The price tag for a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border? $1.2 billion. Escalated tensions between two countries? Priceless.
As tangled and intricate as festive Halloween spider webs this holiday season, the decision to build a wall in an attempt to increase border protection remains anything but clear-cut.
A topic heating up during this past May, President George W. Bush first implored Congress to fund a 2,000-mile wall reinforced with 6,000 National Guard troops. Since then, the latest development came on Wednesday of this week with Bush securing funds from Homeland Security and signing a bill authorizing 700 miles of new fence to be erected, beginning the barrier along the Mexican border.
Illegal immigration is unlawful from any viewpoint, but to simply put up this barrier sends the wrong message on many levels.
For one, constructing a wall creates not only a literal but figurative barrier of hostility, painting a picture of Mexico as a poster child for the face of terrorism.
With the government dipping into funds solely devoted to homeland security, and a large number of troops that would otherwise go overseas to protect against the terrorism threat in Iraq, here lies a conflict of interest. Not to mention the strain it will place on the existing troops overseas, as fewer military personnel would be available to relieve those currently serving.
For an administration whose cornerstone is built upon smoking terrorists out of molehills, why now does the illegal immigration suddenly factor in? One could argue it's for the good of the country - anyone could sneak in, especially terrorists.
But this not only is this fence creating literal barriers, but figurative ones as well.
Granted, the U.S. and Mexico are not a single country, but it drives a fissure between the relations between the two. If we want to be fair, we could also focus on our Canadian neighbors to the north. With a border more than twice the size of Mexico - about 5,000 miles - even with stepped up security - logically, there is always an opportunity for the terrorists to sneak through.
I suppose American taxpayers should be counting their lucky stars - at least the government went with construction of a wall instead of a nuclear shield. For now.
Who knows - maybe they'll call on Mexican labor to build the rest of it.
Also, it is the natural order in nature not to have a wall. While at first glance it would seem that "good fences make good neighbors" in Frost's "Mending Wall," but on the flip side, "something there is that doesn't love a wall / that sends the frozen-ground-swell under it."
In other words, once the wall is built, then what? How many more issues of opposition will the government have to address, not to mention how many funds would be required to maintain it?
As a journalist, I don't have don't have the answers. With an issue as complex as this, each minute factor can completely change one's perspective. A wall may work, and at the same time, it may not, it's all about how you look at it.
While I don't condone illegal immigration and do believe this issue needs a resolution, I find it difficult to say this is the last resort. The issue may be wall or no wall, but are those the only options that were ever discussed? What about some form of compromise between the U.S. and Mexican governments?
But perhaps one of the biggest questions centers on the justification of spending $1.2 billion of Homeland Security funds on concrete walls. How does the issue of illegal immigrants fall under the rubric of terrorism?
And if the government has extra funds to spend, why not focus on domestic issues at home, such as illiteracy, crime, inflation, and the ever-growing national debt?
For solving the problem, building a wall may be the easiest way to address the situation of illegal immigration. But then again, the easiest way may not always be the best way.
