Border Wall: For or Against and Why?

Name:
Professor:
Subject:
Due date:
Boarder Wall: For or Against It. Why?
President Trump’s campaign pledge, “I will build great, great wall on our southern border (Hulseman),” in 2015, during his presidential campaign, set in motion the building of the United States-Mexico wall. The southern border, which extends 2,000 miles, would comprise walls, fences, antennae, and cameras supervised by the U.S. Border Patrol to secure the border and keep undocumented immigrants, drug traffickers, criminals, rapists, and murderers out of the United States (Hulseman). Its building created debates over its essence mainly because it was coming when illegal border crossings were in decline. While the government perceives it as an integral homeland security initiative, it should not be built as it imposes high costs; it does not offer security; a wall is easy to defeat and does not deter drug trafficking, gang violence, and undocumented immigration.
The primary reason against the border wall is its high cost. Building the US-Mexico wall is extremely costly. The Office of Management and Budget approximates that building half the steel fence would cost about 5.7 billion, with upkeep costs pushing it up by one million per mile yearly. The estimates translate to approximately 59.8 billion dollars for the entire border (Hulseman). Further, the cost would increase due to compensations and legal fees arising from the forceful seizure of land under eminent domain law. Similarly, the wall would impose high environmental costs. Its building would comprise the habitats of over sixty-two endangered species costing the country its revenue; it would disturb protected lands and worsen flooding, causing millions in property damage (Hulseman). Hence, such steps will result in unwarranted financial consequences, making its building financially unsound.
The border wall would not offer security. The main aim of building the US-Mexico border is strengthening US security on the southwest border. However, according to experts, building the wall would not effectively provide protection (McAdams). Firstly, the 2000-mile US-Mexico border imposes topographical constraints, making it impossible for the entire perimeter to be fenced. Secondly, a wall works with other implements, such as border patrol agents and high-tech surveillance. Without them, people can climb through the fence, cut through and dig under it to get into the country. Further, building a concrete wall makes border patrol officers’ surveillance work challenging due to the opaque nature of the wall, creating ample opportunities for those being kept out getting through (McAdams). Moreover, while it would keep some people out, it would be ineffective in screening coordinated potential terrorists and smugglers with legal means of entry into the US, thus, being viable.
A border wall is easy to defeat. While fences and walls block people from crossing through into a country, they are not necessarily permanent...