Essay On Border Wall

America’s Southern Border: Wall or No Wall

Border: a simple six letter word powerful enough to divide nations. The United States has shared a border with the country of Mexico for many centuries. The border spans a course of 1,989 miles reaching from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas, and travels over a diverse variation of terrains ranging from mountain peaks to desolate deserts to urban metropolises. The border is the most frequently crossed border in the entire world with nearly 350 million people legally crossing each year. However, many more individuals cross the border illegally. To counteract the issue, legislation has been proposed to build a huge wall on the border, sparking a great debate in America. Though some Americans disagree with the need for a wall because it stops immigrants who are seeking safety, won’t actually accomplish the intended goal, and has harmful effects on the environment; wall advocates, however, support the building of a wall because of added homeland security, proven effects around the world, and economic reasons. Each reason is taken into consideration while trying to answer the simple question: Does America need a border wall?

One major push for the border wall is an increase in homeland security. In Major John T. Sherwood’s thesis, “Building the Wall: The Efficacy of a U.S.-Mexico

Border Fence,” Sherwood explains that the construction of a wall between the U.S.-Mexico border has provided an increasingly important method for securing the southern border (2008). “Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the construction of a U.S.-Mexico border fence has morphed from a method to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico into legislated method to prevent the entrance of terrorists,” (Sherwood 2008). Mexico poses a great threat for terrorists entering the U.S. Critics, however, take a different stance.
Wall opponents argue that the U.S.-Mexico border does not pose a large threat from terrorism. Warren Richey notes in his article, “Terror and the Mexican Border: How Big a Treat?” that many feel the border is already secure and the idea of terrorists infiltrating the U.S. from Mexico is overplayed (2017). Richey notes the fact that, “No terror plot carried out in the US homeland has involved personnel or material transported across the U.S.-Mexico border,” (Richey 2017). Though this is true, pro-wall supporters counter this with another important reason for a wall: illegal immigration.
The wall provides the United States with a safe way to maintain control of the border. In the article, “Border Walls Would Humanely Enforce a Just Law,” by Terence P. Jeffrey, the federal government has a duty to enforce the borders in a humane way that minimizes harm to humans on both sides of the border (2016) “The best way to do that at the border with Mexico is to build effectively impermeable barriers that send a simple, straightforward message: You can only cross this border legally,” (Jeffrey 2016). Currently, fifty-seven percent of the border is secure. Consequently, approximately 826 miles are unsecured. Securing the border completely will cut down on the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country. Conversely, many wonder if this is the correct thing to do.
According to Seth Stooder’s article, “Trump's border wall attacks the wrong immigration crisis,” however, the border wall would actually act as a hindrance for immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. (2017). Many immigrants cross the border not to come here and cause problems, but rather to get away from violence in their own country. “The actual crisis involves thousands of migrants from Central America’s “Northern Triangle” — El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — who are fleeing brutal gang violence, extreme poverty or malnutrition. Roughly half of these migrants are women and young children escaping desperate circumstances, facing the real possibility of death or rape if they stay,” (Stooder 2017). Also, adding to the argument, objectors doubt the ability the wall would have to keep people out of America.
David Bier points out in his article, “Why the Wall Won’t Work,” that illegal immigrants and drug dealers will find a way into America regardless of a wall (2017). Bier also suggests that a border wall will spur greater tunneling under the border. “A wall will never stop illegal immigrants because it is not able to apprehend them for crossing the border,” (Bier 2017). Increase border patrol agents are, as Bier feels, a greater solution than building a wall.
Wall advocates realize a wall will not stop immigrants from coming into the country, but will cut down on the number coming in.

The wall in San Diego is a good example. Since San Diego erected a fence structure on its border in the 1990s, illegal immigration numbers have dropped from over 600,000 to 39,000 a year (Sherwood 2008). Israel is another prime example of an effective border wall. The wall has cut illegal immigration into the country by an astonishing ninety-nine percent since being built. Simply have a physical structure can be enough to keep people out and promote economic gain at the same

time.
Building the wall strengthens the economy. According to Jason Richwine in his report, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer,” Richwine points out the financial burden the American taxpayer is faced with because of illegal immigration from Mexico (2013). “There are approximately 3.7 million unlawful immigrant households in the U.S. These households impose a net fiscal burden of around $54.5 billion per year,” (Richwine 2013). Building a wall cuts the number of illegal immigrants, which in turn diminishes the amount of money taxpayers pay to support the illegal immigrants. Cutting the amount of illegal immigrant also results in a great number of jobs for the American public. Those opposed to the wall, however, have a different opinion.
Many of the jobs held by illegal immigrants are ones that the common American citizen would not want in the first place. Moreover, illegal immigrants pay social security taxes even though they are not able to take advantage of the system themselves. This result in more money in the system for Americans.
The anti-wall group also looks at the wall from an ecological standpoint. According to Erika Bolstad’s article “Trump's Wall Could Cause Serious Environmental Damage,” the wall poses a threat to the environment by affecting the migration of animals (2016). Also, large quantities of cement production add to greenhouse emissions. The wall would also lead to “erosion and flooding in border communities as well as a roadblock for the natural movement of wildlife across the border,” (Bolstad 2016). The wall poses a great environmental threat that can affect our entire climate and destroy vital ecosystems.
Pro-wall activists realize the possible environmental issue at hand, but insist that there is a way to build a fortified structure without endangering the environment. It will simply take time to develop a structure that bother promotes ecological growth while also acting a stronger barrier to keep people out.
The wall continues to be a heated debate topic in the United States. Even though each side of the debate has important reasons why they either support or do not support a border wall, there is one idea they share. Both groups realize the effects of either having or not having a wall will have on the country now and in the future.