3
    @DavidS And that's the inherent ridiculousness of a political forum that doesn't want any opinion based answers. Either politics is opinion, in which case this entire stack exchange shouldn't exist, or there are questions that aren't opinions that are about politically charged things where the answers are limited to hard numbers. – David Rice Dec 27 '18 at 17:08
  • 3
    @DavidRice There is nuance missing here. This question is broadly asking to provide an in-depth financial analysis of the wall. This requires us to first identify to an acceptable degree of accuracy the current cost per illegal immigrant in the US already. Then to identify the estimated rate the wall will reduce the current rate of illegal immigrants. Then to compare the cost of building and maintaining the wall to other forms of border control. The point of this forum is to ask a more directed question to help, not do think tank work for them. – David S Dec 27 '18 at 17:35
  • 1
    @DavidS That actually sounds to me like just what this forum should be - a place where people can reliably get excellent answers to both easy and tough questions, with sources and details. If you don't want to do the work to answer it, that's fine - like you say it is a lot of work - but someone could do it and we'd all be better for it. – David Rice Dec 27 '18 at 17:55
  • @DavidRice There are multiple close votes. If you feel you can edit or work with dsollen to edit this question to improve it, please do. I agree, a detailed and accurate answer to this question would benefit us all. I would recommend splitting this question into component parts, ask them on appropriate SE, and reassemble it as a community wiki. – David S Dec 27 '18 at 18:09
  • @DavidS There are multiple close votes saying that this is primary opinion based, rather than facts, references, or specific examples. Which is weird, because the question says "I'm looking for hard numbers from cited sources or valid statistical calculations for this question, some degree of rigor to prove the accuracy of claims" which sounds to me like facts, figures, and specific examples. Maybe I should ask on english.stackexchange.com? – David Rice Dec 27 '18 at 18:15
  • 3
    @DavidRice The materials, construction, and maintenance can all be found with hard facts. The opinion-based aspect is in "Democrat" or "Republican" version of the return. by preventing the need to support the cost of "support" here is contentious. recoup the cost ... via stopping illegal immigration How to define "recoup" and "cost" here differs between the camps. Not to mention that many of the questions are loaded in ways people may not agree with. – David S Dec 27 '18 at 18:37
  • @DavidS Gotcha - any question where there's political divide isn't something that can be quantified so we shouldn't talk about it in the politics stack exchange. – David Rice Dec 27 '18 at 19:08
  • 12
    There's another point that really ought to be addressed in any cost analysis of "The Wall". That is, will it actually reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants? As I think was mentioned, many are visa overstays. There's also a lot of sea coast out there, and as European experience shows, determined migrants can obtain boats. – jamesqf Dec 27 '18 at 21:29
  • We have great difficulty nailing down costs of illegal immigration, tangential costs of successful interdiction upon industries and product classes that rely on minimal labor costs, other costs associated with the wall (potential environmental, and species damage, legal costs), and we haven't really nailed down a real cost figure for the construction, itself, let alone ongoing maintenance and staffing. I'd expect a pretty wide range of answers and supporting information. – PoloHoleSet Jan 11 '19 at 20:46
  • 1
    A strong answer to this question would need to include a cost benefit analysis of the reduced man power required to secure fenced portions of the border. The presence of the wall will lower the required response time to an incursion, allowing a reallocation of funds and personnel to other tasks. – Drunk Cynic Jan 11 '19 at 21:35
  • Can we even answer the question, guven that it's not clear what the wall even is (concrete, see through, slats, fencing) and where it would be? – rougon Jan 12 '19 at 05:15
  • 1
    @jamesqf who's picking up fruit and vegetables in Japan, where there's very little illegal immigration compared to the US? Same kinds of people would do it in America if immigration laws are effectively enforced. – JonathanReez Jan 12 '19 at 06:35
  • 1
    @JonathanReez the US has a visa for seasonal agricultural workers, so probably more workers and employers would be forced to use that program, raising the cost of agricultural produce. – phoog Jan 12 '19 at 18:35
  • 1
    @phoog fruit and vegetables would still be picked, even if the US completely shut down all avenues for low skilled migration. Food will become more expensive, but on the upside the level of income inequality would be reduced in the US. Compare Japan's GINI index to America's. – JonathanReez Jan 12 '19 at 19:45
  • @JonathanReez the US has about 85 people per square kilometer of agricultural land. Japan has 2,500. Japan's agricultural sector is also dominated by fully automated crops like rice. Japan is also much denser than the US (especially the southwest). When ICE puts pressure on illegal labor practices in the southwest, Americans don't step in to fill the void; instead the crops go unpicked. – phoog Jan 12 '19 at 21:35
  • @phoog for $20/hour there would be plenty of Americans to take up these jobs. Of course nobody wants to work on a farm for $5/hour like someone without legal status would. – JonathanReez Jan 12 '19 at 21:36
  • 1
    @JonathanReez it seems the wages are more in the $10-to-$14 range, and a couple of years ago the LA Times ran Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don’t want the job. "Even when the average rate on his fields was $20 an hour, the U.S.-born workers lost interest, fast. 'We’ve never had one come back after lunch,' he says." – phoog Jan 12 '19 at 21:58
  • @phoog $30 an hour then. Again, if someone does this work in Japan, surely there would be someone doing this in the US as well. – JonathanReez Jan 12 '19 at 22:00
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – phoog Jan 12 '19 at 22:12
  • @JonathanReez: While I know very little about Japanese agriculture, I suspect that the Japanese may not have the same attitude about agricultural work, or similar jobs that most Americans just won't do. – jamesqf Jan 13 '19 at 19:33
  • Rural Japanese often farm rice as a part-time thing, having retired. The average age of a Japanese farmer is something like 65 years old. Rice is easy to farm, and supplements a pension when little else in a small village will. Add import tariffs over 700% and it's no mystery why Japanese will do it. Despite that, Japanese agriculture in general is in trouble, so saying "Japan can do it, why can't we" is misleading. – Geobits Jan 16 '19 at 20:27
  • This question seems to assume the wall would have a practical purpose. It would not. The proposed wall is purely political. It would not actually be built in a way that will prevent anyone from crossing the border. Most cartels use tunnels for everything already anyway. With that said: the wall isn't going to be built. Don't worry about it. – user91988 May 28 '20 at 15:57
  • @user91988 It would help if you looked at the actual Wall System plans. "Wall" is just one part of a whole. The "wall" also includes: lighting, underground detection sensors (FODS), drivable space for border patrol, and much more. CBP certainly thinks it is important for enforcement. VERY practical. And would help detect tunnels as well. – MrPete Apr 24 '23 at 20:19

