Borden Paradox and Spending Billions to Stop Terrorism in the United States

Discussion Board
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Discussion Board
Is it cost-effective from a risk analysis perspective to spend billions of dollars to stop a “handful of people” who are bound to terrorize the United States?
It is essential to consider our objectives while addressing risk analysis and money used to avert illegal deeds. Neville (2017) asserts that this is done through promoting national security and analyzing the effects of border enforcement. Earlier lessons profoundly expounded on the aftermath of closing the borders. For example, the country would brutally suffer the loss of trade/market, subsequently hurting the economy. Simultaneously, it is crucial to promote a culture that appreciates the importance of enhancing border security. Failing to enforce border security might expose the country to another terrorist threat (Fratianni & Kang, 2017). Although spending billions may seem only to stop a handful of people, it contributes to national security.
What is the “Hardened Border Paradox?
A hardened border paradox is when increased border security supports criminal organizations. Increasing the number of agents at the border enforcing security and other deterrents makes it harder to enter the country. While this is essentially the goal of border security, it is likely to increase the demand for those who aid in illegal entry. Therefore, this means they have more business due to the increasingly high demand of people anticipating to enter the country illegally.
What is the “Open Border Paradox?
An open border paradox is when free trade is promoted, increasing traffic. A prime example is during the delivery of automotive parts from Canada into the United States. The open border promotes trade/market activity, but it can also lead to the closure of the border. The closure is likely to emanate from the high volume of truck traffic that needs clearing before entering the country. Failure to promptly provide...