contributed photo
There are many in our state and country who believe that building another border wall (yes, there already are others) will greatly reduce the amount of drugs, guns and/or human trafficking currently originating from Mexico.
One of President Trump’s favorite campaign slogans was “Build a wall that Mexico will pay for.” That theme feeds on a sinister, subliminal message that is divisive and obscene. Now the campaign slogan is a presidential priority; painful and costly for those who are furloughed or even forced to work without pay.
If, for a moment, we can set aside the zaniness of the political campaign rhetoric, the arguments in favor of another wall fail for many level-headed reasons.
First – some here in Connecticut argue that “A Wall” is the equivalent to locking our homes in order to keep our families and property safe. This is laughable and silly. For safety and security, some propose that America must secure/lock up one side of her house – the side facing Mexico.
What about the other sides?
The other sides are not simply the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and Canada. They are also every international airport and seaport that transports people in and out of the U.S. from around the world, for business and vacations. How do you secure the doors on those walls to have near 100 percent certainty that not one “sneaks through” to start taking away jobs from Americans, to receive medical care or to commit horrific crimes?
Second – many argue the cost of building the wall – which now American taxpayers would be paying – is dwarfed by the documented cost of medical care, education and incarceration expense for the undocumented population. I don’t buy it, but I’m open to reviewing objective, comparative statistics.
Conservative-leaning writers have a set of figures. Liberal-leaning advocates have the opposite calculations. But equally important for us to evaluate is the true cost-benefit analysis between the “actual dollar value delivered” by the undocumented labor force’s services (11 to 12 million people) if Americans had to pay “actual cost” for that collective labor worked.
Just imagine every restaurant, farm, house cleaning, child/elderly care, roofing and landscaping/snow removal service in any Connecticut (and American) town or city without the help of the unacknowledged, underpaid “undocumented labor” services. Would we save more money/taxes and really be safer if we spent even more tax dollars to build a Trump wall? Show me proof of that unbiased, comparative cost report.
Third – many argue that a wall will greatly reduce the flow of drugs, guns and human trafficking. I disagree. No wall will stop drug trafficking. It relies on the American-as-apple-pie economic concept of supply and demand. If there is demand, it will be filled. If not through a new impregnable $5 to $100 billion wall, then by the old reliable Caribbean Sea route of the 1980s. Or by tunnels, drones, airplanes, mule swallowers, or breast/buttocks implants. Maybe even catapults, just like it was 1304, during the Siege of Stirling Castle. It’s Economics 101.
Guns? What guns? We don’t need no stinking guns. We are the Americans. We have plenty of guns. We are awash in guns. As it turns out, America is the largest exporter of guns. Gracias.
Human trafficking? Tragically, this does happen. But a common sense-based, truly thought-out comprehensive immigration policy that incorporates a fair and reasonable process to include a smart guest worker program with fair wages, safe work conditions and flexible cross-border access could eliminate much of the current human trafficking activity through Mexico and elsewhere. Comprehensive immigration policies and accountable supervision for controlled movement of people could be less costly and more effective than a wall. We have technology to track every man, woman and child going in and out of Disneyland, every day. We can track everyone going in and out of this country. Every day. Biometrics, phone records tracking, employer verification standards that are enforced and reviewed strictly and regularly, and so on.
To conclude, I support sensible, enforceable, multi-platform, cost-effective border security measures at the US-Mexico border and at all entry/exits, but I will not give in to an openly divisive campaign to fund an ineffective, wasteful, and expensive 2,000-mile wall to satisfy an egomaniacal, politics-based policy. Most important, we must renew and reaffirm our uniquely American commitment as a nation of immigrants with zest, pride and humane values.
As a Connecticut voter, I just say “No” to a wall – it is medieval visually, practically and spiritually speaking. We can do so much better.
Adapted from a “CT Viewpoints” piece in CTMirror.org, January 21, 2019
Sylvester L. Salcedo is an attorney and retired US Navy veteran (LCDR, USNR) with 20 years of active and reserve service. He lives in Orange.
To reach Sylvester directly: salcedo1898@gmail.com