Substitute Solutions For Legal Immigration Enforcement
Earlier this year, the United States experienced the longest government shutdown in history. It affected thousands of federal services as well as agencies to be temporarily closed. Congress had to approve a certain amount of money the government can use throughout the following fiscal year. If the funds are not agreed upon every member, there is a continuing funding resolution, and if they can not agree with that, the government proceeds in shutting down. President Trump initiated the government shutdown after an inadequate amount of money was approved by Congress to build his resounding and reprehensible campaign promise: The Wall. Our president threatened he would shut down the government if an extra $5 billion was not granted to build his wall. Both the senate and the president agreed on a reasonable amount of money for the wall, but Donald Trump then changed course and refused to sign the new bill, causing the government shutdown. The government shutting down was not beneficial for anyone besides nour president who got what he wanted. Instead it reduced gross domestic product by $11 billion, it might have been higher, and not all of it was recovered once the shutdown ended. As a Mexian-American, I will not be influenced by the president's oratory to vote for funding a wall with such an exorbitant amount of funds. I believe there are substitute solutions to enforce legal immigration that would work with the existing wall and help the cost, immigration issues such as tourists who overstay their visas, and protect the natural territory around the immense southern border.
The president suggests there is “crisis at the border,” when in fact illegal immigration has been at an all-time low. This is one of the reasons why I do not support building such a high-priced project. A wall like the one President Trump has been building will need to be maintained constantly, which will cost more money. It does not make sense in building something so expensive when the next president just might let the project go into abandonment. Trump suggested in his campaign earlier this year that the “cost of the wall would be $4 billion to $8 billion,” which we know now that it was a lie. In the New York Times Eileen Sullivan makes clear how the estimated cost to build the wall was up to “$70 billion” (Sullivan).
This project is ridiculously expensive when it has been stated that illegal border crossings have been decreasing. According to reports from the Department of Homeland Security, it has been going “down roughly 90 percent since 2000.” These numbers agree with data other researchers have gathered (Ingraham). The president’s claim of a crisis and his idea to declare a state of emergency are rebuked with these statistics. These funds should have been used to expand devices such as officers patrolling the land, sky, and sea, as well as getting up-to-date technology to help detect and prevent illegal items being brought in and out of the United States. Having more people patrol the border would have been much cheaper than rebuilding a wall that is still standing. I believe that instead of building the wall in places where it was already built, Trump should have created a system and rebuild in areas that was absolutely necessary. Apart from illicit items, more funds could have been useful to ensure undocumented people would not cross the border illegeally. For example having the border patrol be more attentive with those crossing in and out of the country constantly can be one way in decreasing trafficking.
A new modern system should be made to monitor and enforce those who visit the United States with a visa in an unbiased way. More than half of the people that live in the United States illegally have never seen a border. Even after their visa had expired, they are tourists who entered the country illegally and never left. In the Washington Post, Christopher Ingraham states it is estimated that “visa overstays account for about two-thirds of the total number of people joining the undocumented population in any given year.” In addition, in The Atlantic it states that “in the past 10 years, visa overstays in the United States have outnumbered border crossings by a ratio of about 2 to 1” (Warren). These two statements are ideal examples of why building such a costly project is not going to stop those who are already in the country illegally.
Those who do have visas, should be checked frequently to ensure they are not committing any crimes and leave once it does expire. This would not be the ideal system, but it sure would be a lot less expensive than building an entire wall from scratch. Not only is it not fair to those who go through such a long process to get their visas denied but also they still have to pay the fees whether accepted or not. It all comes back to those individuals who were accepted and chose not to go back to their country. Going through the system, legally, can take years and it is unfortunate that there are people who can cross within hours by paying coyotes an outrageous amount of money. A new system must be accounted for in order to prevent such matters from occurring frequently.
To add on, Ingraham continues by stating the “latest federal data, compiled by President Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security, indicates that most immigrants who enter the country do so legally.” All these facts continue to contradict what our President of this country has claimed. Our president believes we should not “allow all of these people to invade our Country,” according to his social media. If the whole reason for the government shutdown was about the nation’s illegal population and “criminals,” as President Trump refers foreigners as, then the problem should be considering a different organization of enforcement and not building another wall. Enforcing greater enforcement would be helpful for stopping various illegal incidents as well as our country staying safe.
Moreover, there must be a system executed that impartially tracks visa overstays. Over “702,000 overstayers” were calculated in 2017 to have never left this country after visa expiration. In The Atlantic, it states that “the reason the numbers are hard to track is that visitors’ visas are not checked as they exit some countries and, when they are, the system is either incomplete or problematic.” Another example would be Kenya Downs of the BBC describes white undocumented immigrants as “navigating a difficult world of privilege…” As a result officers usually never question a person with a lighter skin tone because they automatically assume their status is a legal citizen. Similarly, Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute declares that “a[s] a whole, white and other non-Latino immigrants are targeted for arrest and detention at disproportionately lower rates” (Downs). It is accurate that those who overstay their visas and are of a lighter skin color, do not face detention and deportation at the same rate as those who have a darker skin tone. Racial profiling must not be taken into consideration when enforcing the law. I believe legislation should be proposed for enforcing legal immigration must not allow the color of someone’s skin be a reason for suspicion and detaintment.
