Yielding to pressure applied by right-wing media, President Donald Trump is attempting to wear down the opposition to his funding demand for what is now commonly known as the *&%$# wall.
Unfortunately, the president is the victim of his own incendiary rhetoric in blowing the whole issue of border security out of proportion by characterizing border infiltration as a crisis and vilifying those who attempt it as criminals, rapists and other forms of low life. Much of the opposition is a visceral reaction to these hyped-up, politically motivated distortions.
Missing, at least in media accounts, is a rational discussion of the pros and cons, tangible and intangible, of a proposed massive construction project.
The first question is simply financial. Will there will be a significant reduction in annual border patrol expenses that, over time, would offset costs of the wall? Implicit in this question is whether there will be significant reductions in force.
Additional questions require impact predictions. No doubt the numbers of illegal border crossings will be reduced, but probably not eliminated, as resourceful methods are devised to get under or around the wall, especially by drug purveyors.
Beyond that, will the reduction in immigrants willing to work result in significant reductions in social support costs? Will there be a reduction in distribution and use of illegal drugs in the U.S.? What are other costs and benefits?
The question boils down to whether the U.S. could better and more efficiently address the problem of illegal border crossings by conventional and less extreme means rather than building an impressive, but landscape-defiling, costly edifice that is more symbolic of racial exclusion than it is of national security.
Clayton Parr, Draper
