What limitations and caveats do Border Patrol reports note about attributing changes in crossings to the wall (2017–2021)?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Border Patrol and DHS materials acknowledge progress in barrier construction—about 458 miles of barrier panels installed from January 2017 through January 2021 [1]—but also repeatedly warn that attributing changes in crossings or drug seizures solely to the wall is limited by staffing, measurement, and confounding factors [2] [3]. Independent reviews and DHS metric reports say available metrics are incomplete and that methodologies and data quality limit causal claims about barriers’ direct effects [4] [5].
1. Border construction numbers are precise, but impact attribution is not
Federal accounts emphasize construction totals—CBP reported 76 miles of new wall by Oct. 2019 [6], and GAO counted 458 miles of barrier panels through Jan. 2021 [1]—yet those same agencies and oversight bodies caution that counting miles is not the same as measuring effects on crossings, because miles-installed is an output metric that does not, by itself, demonstrate causal impact on migration flows [1] [6].
2. Border Patrol points to operational changes but stops short of single‑cause claims
CBP and DHS statements describe operational changes tied to new barriers—such as redeploying agents and “improving our security” in sectors where walls exist [7] [6]—but these documents often frame walls as one element of a broader “mix” of personnel, technology, and infrastructure rather than as a sole driver of lower crossings [7] [8]. That framing limits a claim that the wall alone produced observed changes [7] [8].
3. Staffing levels and redeployments complicate interpretation
GAO and other oversight work document chronic Border Patrol staffing shortages and redeployments, which affect where agents can be present and therefore where apprehensions occur; this makes it difficult to separate the effect of a barrier from the effect of more or fewer agents in a sector [2]. CBP itself notes manpower shifts—claiming redeployment benefits in one San Diego section—yet independent auditors warn staffing variability is a confounder for causal attribution [7] [2].
4. Technology and other enforcement changes are simultaneous confounders
DHS and OIG reporting document substantial deployments of sensors, cameras, radars and other technology along the Southwest border and emphasize that walls operate alongside these systems [2] [3]. Oversight reports stress CBP has “not fully deployed” tools needed for situational awareness and that technology shortfalls and deployment timing complicate assessing the wall’s independent effect [3] [2].
5. Metrics and data limitations undermine strong causal claims
Congress required DHS to report on 43 border metrics; DHS reported on fewer than that set in recent years and GAO found gaps and quality issues in the Border Security Metrics Report, including lack of sensitivity analyses and statistical uncertainty discussion—limitations that make strong attribution to the wall scientifically fragile [4] [5]. GAO specifically urges DHS to improve information quality and transparency about assumptions used to derive unlawful entry metrics [5].
6. Conflicting interpretations exist among stakeholders
CBP and DHS messaging assert that walls are “effective” when combined with personnel and technology, offering examples such as sector-specific manpower reductions [7] [6]. Conversely, independent analyses and some researchers cited by JournalistsResource emphasize that barriers “are not particularly effective on their own” and that published research is limited and offers conflicting results [9]. That disagreement reflects differing missions, data access, and incentives among agencies, auditors, and outside researchers.
7. Oversight emphasizes contextual analysis, not simple before/after comparisons
GAO and OIG reports emphasize the need for better context: changes in apprehensions or seizures can come from shifting migration patterns, smuggler tactics, law enforcement posture, funding changes, and external drivers like violence or economic conditions—factors not isolated by simple mileage counts [2] [3] [5]. GAO’s later work also flagged programmatic and reporting weaknesses that impede reliable causal inferences about barriers [1] [5].
8. What reporting does not say (and why that matters)
Available sources do not present a single, peer‑reviewed causal estimate that isolates the wall’s effect on crossings across 2017–2021; instead, official sources present installation counts and qualitative operational claims while GAO/OIG identify methodological and data gaps that preclude definitive attribution [6] [1] [4] [5]. Because the government’s metric system was incomplete and sensitive assumptions were not fully disclosed, claims that the wall alone drove observed trends are not substantiated in the cited reporting [4] [5].
Bottom line: Federal reporting documents construction milestones and operational anecdotes linking walls to localized changes [6] [7], but multiple oversight reports warn that staffing, concurrent technology deployments, incomplete metrics, and methodological gaps prevent directly attributing changes in crossings to the wall by itself for 2017–2021 [2] [3] [5].