How we made the first comprehensive map of deaths along the US border’s “virtual wall”

Our 15-month investigation into death and surveillance along the US-Mexico border began with a simple question: Why did so many people die near government surveillance towers meant to help track and apprehend them? This story is part of Dying on Camera , a collaboration between MIT Technology Review and Times of San Diego . Journalists in both newsrooms spent the past year examining the failures of border surveillance technology and uncovering the stories of the people who die in the borderlands . To answer that question, we looked through thousands of pages of government documents, visited the border multiple times, and interviewed more than 45 people, including current and former White House advisors, presidential appointees, Border Patrol agents, medical examiners, sheriffs, humanitarian volunteers, and employees of tech companies. The result of our investigation is the first comprehensive map and analysis of deaths near border surveillance towers. Here’s how we built it, what decisions we made along the way, and what the data can and can’t tell us. Our data The investigation relied on knowing where migrants have died and where and when US Customs and Border Protection towers were installed. We analyzed cases dating back to 2015, allowing us to cover different border policies, presidential administrations, and tower technologies. Migrant deaths The US-Mexico border has been called the world’s deadliest land border, and Border Patrol estimates that more than 10,000 people have died during crossings since 2000—a figure that’s widely considered an undercount. But the amount of information available publicly on where and when these people died, and who they were, varies widely. Some remains are never discovered, and for those that are, there’s no national protocol for how the records are handled. We considered a case for further analysis if we could confirm three basic things: whether the person was believed to have been crossing the border, where the remains were found, and roughly when the person died. We created our dataset by merging existing ones that had been compiled and shared by other organizations, including No More Deaths, Humane Borders, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with new records we obtained ourselves from more than a dozen agencies. Public records requests in Texas Texas was the biggest missing link in most existing databases of migrant deaths. Unlike Arizona, it has no initiative to share records online, and unlike New Mexico, it leaves individual counties to handle their own death investigations. Some records for those individual counties existed, compiled by a handful of dedicated researchers, but nothing was comprehensive or current. We identified 17 counties in Texas that would be relevant to our investigation: Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, Terrell, Val Verde, Kinney, Maverick, Dimmit, Webb, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Starr, Hidalgo, Cameron, Kenedy, Brooks, and Duval. There are other counties in which migrants have died, but they do not have areas covered by surveillance towers and were therefore excluded. In most of these counties, locally elected administrative judges called justices of the peace collect the most comprehensive information on local deaths. But records requests submitted to these individual judges can stall for years (indeed, some of our requests to justices of the peace remain unfilled more than a year after we filed them). Reports from justices of the peace sometimes leave out the scene or location details we needed; some justices never even visit the place where a migrant died, instead formally declaring the person deceased over FaceTime with the first responders on scene. The border wall between Sunland Park, New Mexico and Puerto de Anapra, Mexico. GETTY IMAGES MIT Technology Review instead filed records requests to the sheriffs of these 17 counties beginning in July 2025. These agencies are often first on the scene when a death is discovered, and their reports can have more detailed information on where remains were found. But relying on sheriffs’ records means our analysis undercounts migrant deaths in Texas, as it doesn’t include any deaths handled by local or state police. After we filed a request, it took periods of near daily calls to the offices to receive the records, if we received them at all. Some were provided with no charge. Other counties charged between $300 and $1,300 to fill our request. Counties warned that their records were incomplete, with an unknown number lost during a move, damaged, destroyed, or misplaced during transitions between sheriffs. Those delays were compounded because most agencies do not record whether a person is believed to have been crossing the border when they died. That’s despite provisions in some counties that allow officers to track far more granular details about other situations; Zapata County reports have a checkbox to indicate whether jewels were stolen in a burglary, for example, while Cameron County reports have one for whether a burglar entered through a chimney. Without a way to readily identify migrant deaths, offices had to pull records by hand, making the process slower, more costly, and more prone to error. We received usable records from 14 of these counties (records have yet to be received from Dimmit or Duval, and Maverick’s office charged a per-record fee that was cost prohibitive). Agencies generally sent us police reports for each individual case, amounting to over 4,000 pages of records in total. Some were handwritten documents. Except for the reports from Kenedy, Webb, and Hidalgo Counties, we pulled out the relevant information by hand. For those three counties, which sent large volumes of records, we used Anthropic’s Claude, accessed via API, to inspect each case report and pull out coordinates of the spots where remains were found; then we checked batches of those cases by hand to verify the AI’s accuracy. Agencies sent us records on a rolling basis from July 2025 to February 2026, and most did not specify the date through which their records were current. We generally trusted that agencies sent us cases they believed involved migrant deaths, since they had the most information about each case. But some records clearly suggested otherwise (indicating, for example, that someone died at home), and we excluded those cases. Several hundred cases were removed from our analysis because they didn’t include enough information for us to be certain where the remains were found. In fewer than 100 cases, coordinates were not listed but the description was specific enough for us to locate a point within 0.25 miles of where they were found—so we kept those in. Compared with agencies in other states along the border, those in Texas provide far fewer details regarding how long ago someone may have died before remains were found or how far the decomposition of those remains had progressed. Some reports included this information, but many didn’t. While autopsy records sometimes have more details, many migrant autopsies in south Texas are done through the Webb County Medical Examiner, which charges a fee for each report. That was cost prohibitive given the scale of our analysis. MIT Technology Review consulted with Greg Hess, director of Arizona’s Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner, on a framework for translating descriptions of the scenes, bodies, and causes of death available in many of these records into rough estimates for when a person may have died (more detail on this process is provided below). In total, we included more than 1,500 cases from our Texas records requests in our final analysis. Accessing Arizona records directly The Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME) in Arizona handles death investigations for all border counties in the state except Yuma (we sourced Yuma’s records from the organization No More Deaths, as detailed below). The office determines which cases it believes to be border crossers. It publishes a data