Stall the wall
Border security is the point, so let the big barrier fade
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump campaigned on building a “big, beautiful” wall along the 2,000mile border between the United States and Mexico. And he’d make Mexico pay for it, to boot!
This pledge resonated with Republican primary voters, who felt as though both parties had failed the country on the matter of illegal immigration. But it was pie-in-the-sky campaign rhetoric, and it has now crashed into the cold, hard realities of governance.
As part of negotiations to fund the government temporarily, the Trump administration asked for $1.5 billion as a downpayment for a project that is projected to cost more than $20 billion. But Congress turned him down.
This is not a bad thing. While illegal immigration remains a very real problem, Mr. Trump’s pledge to build such a wall was never a good solution.
The sooner the president abandons it, the better.
For starters, there is already plenty of fencing around the border, strategically placed around population centers like El Paso, Texas, and San Diego, Calif. This is where a “wall” is most useful, as it is here where illegal crossers can blend into the surrounding urban areas.
On the other hand, trekking across the border in the vast expanse of desert between El Paso and Laredo, Texas, leaves crossers vulnerable to detection and capture, because there is no place for them to blend. It is in these places that advanced detection equipment and more border patrols is a better investment.
Moreover, the wall would have to stretch for miles and miles across private property. It hardly seems consistent with the principles of limited government for the state to seize people’s lands, for the sake of a wall that will be of little use to the public.
Most important of all, border crossing is no longer the main driver of illegal immigration. The bulk of it now happens through visa overstays — people are permitted to enter the country temporarily, but then do not leave when their time has ended. If the goal is actually to reduce illegal immigration — and not just create a symbolic monument in opposition to it — this is where most of the money should be spent.
And while Republican primary voters loved the idea of a wall, it is hardly popular with the broader public — the folks who will decide which party controls Congress next year. A Quinnipiac University poll taken earlier this month found that just 33 percent of registered voters support “building a wall along the border with Mexico,” compared with 64 percent who opposed it.
Little wonder that Congress, even with a strong Republican majority, had little appetite for “the wall.” Indeed, a recent Bloomberg report found that most members of Congress representing the border were, at best, indifferent about it. That included Republicans and Democrats.
What happens next will be a real test of the seriousness of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Last week’s fight was over a “continuing resolution” to fund the government temporarily. That means the president will, in theory, have other bites at this apple. But he should resist taking a chomp.
The wall served a political purpose during the campaign, but the truth is that it is mostly a waste of money that is unlikely to get through Congress.
The president would be well advised to cut his losses on this silly campaign pledge, and instead focus on actually decreasing illegal immigration through proven, effective means. Strategic enhancements to physical barriers on the border are no doubt one part of such a program, but a $20 billion wall is not the way to go.
There is probably a political constituency in this Congress to do this. But it requires Mr. Trump to ditch the incendiary rhetoric, swallow his pride and cut a deal on behalf of the people who voted for him to curb illegal immigration. Can he do that? Time will tell.