Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Signal and Noise: The Border Wall
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 shutdown. 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.
Published in Immigration
I think you are wrong on this point. However agree with much of your post.
You neglect to say if you think the President should fight to win on this or cave. What say you ?
I think you stated the proposition very clearly and completely. It is a matter of ideology, not tactics.
I think that’s manifestly false.
One theme that goes unmentioned is that a wall is a permanent structure, less subject to the winds of the electorate. Leftists understand instinctively that a wall makes it much harder for them to turn the border spigot back on.
Is a border wall an expression of racism? That’s a challenging allegation to defend
No it isn’t.
It is clear walls work. It’s why we put them around houses, neighborhoods, and Israel.
A barrier keeps the vast majority trying to get in out.
When done partially, it is strategic by forcing the bulk trying to cross into a couple well defended choke-points.
Do we need a wall? Well, define need. We can protect the border many ways without it, but none are passive ( troops, electronic surveillance, etc). The only reliable passive method I know of is a physical barrier. So, the question of need should be, do we need border security? If so, what is the most effective, cost and otherwise, way to provide it? That starts with a physical barrier.
Personally, I don’t like the visual statement a wall makes to the rest of the world. We’re the country who criticized the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall. We’re about openness and freedom to move about as competent and intelligent citizens. And the wall is clearly directed at our poor neighbors in Central and South America who don’t have the money to fly in as students or tourists. Half of the illegal immigration number is made up of visa overstayers.
The wall is also a visual statement of our failure to help the countries of Central and South America achieve a standard of living that approximates ours.
But at this time in our history, a wall is needed. It’s either that or war, I think. We can’t assimilate culturally or financially all of Central and South America’s poor people. They need to stay put and fix their own countries. We can’t force them to do this. Any actions we took to try to force them to become orderly lawful societies would be more frowned upon by the rest of the world than our building the wall.
We can’t change them, but we don’t have to give them an out either. Basically, by allowing so much immigration into our country, we’re allowing them, even encouraging them, to continue living the way they are. There’s no reason for them to change how they do things and treat each other. If their countries’ leaders can say, “Well, you can always leave if you don’t like it here,” nothing will ever improve for them.
I wish that the Republicans would make the moral case for the wall solely with respect to the people in Central and South America. It’s right there on the table, and it would help us in our own public relations with other countries in our western civilization family of nations. It might also be a catalyst for change in those countries.
This is a very good piece, Henry. Very balanced and fair. It is typical of you.
I have no trouble with a wall. But I certainly agree with you that there are other measures that are at least as important, if not more so. E-Verify for instance.
I also don’t like the way the president is selling it. 1) The partial shut down is not helping his cause. It just makes for bad feeling. And 2) As with his speech last night, he seems to seek to get people’s emotions all riled up. By implying that all crime relating to illegal aliens will stop if we build the wall, he is doing what Donald Trump always does: Showing in inability to stop boiling things down to the very simplest terms, which can be shown to be false.
Walls work, as demonstrated by the drastic drops in alien crossings where they have been built, some as much as 92%, yes, ninety-two percent. I wonder how many would still be alive if they hadn’t tried crossing more dangerous areas because of those walls?
I don’t agree with everything written here; but it a sober and well thought-through comment. Thank you, MarciN.
And Knocking it down later would be a very visible action. While the Dems can now pretend that their reason for opposing it is cost, what would they say when they want to spend money to knock the wall down, when asked what their reason for doing so is? They’re terrified of being in that position. Quite aside from this, the wall is the necessary backbone for any border security system.
The liberals rely on the obvious fact that people who are racists would certainly support a wall. Meaning, there are of course racist reasons for supporting a wall. They hope people will be fooled into the logical fallacy of thinking that such reasons are the only ones or even the most important ones for supporting a wall.
In some parallel universe, day after day 90% of the media is accusing pro-choicers of being racists because of their views on abortion. Are there reasons that racists would be in favor of abortion? Of course. Does that mean that all or even most pro- choicers are racists? Of course not.
Ask your pro-choice friends how they would feel if they lived in that alternate universe, where they were constantly being denounced as racists for supporting a cause they think is progressive, just because some people who advocated it are racists. Then they will know how most conservatives feel in this universe.
There was a time not long ago when we did not need a wall, but we lost control of our border encouraged by the Obama administration and leftist open border well funded minorities so the entire world believes we are no longer serious about our immigration laws. Now we need one to reestablish the status quo ante and put it behind us. We need all the other stuff as well including a national I.D. and a willingness to enforce our laws. Those on our side should stop their pusillanimous urges to compromise on the issue. They’re wrong. I shared their view over a decade ago when the subject of a wall entered the discussion, but circumstances changed. It’s like treating Munich as if it were Sarajevo.
I’m surprised that Pres. Trump has not shown his epic trolling skills by tweeting that Chuck and Nancy have convinced him that he needs to take down the existing immoral, racist wall. He wouldn’t mean it obviously, but I would love to see the reaction.
Any chance we can put a wall on Mexico’s southern & northern side?
