Build Bridges, not Walls
Introduction
During the past decade, numerous concerns have been raised all around the world about global migration issues. In particular, the problem affects highly-developed and wealthy countries that are especially appealing for the citizens of poor states, seeking a better life and perspectives for themselves and their families. The United States of America is often referred to as a land of liberty and dreams coming true. For many years it has been attracting millions of newcomers, which resulted in forming the most culturally diverse country in the world. There is no doubt that the increasing number of people of various nationalities, cultural and religious backgrounds means as well an increasing number of economic and social issues. The most urgent subject for the US at the moment concerns its neighboring state and the biggest source of migrants, which is Mexico. The American-Mexican migration policy caused numerous debates expressing an uneasiness of the US citizens regarding the influence of illegal migrants on the economic crisis, employment, and national security. Some were affected by it so deeply that the idea of building the wall between two states has occurred and won a lot of public support. The phenomenon of migration does raise fear and frustration amongst people, nonetheless, it would be unwise to ignore the benefits of cultural and intellectual diversity for the prosperity of the United States, and the Wall would more likely to hinder these processes, rather than solve the current problem.
Main text
Keeping the state’s economy on a high level is one of the major aims of those in favor of building the Wall. However, the presumable cost of such an operation requires billions of dollars that would damage the economy even more. In terms of that probable outcome, the suggestion has been made, that Mexico is to pay for the border, which inevitably had led to major indignation and argument. “We have enormous necessities and much more important uses for the public budget, which comes from the taxes that Mexicans pay,” says the Secretary of Finance, Luis Videgray Caso (Shoichet & Trucco 2016, para. 5). Neither Mexican, nor American economy would benefit from spending financial resources on the Wall, and the same goes for the wellbeing of their citizens.
More than that, projects of such nature are bound to infringe on basic human rights. Casey and Watkins (2014, p. 3) mention the rise of “The tide of American racism” and elaborate: “Citizens of the neighborhoods, cities, towns and entire states – despite being enlivened by Mexican culture and sustained by the hard labor of Mexican workers are turning against those of Mexican descent.” Following the chosen migration policy government would have to think about how to manage the millions of Mexicans that already live in the US. It will have to ruin lives, deport and split families, which, apart from being completely dehumanized, is hardly manageable on such a scale.
Physically, the building process would be challenging as well, since it will interfere with the local environment. It will affect everything starting from local flora and fauna to water currents: “The imposition of a strict border, one that blocks or inhibits natural flow patterns, inevitably carries with it the risk of devolution, even biological death, including the loss of local species” (Casey & Watkins 2014, p. 67). Trespassing environmental laws are equally unacceptable as violating human rights.
Even though several individuals of Mexican origin are being detected in drug trafficking and other criminal activities, the role of Mexican migrants in providing the most of US problems is still exaggerated. These days “Americans are witnessing criminalization of people who are poor and have left home to search for basic human rights of adequate shelter, food, health care, education and security” (Casey & Watkins, 2014, p. 4). According to Luis Videgray Caso: “To build a wall between Mexico and the United States is a terrible idea. It is an idea that is based on ignorance that has no basis in the reality of North American integration”, who also is sure that “what both countries need is better border infrastructure. Better bridges, more customs booths, more lanes” (Shoichet & Trucco 2016, para. 7). Building the wall for the sake of security would unavoidably result in civil unrest and ruin the bilateral relationship between two states, thus leading to the opposite effect.
The supporters of the Wall, however, don’t agree on the ineffectiveness of such an idea exemplifying it by the success of similar solutions. The Senior Editor of the Conservative Review, Horowitz (2015, para. 5) confirms in his article: “The border fence that conservatives are advocating has worked in San Diego and it has worked in Israel. It will work for much of the rest of the border.” He later specifies that building borders have proved to be a valid method to increase the level of national security to stop terrorists and thus, can stop illegal migration: “After construction of the fence, a double-layer barrier with a security zone in the middle – similar to the San Diego fence, suicide attacks perpetrated by Arab terrorists declined by well over 90%” (Horowitz 2015, para. 13). However, world history remembers even more examples, where the walls were destined to be ruined. The Wall does not mean absolute impassability; it only makes the way of getting beyond it more difficult. Casey and Watkins (2014, p. 8) share the words of one Border Patrol agent, saying that “migrants will find a way over or around any wall.” They also add that “this holds for all the walls”, like Berlin Wall and the Separation Wall between Israel and Palestine. Still, Casey and Watkins (2014, p. 8) conclude: “But before this happens, much human suffering and a great deal of environmental damage will have happened to the indifference of borders to such suffering and damage.” Thus, the protective aspect of the Wall is unjustified.
Conclusion
Terrorist attacks, wars, and refugee flow, economic crisis, and other global processes nowadays, keep the world’s population in tension and sometimes result in panic decisions such as closing borders, leaving political and economic unions, and decreasing relations with other countries. Some of the events that had happened in the United States had indeed shattered the world and terrified its citizens. Yet, isolation, as well as division is not an option. There is no and there cannot be a simple way to solve a current state of affairs, and compromises are yet to be found by the government, concerning better migration reforms and policy improvement. As much as it might give the country a sense of national security, the American-Mexican Wall would violate human rights, be ecologically harmful, and economically untenable.
Reference
Casey, ES & Watkins, M 2014, ‘Up against the wall: Re-imagining the U.S.-Mexico Border’, Louann Atkins Temple Women & Culture Series, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 3-67.
Horowitz, D 2015, The case for the border fence, Web.
Shoichet, CE & Trucco, F 2016, Mexico won’t pay for Trump’s wall, treasury secretary says, Web.