Introduction
The introduction of the Border Security Tax is a controversial measure. According to the U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1, the Congress has the authority to levy and collect taxes. However, the initiative of Donald Trump in this regard happened to be cost-ineffective and, therefore, only partially covered by it. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Immigration Litigation in the Time of Trump, 53 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 122, 136 (2019). Moreover, the democratic legitimacy of such a decision remains dubious due to the fact that it contradicts the underlying principles of the country’s laws.
One of them is known as “taxation without representation,” and its applicability to the case is conditional upon the attempts of the president to make Mexico pay for the prospective wall construction. Ben Saunders, No Wall Without Representation: Trump, Taxes, and Democratic Inclusion, 18 (52) Think. 35, 35 (2019), see also Bob Carbaugh and Toni Sipic, Paying for the Trump Wall Boondoggle, 60 (4) Challenge. 386, 387 (2017). In other words, the plan to involve this country in the process without providing it with voting power is unacceptable, and this paper aims to present an argument against it. Thus, although new taxes are within the jurisdiction of the Congress and the President, they conflict with specific regulations and, therefore, should be deemed invalid.
Findings of Primary/Secondary Sources
The problem identified above is primarily underpinned by the U.S. Constitution and its provisions restricting de facto taxation power of Congress. As follows from the terms of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1, one of the main conditions for exercising this right is the presence of a threat to national security. However, as per the recent data from the research, there is no sufficient evidence of the negative consequences of illegal immigrants’ stay in the United States for the local population in any respect. Bob Carbaugh & Toni Sipic, Paying for the Trump Wall Boondoggle, 60 (4) Challenge. 386, 394 (2017). In this way, it can be concluded that there was no emergency in designing and building the wall. In addition, this consideration is complemented by other factors contributing to the project’s illegality.
Another aspect of the matter indicating the invalidity of the plan described above from the perspective of the U.S. Constitution is the Court’s decision, which explicitly states the requirements for the president’s power in implementing programs. According to Sierra Club v. Trump, the actions regarding funding the border wall did not exceed the authority of the Executive Branch since the sole operations of the president are possible ad hoc. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Immigration Litigation in the Time of Trump, 53 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 122, 137 (2019). Nevertheless, they should be performed with the regard to the principle of separation of power, which does not imply the violation of the concept of “taxation without representation.” Ben Saunders, No Wall Without Representation: Trump, Taxes, and Democratic Inclusion, 18 (52) Think. 35, 35 (2019). Hence, the lack of support from the Congress does not mean the full freedom of Trump to make decisions contradicting other constitutional provisions.
Finally, the suggestion to redirect the funds received under the Border Security Tax to the construction of the wall seems unjustified due to the lack of support and control from other authorities. From this point of view, the actions of Donald Trump were perceived as a “dilution of Congress’s legislative authority” and encouraged House Democrats to file a lawsuit against the president. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Immigration Litigation in the Time of Trump, 53 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 122, 138 (2019). However, the case was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not suffer any losses per curiam. id at 138. Meanwhile, their attempts to change the political course were evoked by the concerns resulting from the potential costs of the wall maintenance in the future, which were preliminarily estimated at $750 million per year. Bob Carbaugh & Toni Sipic, Paying for the Trump Wall Boondoggle, 60 (4) Challenge. 386, 386 (2017). Considering the facts mentioned in this case, it is reasonable to claim the inapplicability of the initiative to serve the best citizens’ interests as per the Constitution.
Analysis of the Issue
The information presented above is sufficient for justifying the stance regarding the illegal nature of the Border Security Tax allegedly introduced for ensuring the United States’ security. The basic power of the country is in the legislative branch, which resolves the majority of issues similar to the mentioned challenge. David F. Forte & Matthew Spalding, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, at 23 (2nd ed. 2014). However, the next critical consideration is the orientation on people and public opinion instead of the president’s perspectives, which are not supported by the Congress and only temporarily confirmed by the Supreme Court. id at 24; see also Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Immigration Litigation in the Time of Trump, 53 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 122, 137 (2019). These circumstances allow assessing the proposition to introduce permanent taxes for building and maintaining the border wall between the United States and Mexico as excessive.
The factors affecting the situation, which are given above, include the lack of proof of the immigrants’ harm to the local people, the adverse effects of Trump’s actions on financial resources in the long run, and the irrationally high costs of the project. They also contravene the Christian rules, according to which the exercise of power in establishing taxes should be performed only within manageable limits. As it is stated in Luke 3:13, “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” and this provision emphasizes the need to match the actual problems with the means of finding their solution. Luke 3:13, Bible Study Tools (2017, November 5). As for the taxation policies adopted by the president, they do not focus on real challenges but prevent non-existent threats instead and inappropriately involve governmental funds.
Conclusion
To summarize, signing the Border Security Tax, which purpose is to raise money to build a wall at the border of the United States and Mexico and thereby halt illegal immigration, was invalid. This outcome is explained by the contradictions between the U.S. Constitution and the considered measure. They include the absence of evidence of a threat to the country’s national security, the violation of public interests, and inappropriate policies in relation to Mexico. All these factors are the major legal provisions, which should be evaluated regardless of the involvement of the Congress in the matter and the president’s authority to make similar decisions. In turn, their neglect would indicate incorrect choices of Donald Trump, which were not made pro bono. Thus, the introduction of the new taxes intended to construct and maintain the wall between the two countries is an abuse of power, which should not be allowed from the legal perspective.