Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Secure Fence Act of 2006

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.



Policypedia Imigration Final.png

Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed in 2006 and signed into law by President George W. Bush (R) on October 26, 2006. Its stated purpose was to "establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States." Most debate around the law surrounded a provision that required the building of 700 miles of new fencing along the southern border with Mexico. Supporters argued the fence would improve national security and reduce illegal immigration, while opponents argued that the fence would not effectively reduce illegal immigration and could worsen national security. As of 2016, the border with Mexico was lined with 650 miles of partial fencing.[1]

Background

See also: Fact check/How many miles of fence stand along the U.S.-Mexico border?

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) on September 13, 2006. Its stated purpose was to "establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States." The House passed the bill by a vote of 283-138 on September 14, 2006. The Senate then passed the bill by a vote of 80-19 on September 29, 2006.[2]

President George W. Bush (R) signed the bill into law on October 26, 2006, stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."[3]

Provisions

Border surveillance

Section 2 of the Secure Fence Act directed the secretary of homeland security to implement a system of surveillance for the land and sea borders of the United States, which included the use of the following:[2]

  • unmanned aerial vehicles
  • ground-based sensors
  • satellites
  • radar coverage
  • cameras

The law also directed the secretary to make improvements to physical infrastructure related to border security and the duties of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as checkpoints, weather access roads, and vehicle barriers. Under this section, the secretary was also given the authority to take all actions necessary and appropriate to deter and prevent unlawful entry into the United States.[2]

Border fence

Section 3 of the Secure Fence Act directed the secretary of homeland security to provide for the construction of a double-layered fence through the following areas, totaling 700 miles in length:[2][4]

(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.[5]

The law also directed the secretary to install surveillance cameras along the stretch of fence between Calexico, California, and Douglas, Arizona.[2]

Northern border

Section 4 of the Secure Fence Act directed the secretary of homeland security to conduct a study regarding a security system along the northern border. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the necessity of constructing a system, the feasibility of such a system, and the economic impact it could have along the border.[2]

Customs and Border Patrol authority

Section 5 of the Secure Fence Act directed the secretary of homeland security to evaluate the extent of the authority of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to stop vehicles entering the United States illegally and determine whether its authority should be expanded. Under the law, the secretary was also directed to evaluate the use of technology by the CBP to stop vehicles and determine whether such technology should be updated. Finally, the secretary was directed to evaluate the training provided to CBP officers regarding stopping vehicles.[2]

Debate

Debate concerning the Secure Fence Act primarily surrounded the construction of 700 miles of border fencing. Questions arose about whether building a fence was ethical, whether it would be effective, and whether it would harm foreign relations with Mexico.

Supporters of building the fence argued that the United States, as a sovereign nation, was justified in securing its borders and that doing so would make immigrating to the United States fairer for legal immigrants. They argued that the fence would effectively slow illegal immigration by forcing individuals seeking to cross illegally to attempt to do so in heavily patrolled areas. This extra difficulty would deter more individuals from attempting to cross, proponents contended. In addition, by slowing illegal immigration, supporters argued that the fence would improve national security. It could also improve foreign relations with Mexico as perceived issues with illegal immigration were reduced.[6]

Opponents of the fence argued that it would divide communities that exist along the border and possibly cut off some farmers' access to water. They also argued that the fence would not deter illegal immigration and would instead put border crossers in greater danger by forcing them to cross via treacherous routes. Crossers could also go around, climb over, or dig under the fence, and a fence would not stop illegal entry via the use of falsified documents. Because the fence would not deter illegal immigration, opponents countered that it would also not improve national security and could even incentivize criminals to become more organized. Opponents contended that the fence would worsen foreign relations with Mexico by sending a signal of distrust and an insult to the idea of "good neighbors."[6]

See also

External links

Footnotes