Do you really mean this? Or do you really mean “That’s a challenging allegation to refute?” The remainder of your paragraph would imply that you do.
(Not defending or endorsing one side or the other here, but I just find the word choice curious.)
Great post BTW.
Not sure where it is, but I’d love to see the part of the Constitution, even the Federalist papers, that says that’s our job. Hell, why not the poor in Canada? Don’t we owe something to them, to raise their standards to ours, if Canada won’t do it for them?
Thank you all for the nice comments — but you’re mostly mistaken, as I’m going to try to gently point out here.
Kevin, I’m trying be measured and precise: we could defend the border without a wall, fence, or similar barrier. It would require spending more money and devoting more resources — personnel, drones, cameras, etc. — but we could do it. A wall is not an imperative — though I think it’s a very good idea.
Please see my comment to Kevin, above. Of course we could secure the border without a barrier. It would simply cost an enormous amount of money.
RA and She, I find this amusing, because you’re both making a simple logical/parsing mistake. I said that it is challenging (i.e., difficult) to defend the allegation, the accusation, of racism. It is much easier to refute the allegation (i.e., to claim that it is not racist) than to defend it (that is, to accuse wall proponents of racism). That is the point of what I wrote; I gather you both agree.
Marci, thank you for your comment. I’m sympathetic to part of your argument, but disagree quite a bit with the Berlin Wall comparison. The function of the Berlin Wall was unrelated to the function of a U.S. border wall, beyond being a simple physical barrier to transit. The Berlin Wall was intended to keep people enslaved; the border wall is intended to preserve the freedom of a free people. Comparing the two is like comparing surgery and a knife attack: they have a superficial similarity, but differ entirely in their intention and desired outcome.
But I’m glad that we agree that a wall is a good idea, now. And I agree with you that it would be good for our neighbors to the south if a physical barrier existed, both for the reasons I mentioned in the post and as incentive for them to improve their own miserable governments.
Thank you, my friend. I am in favor of a shutdown over this; I think it is crucial for the President to make progress on this central promise of his campaign.
I do think Republicans should be making it very clear that this obsession on the part of Democrats to keep the southern border wide open is bizarre, and can only be explained by a contempt on their part for the ideas of sovereignty and national security. This idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with a nation securing its borders — with a wall or by other means — is absurd, and should be called out for the deeply anti-American position it is.
Again, thank you all for your thoughtful comments. ;)
Oh, good. I’m not sure how asking a question is the same thing as making a mistake, but OK.
I do believe that wanting to build a wall is not in and of itself an expression of racism. And that it should be easier to defend that position than to make the case that it is (racist). So, if that’s what you were saying, then yes, I do agree. As to whether or not it could have been more clearly expressed in the original, well . . . .
Why not is the wrong question. The question must start at why. I type that because the current inertia is against expanding the border wall and also any policy prescription should be able to explain its value. Those Democrats enjoy popular support in the current debate because they are going with the inertia, against further expansion being the bar. Which was partially why Trump gave his speech. He needs to change public opinion if he is gonna get funding at all for the wall.
I thought Trump’s address was relatively good on the Trump curve but it probably only moved a few people on the margins.
I am concerned by the optics of the wall. It looks menacing and unfriendly, and I don’t like that image for the United States. People make visual connections to iconic moments in history whether we like it or not. It’s a fact of media life. :-)
That said, as I wrote in my comment, at the moment, I don’t see any other better option.
Yes, I would prefer a force field that fries anything that touches it or digs under it. Warning signs of course.
Oh, I’m so pleased I could amuse you. And thank you for that definition of the word “challenging,” which I of course had never heard in my life. You know me, always making those logical/parsing mistakes and all, so it follows – logically – that I must have the vocabulary of a four-year-old.
No, I simply assumed that, since you’re a girl, the logic heavy-lifting is sometimes… wait for it… challenging.
“Like” to the tenth power. One quibble, Hank: I think doing the right thing is much more important than keeping a promise. While keeping promises are important, Donald Trump said so many things on the trail (some which were contradictory) that I think it is the mark of a better man if he must trim his sales once he gets into office, and learns things he could not possibly know on the trail.
But this might be a discussion for another day. Thanks for the piece.
It makes me wonder, how does it hurt the people of the US to look “menacing and unfriendly”?
This is pretty good. Something to remember.
I don’t like the image of tens of millions of illegal immigrants receiving federal checks out of my tax dollars. See how easy it is?
The southern border towns are rough. Why? People smuggle in drugs and people to the US. It would be super-sweet if we could just lay out pillows to deter illegal activity. It’s a wonder why we don’t take down those “menacing and unfriendly” jails where we put criminals.
Y’know? Because imagery.
People have to write their own histories. Infact, we have an obligation to return those working-age males to their countries, so that they can “fix” their countries. It is sort of age-ist and sexist, but those fighting-age males should not be abandoning the women, children, and aged to the conditions they claim to be refugees from, but should stay and fight for prosperity and ordered liberty.