Border Wall Showdown

The U.S government partial shutdown is in its fourth week. At midnight on December 22 the lack of a 2019 budget or a continuing resolution to provide funding meant that many "non-essential" services would be suspended and workers furloughed until the standoff ends. The reason for the shutdown is a standoff over funding the border wall that was one of the most popular and yet controversial of President Trump's election campaign promises.

Ironically, Democrats in the past have supported a border wall. Over the past two years the Republicans in the House have passed bills to fund construction of a wall, but Democrats in the Senate blocked passage with a threatened filibuster. The current shutdown is mostly to replace nearly 700 miles of existing barriers, although also to extend the wall about 200 miles.

Unfortunately, in today's highly polarized political climate, immigration reform (see my recent Immigration Reform blog post) is not likely to come any time soon. The result is the longest U.S. government shutdown in history, eclipsing the 21 day standoff in 1995-96. At that time, Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton was president. That standoff ended due to pressure from Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole to reach a compromise.

While Bill Clinton later compromised on welfare reform in 1996, a factor in winning reelection, it is unlikely Trump will compromise here. However, if he can find a way to save face and claim victory, he will surely do so, as his his pattern. More likely the President may follow through on his threat to declare a national emergency an use his Constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military to build the wall as a matter of national defense. Whether that is constitutional, given that spending must originate in the House, is perhaps debatable, although Congress has delegated too much authority to the executive branch, so it may just be legal.

If we do replace or upgrade the existing barriers and extend the barriers, a wall is not the best option. Fortunately the president has listened to the experts at Homeland Security who have suggested that a fence made of steel slats would be better. It provides visibility to allow agents to see people approaching. Border agents can direct immigrants seeking asylum or temporary work in the US to the proper ports of entry.  Any drug traffickers and human traffickers will have a harder time breaching a barrier where their activity on the other side of the barrier is visible. Naturally, drug traffickers can use drones to move smaller packages over the fence, but the volume is smaller.

There are also legitimate concerns about the impact on species that need to move back and forth across the border with the seasons for access to food and water. It may be necessary to install gates that can Ben opened at certain time to allow migration of larger wildlife that can't pass through the gaps in the fence. The gaps need to be narrow enough to prevent people through, including small children. It would be tragic for a parent to encourage their children to pass through or to put an infant through, abandoning the child out of desperation.

As Americans, we need to remain a compassionate people.  A wall is not the solution, but allowing the existing barriers to lose effectiveness, and allowing politics to stand in the way of reasonable compromise is shameful.  Congress should agree to replace the current barriers with a fence of this sort, and both parties should work together on proper immigration reform. Once that is done, the president should move to the center and support allowing people already living in this country to stay as permanent residents, as long as they don't have convictions for violent offenses.