The English language is a wonderfully powerful and expressive tool — if it’s used competently and honestly.
So let’s see if we can talk competently and honestly about the border wall.
As I write this, the government is partially shut down. The point of contention is the so-called border wall: specifically, the President and the Democrats are at loggerheads over funding for any portion of a wall. The President insists that he will not sign a spending bill that does not include at least some funding for a wall — the precise amount changes — while the Democrats (who control the House where funding bills must originate) are adamant that no funding will be forthcoming.
Do we need a border wall? No. We can manage border security through a variety of means; a physical barrier is merely one component, and arguably an optional one, of our border security infrastructure.
Can we afford a border wall? Of course. That is, to the extent that our profligate government can afford anything, it can afford the tiny fraction of a single percent of the government’s annual expenditures that the President has requested.
Would it be illegal, immoral, cruel, or otherwise monstrous to build a border wall? No. People use walls and fences all the time to secure areas from illegal and unwanted entry. In fact, the argument can easily be made that a border wall would be a particularly humane way of discouraging illegal immigration, in that it would reduce armed encounters between border enforcement and illegal immigrants, and discourage vulnerable people from setting off across inhospitable land in the company of vicious and exploitative “guides.”
Would it be ineffective at controlling illegal entry? Well, it wouldn’t be sufficient, in and of itself, but it would certainly make the process of entering the country illegally more difficult, make securing the border easier and safer, and communicate to would-be immigrants our resolve to police our border and discourage illegal entry. Whether it is the most cost-effective way of doing those things is debatable, but it seems clear that it would have those effects.
Is a border wall an expression of racism? That’s a challenging allegation to defend: I know it is false in my case — I want to stop all illegal immigration, regardless of race — but it’s probably true for some small number of proponents. But pretty much everything, we are told, is an expression of racism. We have to raise the standards, demand more evidence, if we’re going to entertain that idea. I see little evidence that America is a racist nation, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
So why not build a border wall? What is the thoughtful, serious, honest argument against it?
I think there are two reasons. First, there is a vocal, active minority on the left that is offended by the idea that America has a right, never mind an obligation, to regulate the influx of foreigners onto our soil. I think this minority is sufficiently outspoken and politically active as to command the loyalty of Democratic lawmakers. I think those lawmakers therefore believe that they can not be seen as having compromised, in any way, with those who oppose unfettered immigration.
Secondly, I think the matter of a border wall has become, understandably, identified with the current President, and there is substantial pressure on the left (and in some corners of the ersatz right) against allowing any administration victories in what is a signature issue.
In summary, I think the right wants a border wall for the reason the left does not: because it says something about America and America’s right and duty to defend what our country represents against the unchecked influx of alien ideas and customs. The right wants a symbol that we take that right and duty seriously. The left wants no such symbol, because it denies us that right and rejects that duty.
John Racette says:
We could at least charge admission to the great amusement park, Americaland.
hr says:
Right? The one in Florida or the one in California?
ELIZABETH LUBKER NAY says:
EXCELLENT!
hr says:
😉
Molly McKinstry says:
Ah, Walls.
From long, long ago…
The Great Wall of China didn’t keep out the Mongols or Manchus.
The Theodosian Walls at Constantinople didn’t deter the Ottomans.
Incan Walls at Sacsayhuaman, Peru, didn’t keep the Spanish away.
The Walls of Ston couldn’t stop Napolean from invading the Republic of Ragusa.
And in more recent history, The Maginot Line didn’t keep Nazi Germany from invading France.
The Atlantic Wall built by Hitler was but a minor hindrance to the D-Day invasion.
The Israel West Bank Barrier Wall costs $1/4 billion annually to maintain and hasn’t stopped constant skirmishes between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The Berlin Wall didn’t contain East Berliners and was eventually torn down by ordinary citizens in 1989.
(Even the metaphorical Wall from Pink Floyd’s album _The Wall_ was broken down, brick by brick.)
There are a number of hotspots that need protection and attention along our southern border-and recent leaders of both political parties have been very vocal in their support of some kind of barrier.
What I wonder is, why should Trump’s Wall prevail, when time and time again throughout history, they have failed.
hr says:
Molly, thanks for your comment.
I don’t know how effective the historical examples you offered were at reducing migration. Let’s look at the more modern examples you cited.
The Maginot Line wasn’t designed to prevent civilian migration, but rather to defend against invasion by a foreign army. It actually worked, in that the Germans chose to go around the line to get into France: if anything, it would be an argument for a longer, more complete barrier, rather than for no barrier at all. But, again, controlling civilian migration is not the same as preventing military invasion.
Israel’s experience with walls is probably more pertinent, as Israel is trying to prevent the incursion of relatively small numbers of individuals and small groups — as we are. Israel reported an 83% drop in suicide bombings, from 73 in the three year period prior to the building of the barrier to 12 in the subsequent three years. Perhaps even more applicable to our situation is the barrier between Israel and Egypt, which achieved a greater than 95% reduction in migration across that border.
Comparisons are always imperfect: Israel faces a highly motivated quasi-military threat committed to its destruction, whereas we are trying to control the influx of generally peaceful people who are trying to exploit our porous border in search of a better life. They two situations are quite different, but, to the extent that we wish to use Israel as an example, it’s an example of border barriers that work.
But let’s consider more broadly the point you seem to be trying to make. Given that all of your examples of “failure” are of barriers combined with a militarized presence, it seems that you are not so much asserting the ineffectiveness of barriers as you are arguing for the futility of any effort to prevent migration or invasion. By that reasoning, we should presumably abandon all efforts to control our borders. Certainly there are those who call for that, but I think it’s misguided.
So let’s look at a border barrier for what it is: a humane component useful, in conjunction with border policing, in controlling the flow of civilian migration.
Thanks again for your comment.