A major factor in the legislation I would support is to fund a bill to reopen the government that is meant in protecting the surrounding habitat of our southern border. An individual at Stanford Wood Institute for the Environment, Rob Dylan, states that “nearly 2,000-mile-long border traverses some of the continent’s most biologically diverse regions…home to more than 1,500 native animal and plant species.” Many fail to realize that a barrier whose purpose is to stop individuals from crossing into the country will also obstruct wildlife in its own accommodation. Jordan continues claiming that “some of these species face extinction within the U.S if their movements are cut off by the continuous border wall President Trump has pledged to build” (Jordan). Animals would come to face with not being able to gain access to natural resources, leading to their endangerment or much worse, extinction. In the article it is stated that “the wall could rob us of iconic creatures.” We need to support their natural habitat that are located in the borderlands and oppose anything that will create an obstacle for such beautiful wildlife.
Although some may argue that the southern border is heavily trafficked with illegal drugs, evidence has stated that a minimal amount of it crosses the border that are not protected by a barrier. It is reported that “the most common method employed by these TCOs [Transitional Criminal Organizations] involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs) in passenger vehicles with concealed compartments or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers,” according to the 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment published by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA 6). This statement given by a United States federal agency, proves that a wall will not deter crossing of drugs into the country. Furthermore it is disclosed that some smuggling techniques include “the use of subterranean tunnels...commercial cargo trains and passenger buses… ‘drones’ to conduct air drops” (DEA 6-7). This claim contradicts yet another of the President’s rationale for having to build a wall. A big, fancy wall is not gonna stop trafficking illegal substances entering the country when it has been happening for decades. Rather, we should have used that excessive amount of money to get more high-tech devices for the already existing ports of entry, making it more difficult in crossing anything illegal. New techniques should be made to make looking for drugs, weapons, and immigrants more efficient. Border patrol should go under vigorous training as well as checking their history. Port of entries should be watched more attentively because, from my knowledge, most of the illicit items coming through are crossed at the border with the help of the officers. Those who smuggle such items give a great cut of money to the officers in order for them to not get caught. . Of course building a wall can decrease the amount of illicit items being brought into the United States for now, but it will not get rid of the illegal activities completely.
If it were up to me, I would support a bill to have a government that has a larger funding for border security. This outrageous amount of fund for the wall could have been used in a variety of sources that have been proven to stop illegal immigration and trafficking from occuring. The wall will not prevent illegal actions from occurring, no matter how hard we try. It would be harmful to build such a massive thing, stretching thousands of miles along the border, to the biodiversity present and will be damaging that natural habitat along the area as well. This project was nothing more but for President Trump’s own ego. Politicians must agree on cooperating to work on bipartisan comprehensive immiogration legislation that will help reduce illegal immigration. Like I said before, illegal immigration is not going to be stopped because now there is a massive wall. Whether it is through visa overstays or trafficking, there will always be a way for individuals to enter the United States. Even after a majority of the wall being built already, I bet there is still illegal contraband going in and out of the country. It might have been slowed down, but it is in a matter of time that those businesses will be up and running once again, especially after President Trump’s term ends. As mentioned before, the problem for the government shutting down was not just for funding the wall for illegal immigration, but rather prevent the people of color south of our border from setting foot in our country.
Works Cited
Calamur, Krishnadev. “The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn't on the Southern Border.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 19 Apr. 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/real-immigration-crisis-people-overstaying-their-visas/587485/.
Downs, Kenya. “Irish Immigrant's Arrest Highlights Race's Role in Deportation.” BBC News, BBC, 23 July 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40332646.
Drug Enforcement Administration. “2017 National Drug Threat Assessment.” 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment, DEA Strategic Intelligence Section, 2017, pp. 5–7. DEA-DCT-DIR-040-17, www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/DIR-040-17_2017-NDTA.pdf.
Ingraham, Christopher. “Most Immigrants Who Enter the Country Do so Legally, Federal Data Shows.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 June 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/most-immigrants-who-enter-the-country-do-so-legally-federal-data-show/?utm_term=.88e3e482a1c4.
Jordan, Rob. “How Would a Border Wall Affect Wildlife?” Stanford Earth, Stanford University, 24 July 2018, earth.stanford.edu/news/how-would-border-wall-affect-wildlife#gs.WO48FEaY.
Sullivan, Eileen. “The Wall and the Shutdown, Explained.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/us/politics/build-the-wall-border-facts-explained.html.
