The Benefits of an Open Border - Essay Example

Running Head: Open Border The Benefits on an Open Border College There is renewed debate about the border wall to be built in an effort to slow illegal migration from Mexico to the United States. While this essay assumes the reader has some knowledge of the issue, it is a persuasive argument so that those who don't know all the facts will be given the opportunity to learn more about the travesty, and engage in some action to keep the border wall from being built. Despite the fact the approval given to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of America, the border wall is unnecessary, and will do more harm than good. This essay, then, is designed to enhance current knowledge of the issue, as well as enforce why the wall will have a negative impact, rather than a positive one. The easiest answer to why the border wall is a poor idea is this: It lacks a showing of good will on the part of the United States. The border wall is a separatist action that screams, "We have more than you. We know it, and want to make sure you don't have any of it". That not the message that many students on the campus of the University of Texas at Brownville and Texas Southmost College (UTB-TSC) think should be sent. In April 2007, students at UTB-TSC built their own wall. It's a "fence in support of unfenced borders," (Sieff, 2008) Kevin Sieff writes. Sieff quotes student Abraham Ruiz as saying, "So much is going to be separated or destroyed." That is true, and Sieff isn't the only one who believes it. K. Mangan writes, "A fence would send the wrong message" (Mangan, 2007). He adds that the United States government ought to "pursue an alternative to a border fence" (Mangan, 2007). While that statement, too, is correct, promoting good will is only one smart part of why the wall should never come to be. Another salient point is the fact that permission to build the wall has "enhanced Department of Homeland Security powers to suspend more than 30 laws" (Mclemore, 2008). Congress understands that this is happening, but using the excuse that the good of the wall will certainly outweigh the bad. The problem with this is that we are talking about 30 laws, not one or two. Obviously, those 30 laws are in place for a reason. Building a fence, that we have no idea will even accomplish the goals the government claims it will, is not a good enough reason to ignore 30 laws. How does the government, even local or state, expect citizens to follow all the rules of society when it, at will, ignores 30 of them This is an example of a democracy that is not democratic. If the American government really felt this wall was in the best interest of the people, why not put it on the next ballot The reason is this: We are not being asked if we think this is a good idea. We are being told that it is. Congress has taken the power away from the people. This precedent cannot possible bode well for law abiding, tax paying citizens. What of historical preservations The United States is supposed to be a country that delights in its history. We deem certain building historical landmarks so that we can enjoy them with our children. Then, our children can enjoy them with theirs. Why should that stop to erect a wall or fence UTB-TSC professor Tony Knopp states, "There are strong historic forts along the border that would be affected by the fence. To put up a wall would just destroy the historical ambience" (Sieff, 2008). Historical preservation is important everywhere, even places that border Mexico. It is ludicrous to think that ruining historical landmarks is a good idea - ever. Just as important as preserving history, is the preservation of efforts to leave the environment clean and healthy for people, as well as animals. Congress is actually considering waiving the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Air acts. For the acts to need waiving, means that the building of the wall is a threat the clean drinking water, and air pollution. There is no reason for any entity to threaten drinking water and clean air. Those are among the most basic human rights Americans have, and deserve. Dr. Jonathan Turley, an authority on constitutional law at George Washington University Law school, says Congress has no idea what it's doing. "There is no evidence Congress considered the implications of giving Homeland Security such broad waiver power," (Mclemore, 2008) Turley states. He says congress is "waiver happy" because giving the waivers is cheaper than the debates and litigations that are involved in due process. Thankfully, every member of Congress isn't being so irresponsible. According to Mclemore, U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, and eight other members are Congress are fighting to get back some of the power originally given to Homeland Security. Blumenauer states it is not true that the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act need to be compromised for the wall (Mclemore 2008). Other protestors claim that violating these acts isn't just a problem for people, but also wildlife. If wildlife is destroyed, our entire ecosystem is knocked off balance, and could be destroyed. The government needs to consider, too, the increase of violence that building the wall could create. Currently, "The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M is helping the U.S. Border Patrol come up with fences that can withstand assaults from forces even greater than angry trustees: blowtorches, axes, crowbars, and speeding SUVs" (Mangan, 2007). This is more than enough proof that the wall is creating ill will. If the aforementioned items cannot destroy the wall, opponents will simply take their violence to the next level. There is nothing written that proves that when one attempt at something fails, people just give up. This country has survived off of the tenacity of its people. The sheer numbers of Mexican trying to get into the United States, and the lengths to which they will go to get here, proves that they aren't likely to give up quickly either. In an effort to preserve human life, the idea of the wall should be turned into something much more useful. It's not that proponents for the fence don't have some valid arguments. "From the 1930s to the 1960s, Mexico supplied as much as 95 percent of the marijuana consumed in the U.S. market" (U.S. Border Report, 2001). Therefore, slowing down the drug trade is an essential task at hand. There is no evidence, though, that the wall will eliminate drugs, let alone immigration. The people who can buy enough drugs to send to the U.S. using Mexican nationals as mules, are the people of means. Even with the wall, the will find a way to make sure business flourishes. There is also the matter of money. In Brooks County, Texas, $16,000 per year is earmarked toward handling the dead bodies of indigents. Even if they are illegal aliens, the County where they are found is responsible for the remains. By August 2007, Brooks County had already spent $61,470 (McConahay, 2007) on handling the dead bodies. County Judge Jose Ramirez states, "We could be helping more of our own" (McConahay, 2007). Once in the U.S., the Mexican immigrants still live in poverty. Even becoming legal doesn't stop the average Brooks County resident from living on about $21,000 per year. While it sounds ad, it is probably more than they would be earning in Mexico. Opponents of the border wall aren't unsympathetic, just believers that there has to be a better way. While it may appear that Mexican immigrants take more than they give, the truth is that, "Members of both political parties benefit from immigration today" (U.S. Border Report, 2001). It is also shown that most immigrants come to the United States to find family member and to work, because even working for minimum wage earns then "approximately 15 times greater" (U.S. Border Report, 2001) the amount they'd earn in Mexico. America is supposed to be the home of the free and brave. There is no reason, then, to try to deny what we have to others. Most Mexican immigrants don't come to the U.S. with the intention of breaking the law, or breaking our bank. They are just trying to survive. It is negligible to think that any wall we build will keep them out. Instead, this wall will cause more desperation, and lead to an increase in violence. It will cause more death, either by violence or unsafe passages. It will continue to cause animosity, and it will separate two countries that should be working together. With all that America has accomplished, and all that America has to offer, a better solution must be out there. In the meantime, Americans with a conscience have to stand up and do something. Many of our own ancestors made it to this country one way or another, and we should be willing to treat Mexican immigrants the way we would've wanted someone to treat out own ancestors and loved ones. References Mangan, K. (2007, December 7). Texas colleges argue that a border fence would divide a community. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(15), A24-A24. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Academic Search Complete database. Mclemore, D. (2008, April 15). Fight over border fence environmental waivers could reach Supreme Court. Dallas Morning News, The (TX), Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Newspaper Source database. McConahay, M.J. (2007, August 17). Dreams that die on the border. National Catholic Reporter 43(34), p. 5-6. Sieff, K. (2008, April 17). 'Education not division': Students raise their own wall' in opposition against border fence. Brownsville Herald, The (TX), Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Newspaper Source database. U.S. border report: Migration across the Mexico border (2001, January 1). Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.dslextreme.com/users/surferslim/text1.html. Read More