Research: Publications

Fallacies of High-Tech Fixes for Border Security

April 14, 2010 | Report

By Tom Barry

Download PDF | HTML Version

The Center for International Policy announces the release of its new report, Fallacies of High-Tech Fixes for Border Security, which examines the promises and impact of remote surveillance technologies in the drive by the Department of Homeland Security to secure the border.

Lately, public calls for more “border security” are rising as drug-related killings intensify in Mexico’s northern borderlands and fears escalate on the U.S. side of the border that this violence will spill over. Observers of immigration policy say that a secure border is fundamental to passing comprehensive immigration reform.

This report is a cautionary note about the high costs and dubious results of two high-tech fixes for border security: the attempts to construct a “virtual fence” through the Secure Border Initiative and the new enthusiasm for unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol the border.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) professes a commitment to protecting the homeland against the entry of “dangerous people and goods.” Yet it lacks a strategy that prioritizes actual threats, and its high-tech initiatives are shockingly unfocused and nonstrategic. Despite the vast sums being spent, DHS, through its Secure Border Initiative, points to illegal border crossers and pounds of marijuana captured as its main indicators of success in protecting the homeland.

With little or no in-house technological expertise and with seemingly unlimited funds, DHS has recklessly pursued border security strategies that are not tied to threat assessments and cost-benefit evaluations.

Fallacies of High-Tech Fixes for Border Security was written by Tom Barry, director of the TransBorder Project of the Center for International Policy.

Download PDF | HTML Version

CIP in the Press
  • RSPO Recertifies IOI Group, But NGOs Have Yet to See ‘Real Action on the Ground’

    CIP quoted

    Sustainable Brands, 08-09-16

    Less than five months after the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) suspended Malaysian palm oil producer IOI Group’s certification, that suspension has been lifted – much to the dismay of NGO campaigners. While the RSPO’s Complaints Panel has said it is “satisfied that IOI has met the conditions set out in its letter to IOI,” Greenpeace Indonesia and the Center for International Policy says they have yet to see any real action on the ground...Read More »

  • Think Tanks and their Corporate Funders: Who’s Selling What?

    Bill Goodfellow quoted

    Nonprofit Quarterly, 08-09-16

    The article concedes that much of Brookings’ work appears unconnected, at least on the surface, to corporate interests. Still, as Bill Goodfellow, the executive director of the Center for International Policy, another think tank, said, “People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class. But it’s absurd to suggest that donors don’t have influence. The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”—Ruth McCambridge...Read More »

  • Thousands of Pages of Confidential Think Tank Documents Detail Corporate Ties

    Bill Goodfellow quoted

    DESMOG, 08-09-16

    “People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class,” Bill Goodfellow, executive director of one think tank, the Center for International Policy, told The New York Times. “The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”...Read More »