Against the Great Wall of America: Inefficient, Ineffective, and Inhumane - Literature review Example

26 March Against the Great Wall of America: Inefficient, Ineffective, and Inhumane The Great Wall of America, hereinafter called the Wall, between the United States and Mexico is the anti-thesis to the Statue of Liberty, a symbol for liberty for the tired and the oppressed people, including immigrants. Illegal immigration has negative effects on employment and social welfare, but it cannot be stopped through a physical barrier, no matter how long and high it is. The government is only wasting taxpayers’ money by building a long and high wall around it, since smugglers and illegal immigrants will find ways to enter the U.S. Americans must oppose the Great Wall of America because it is not an effective and efficient solution to illegal immigration, it promotes nativism that borders racism, and it results to inhumane consequences that goes against the universal right to work and live in other nations. The Wall is too expensive, yet ineffective, in curbing illegal immigration. The Wall is too costly, and it is not even completed in a consistent manner. Wayne A. Cornelius from the University of California at San Diego complains of the endless costs of building the wall: “Upward of $25 billion has been spent on border fortification since 1993, but we have little to show for it beyond photo ops for anti-immigration politicians.” These funds are approved by Congress, but the expenses will never end because of the large area of territory needed to build the Wall and to maintain it. Furthermore, the Wall will not stop immigrants, who are deeply driven to cross physical barriers because of socio-economic reasons. David Von Drehle, a reporter for Time, notes that immigrants will seek for other ways to illegally enter America: “Crossings didnt stop--they moved” (2). People will not stop in searching for means to breach the Wall, especially when they have nothing to lose. Furthermore, a wall, no matter how solid or guarded it is, cannot stop the ingenuity of human smugglers. Their business is to move people illegally across borders, and not even the Great Wall can stop them: “Smugglers like to cut this fence with torches, then carefully put everything back in place so the border patrol wont notice” (Von Drehle 2). When obstacles exist, human smugglers use other modes of getting people across the border. Thus, the present Wall is inefficient and not significantly effective in stopping illegal immigration. Apart from being an ineffective and expensive way of controlling immigration, the Wall promotes sentiments of nativism that can lead to racism. Richard Rodriguez, a news writer for Los Angeles Times, argues that a physical wall creates a psychological source of anxiety for American citizens: “Once the wall is in place, anxiety about the coming outsider changes to an anxiety about who belongs within” (2). Americans might soon see immigrants, including legal ones, as the “other” who must be controlled and weakened. The other has the face of Mexicans, which can result to racism in the long run. The Wall acts as a way of dividing people from one another, highlighting differences instead of common interests. People have a right to geographical mobility, and to not endure greater risks in finding U.S. employment. People have the universal right to work and to reside in areas where they are needed. If Americans can go to Mexico to live and/or work there, then Mexicans also have the right to reside and work in the U.S. As long as a market exists for Mexican workers, they will keep on coming into the U.S. Furthermore, the Wall has only led to inhumane consequences, such as increased fees for human smuggling. Cornelius asserts: “People-smugglers’ fees have more than tripled as tougher U.S. border enforcement has increased the demand for their services.” The demand for border crossing increased, as well as prices, because of the Wall. Moreover, it is inhumane to create walls that force desperate individuals to take greater risks. Von Drehle states that “the fence is funneling migrants into a life-threatening desert” (2). Because of the wall, illegal immigrants go through riskier lengths to pass the border. The Wall is an inhumane way of controlling immigration, when other alternatives exist. Supporters of the Great Wall assert that it effectively reduces illegal immigration, and the financial costs are well worth it. The Wall is a work in progress that works. Von Drehle notes that Yuma’s sector in Arizona decreased crossings by approximately 80% (2). Jan C. Ting of Temple University Beasley School of Law highlights the advantages of the Wall: “Any reduction in illegal border crossing is significant, because it’s always cheaper to prevent violations of law than to pursue, process, and prosecute after the fact.” The Wall can deter illegal immigrants because it is a tangible hindrance to their mobility. Indeed, some areas of the Wall are working, but not because of the wall alone, but due to the combination of the right number of dedicated people, resources, technology, judicial, and community support. Furthermore, illegal immigrants will continue crossing the border, despite the wall, because of the simple fact that they can find better paying jobs in America. Lawrence Downes puts it bluntly in his editorial notes for The New York Times: “the illegal flow continues north…pulled by the mightiest economy on earth, obeying one law that Congress and Mr. Chertoff [head of homeland security] could never repeal, that of supply and demand.” Thus, the Wall does not serve its purpose when employers continue to hire illegal workers without being stopped or punished. The Wall is an ineffective and costly band-aid to the illegal immigration issue. The main reason that people enter the U.S., even crossing the wall in devious ways, is because work is waiting for them on the other side. As long as American employers give them work, they will continue torching or tunneling into the border. The Wall is not the best and most humane solution to illegal immigration, and it is time that the U.S. government focuses on controlling the employers of illegal immigrants, not the immigrants themselves. Works Cited Cornelius, Wayne A. “Pro: Physical Obstacles Don’t Work.” No Great Wall for Mexico. The Debate Room. BusinessWeek.com, Feb. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. . Downes, Lawrence. “The Not-So-Great Wall of Mexico.” The New York Times, 20 Apr. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. < http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20sun4.html?_r=0>. Rodriguez, Richard. “The ‘Great Wall of America’ and the Threat from Within.” Los Angeles Times, 5 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. . Ting, Jan C. “Con: Prevent and Remedy.” No Great Wall for Mexico. The Debate Room. BusinessWeek.com, Feb. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. . Von Drehle, David. “The Great Wall of America.” Time, 19 June 2008. < http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1816488,00.html>. Read More