Should We Build a Wall Along the Southern Border?

Hasset (Yes)

This year, about 926,769 migrants have either been arrested or deemed inadmissible at the border. The Trump Administration’s 2019 budget includes almost $4 billion to fund expansion of ICE and detention facilities. 

This isn’t as high as the estimated cost of a border wall, but $3-4 billion per year will surely add up over time. This will also fund the dehumanizing conditions in which many immigrants are detained. Facilities have passed each safety inspection conducted since 2012, including facilities where detainees have died. 

A report from the Office of Inspector General within the Department of Homeland Security revealed unsafe conditions in detention centers due to violations of federal standards. Through the years, there have been several allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and exploitation of labor within these facilities. In 2015, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations’ Detention and Reporting Line received more than 48,000 grievances about restricting access to legal representation on behalf of detainees. 

Horrific treatment within overcrowded detention centers is endless and costly for taxpayers. Building a wall is the first step in transitioning to a much more humane method of reducing illegal immigration through the border. A wall would allow more patrol staff to be specifically designated ports of entry, rather than being spread out across the entire border. This would allow a more efficient method of letting in those seeking freedom and safety, while also ceasing drug cartels and human smugglers. 

Elliot (No)

Building a wall along the entire Southern US border would be an economic and humanitarian disaster.

Not only would it cost over $50 billion to create, over $20 million per mile, but it simply wouldn’t work:

most illegal immigrants do not travel through the Southern border, they overstay visas or travel through

the Northern border. Most drug trafficking happens through ports of entry, which a wall wouldn’t stop.

Human smuggling is becoming rampant as resources once devoted to high-level informants have been

shifted towards low-level enforcement, and the vast majority of human trafficking - which is distinct from

human smuggling - is mostly a domestic issue, with US citizens being moved elsewhere in the US.

Critics of the wall have often pointed to the fact that it would utterly fail in its stated purpose: it won’t

reduce migration, it won’t reduce smuggling, it won’t reduce trafficking, it won’t save money. Ironically, the

thing it does best is augment illegal immigration: as resources are shifted away from immigration courts

and viable paths to citizenship or asylum are closed off, migrants often are left with no options other than

to resort to coyotes (people smugglers). This all utterly betrays the fact that immigrants are not something

to reduce: they have lower violent crime rates than natural born citizens, receive fewer social services,

and create more jobs. The majority of immigrants arriving from Central and South America are “blowback”

from the interventionist policies of the US, and should be treated as such rather than as pests to manage.