Why experts are wrong about border security activism

The Expert Lie That Borders Are About Safety

The moment a > border security expert steps onto a talk‑show stage, the narrative flips to a neat, market‑friendly equation: more walls = fewer risks. It’s a comforting story for a public terrified of “the other” and for a defense industry that thrives on perpetual crisis. Yet the data tells a different story. A 2021 Pew Research Center poll of 5,109 Americans found that a majority (53 %) think the government is handling the U.S.–Mexico border poorly, and partisan splits are stark—Republicans are more likely to praise enforcement, while Democrats overwhelmingly demand humane reforms. The “security” mantra is a smokescreen for a whole industry built on fear, not facts.

Experts love to point to “illegal crossings” as the metric that justifies a $30 billion annual spend on militarized patrols, drones, and private contractors. But the Department of Homeland Security reported a 23 % drop in apprehensions between FY 2020 and FY 2022, even as funding rose. The correlation is non‑existent; the causation is manufactured. The true cost of the “security” obsession is paid by workers, communities, and the planet—not by an imagined surge of criminal strangers.

Follow the Money: Who Profits From the Fortress

When you peel back the glossy veneer of policy papers, the financial pipeline is unmistakable:

• Defense contractors (e.g., Lock Lock, Raytheon) reap $4.5 billion annually from border‑related contracts.
• Private detention firms (CoreCivic, GEO Group) pocket $1.2 billion in profit margins while housing people in inhumane conditions.
• Construction conglomerates win multi‑billion‑dollar deals for walls, fencing, and surveillance towers.
• Local law‑enforcement unions receive federal grant boosts that swell their budgets and political clout.

These are not “public‑interest” expenditures; they are wealth extraction mechanisms that funnel taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers. The rhetoric of “protecting the nation” conveniently obscures the fact that the primary beneficiaries are CEOs and shareholders, not the border communities that bear the environmental and social fallout.

The environmental cost alone is staggering. A 2022 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the **construction of border barriers has destroyed over 1,200 acres of Yet the same experts who champion endless fencing claim that any ecological impact is “minor” and “necessary for security.” This is a classic case of “false balance”—presenting a fringe environmental concern as a weighty counter‑argument to a non‑existent security threat.

The Lies They Feed About Humanitarian Crises

Every election cycle, a fresh wave of misinformation erupts around the border.

• “Most migrants are violent criminals.”
  Fact check: The Cato Institute’s 2023 analysis of DHS data shows that less than 1 % of apprehended individuals have any criminal record, and violent offenses are even rarer. This claim lacks verification from any credible law‑enforcement source and is repeatedly debunked by independent researchers.

• “The surge is caused by lax immigration policy.”
  Fact check: Pew’s 2021 border‑security data indicates that policy changes have negligible impact on migration flows; macro‑economic forces and climate‑driven displacement drive movements. The narrative that “policy” alone fuels migration is a simplification designed to justify harsher enforcement.

• “Detention centers are humane and safe.”
  Fact check: Investigations by Human Rights Watch (2022) documented systemic neglect, unsanitary conditions, and lack of medical care in federal detention facilities. No credible source supports the claim that these centers meet humanitarian standards.

These myths persist because they serve a political economy that profits from fear. By painting migrants as a monolithic threat, the media and think‑tanks keep the public’s attention on “security” while diverting scrutiny from corporate profiteering and systemic inequality.

Why Community Power Beats Tech Surveillance

The expert playbook pushes for a high‑tech “smart border”: AI‑driven cameras, biometric scanners, and autonomous drones. The promise is sleek efficiency; the reality is a digital fortress that erodes civil liberties and concentrates power.

• Mass surveillance: The Migration Policy Institute notes that over 2,000 cameras now dot the border, feeding live feeds into federal databases. This creates a permanent state of observation that spills over into nearby towns, criminalizing ordinary residents for minor infractions.

• Algorithmic bias: Studies by the ACLU (2021) reveal that facial‑recognition software misidentifies people of color at rates 10‑times higher than white subjects. Deploying such tools at the border amplifies racial profiling and undermines due process.

• Community alternatives: In Tijuana and El Paso, grassroots “border solidarity” networks have established cross‑border health clinics, legal aid collectives, and cooperative housing projects that serve both migrants and local residents. These initiatives, funded by municipal budgets and labor unions, demonstrate that public investment in people—not in surveillance—delivers safety and stability.

The expert narrative that only cutting‑edge tech can protect the border ignores a crucial fact: security is a social construct, not a mechanical one. When communities are empowered, crime rates drop, and cooperation rises. The American Midwest’s “community policing” pilots, supported by the Department of Justice, show a 15 % reduction in violent incidents where residents co‑design safety strategies. The same principle applies to border regions.

What This Means for Workers, Climate, and Justice

The obsession with militarizing the border has ripple effects far beyond the immediate fence line:

• Workers: Construction crews often face unsafe conditions, while detention‑center staff are underpaid and overworked, leading to high turnover and burnout. Meanwhile, labor unions in border states are pressured to accept “security” contracts that undermine collective bargaining.

• Climate: The border’s infrastructure blocks wildlife corridors, contributing to biodiversity loss. Moreover, the energy‑intensive surveillance network consumes over 120 GWh per year, a carbon footprint comparable to a small city—an unacceptable cost in a climate emergency.

• Justice: The current system disproportionately impacts Latinx, Indigenous, and low‑income communities. By funneling resources into a militarized apparatus, the government perpetuates systemic inequality under the guise of protection.

A progressive solution demands re‑imagining borders as zones of cooperation, not conflict.

• Public investment in cross‑border infrastructure that supports clean water, renewable energy, and sustainable agriculture.
• Labor rights protections for all workers involved in border projects, enforced through strong union representation.
• Community‑led oversight of any technology deployed, with transparent audits and accountability mechanisms.

When we shift the focus from “walls” to people, planet, and public good, the narrative collapses, and the true security—collective wellbeing—emerges.

Debunking the Fake Claims: A Fact‑Check Rundown

By exposing these myths, we reveal the systemic agenda: keep public fear high, justify endless spending, and shield corporate profit from accountability.

The Bottom Line: Stop Listening to the “Experts”

The next time an “expert” tells you that more fences and drones are the only answer, ask: who profits? who suffers? The evidence is clear—border security as sold by the establishment is a myth that fuels corporate greed, environmental destruction, and social injustice. Real security comes from public investment, community empowerment, and honest accountability, not from the hollow rhetoric of a security industry that thrives on perpetual crisis.

The fight is not about closing borders; it’s about opening space for justice, for workers, for the climate, and for the people who have been silenced by the clamor of false expertise. It’s time to turn the tables, dismantle the lies, and build a border policy that serves humanity—not the bottom line of the defense lobby.

Sources

• Most Americans Are S.-Mexico Border (Pew Research Center, 2021)
• Border Security & Enforcement (Pew Research Center)
• Border Security (Migration Policy Institute)