1 Answers1

23

Best-case scenario? Fox News thinks the Wall will save lives by making it more difficult for cartels to bring drugs into the USA.

Middle-of-the-road scenario? Stanford put an actual monetary figure into play with its research: for every 19 cents we spend on this wall, it will give about 1 cent worth of benefit to low-income US workers. Oh, and it wouldn't slow the rate of drug smuggling.

Worst-case scenario? Trade war/embargo with Mexico, environmental ruination on a huge scale, and the loss of between 8 and 40 billion dollars that could have been used to repair crumbling infrastructure.

Carduus
  • 17,257
  • 3
  • 51
  • 71
  • 3
    The Stanford study is pretty credible. – ohwilleke Jan 11 '19 at 19:32
  • LOL. The Stanford study was based on highly questionable assumptions. Things like: the only people who benefit are workers. The numbers can be counted in tens of thousands.

    Yes, today we can use hindsight to laugh, but such studies have always been questionable. We make huge assumptions based on our biases. Real data: MILLIONS of people are now coming in annually. Many with nefarious intent, including terrorists. An effective wall system would be incredibly helpful. (Look at urban areas to see why. No enforcement==rampant crime.

    If nothing else, a wall lets CBP focus on tunnels etc ;)

     – MrPete Apr 24 '23 at 20:28
  • @MrPete You wouldn't believe how often I laugh at peer-reviewed studies in well-established journals because the results don't mesh with figures my favorite media personality made up. – Carduus Apr 25 '23 at 14:03
  • @Carduus perhaps more to the point: are you aware of just how AWFUL peer-reviewed studies are and have been? I recommend searching for the NOVA show, "What Makes Science True?" ... check the extensive bibliography. Visit metrics.stanford.edu -- there is an incredible crisis in modern science. The vast majority of the very best studies are later found to be largely or completely FALSE! Serious people are working out why, and how to correct our processes.

    Bottom line: it's incredibly hard to do science well.

     – MrPete Apr 27 '23 at 03:59