Trump has been discussing his plan to build a wall on the border of Mexico and the United States in an attempt to end illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The wall would cost approximately $18 billion over the next ten years and it would run along the southern border for around 900 miles. Trump wants to take about half of the $33 billion allocated for border control of the U.S. budget and use it towards the wall. Border security is not just made up of walls; officials have "described border security as a holistic system, made up not just of walls and fencing but also patrol routes, lighting, cameras, sensors and personnel." Additionally, the new proposed budget would not pay for hiring new customs officials, who are a major part of controlling and stopping illegal immigrants and large amounts of drugs.
Trump has received significant criticism over spending so much money on the wall as opposed to spending money on more standard border security controls. In the article, the author states that "all proven security measures that officials and experts have said are more effective than building a wall along the Mexican border," signifying that there is other ways that are generally considered more effective than a wall.
The government has a federal budget, which provides a guideline for the government on ways to spend money. The border security has a budget of $33 billion. Is it worth spending part of the budget on the wall?
Discussion Questions:
1. What is your stance on Trump's plan to build a wall?
2. Do you think that taking over half of the border control's budget is a smart idea?
3. Is this the best way to fund his wall?
Link:
NYTimes
2 comments:
The budget being discussed here is only a temporary one that will be like that only while the wall is constructed. Customs agents and human resources need to be paid a salary, but the wall only needs to be built once. In this sense, the investment in a wall could still be worth it. I think the existence of a wall could allow other security measures to be more focused in the long wrong, and the overall spending to be more efficient after a few years of either running a deficit or the border being slightly more compromised. Even if more illegal immigrants get through now, tougher homeland laws can eventually catch up with those that would have been caught at the border anyway.
When it comes to who will pay for the wall, I think it would have the be the U.S., which would be taken out of its allotted border security budget. In interesting idea for obtaining more border security money, however, is to tax the low of money between U.S. and Mexico. Immigrants, legal or illegal, in the U.S. send a lot of money to relatives back home (In the trillions), and if these payments back home to Mexico can be taxed, a lot of revenue can be gained.
I never thought that the wall was a good idea. We already have border control, and I do not believe that a physical wall will boost efficacy significantly. While strengthening our borders is a feasible position, other actions can be taken that will be cost effective. Maybe we can get some more scanners in our ports, maybe we can hire more government employees to patrol the border. Instead of risking an even weaker border during construction of the wall (which could be likely if the budget is not expanded) we could maintain conventional border security, and if the country agrees even strengthen these measures.
Post a Comment