Illegal immigration has been a constant talking point of recent election cycles. But what was usually reserved as a single debate question late into the general election has become a front-and-center issue within the GOP primary. From the Great Wall of Trump to the more empathetic Bush, we are seeing the big-tent party hosting many opinions on this single issue.
Every candidate has about the same rough sketch of a strategy on how to handle our borders. It usually involves building a big wall, investing more money in U.S. ICE and border patrol, and pushing comprehensive immigration reform to a later date.
This is where most of the similarities end. Some argue for the mass deportation of millions of people, while others have called for an amnesty-like policy that is, somehow, not actual amnesty. The desire for the former has only increased with Donald Trump talking up strategies, like removing the 14th Amendment, as well as calling for the deportation of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
I don’t plan on offering a nuanced criticism of Trump’s immigration "plan," as anyone with a basic understanding of the Constitution can see its flaws. Instead, I want to look at how the proposed solutions to the border would be costly and ultimately ineffective in comparison to actual comprehensive immigration reform.
First, let’s look at the wall. So far, the specifications made by the Republican front-runner would hold that it has to be big and possibly have a door in it. The border between the U.S. and Mexico is roughly 2,000 miles. Building a 2,000-mile wall would not only require massive amounts of materials, labor and capital, but as we have seen with the barriers currently in place, they are ineffective. So, that’s a no go. President Bush’s Secure Fence Act of 2006 called for the building of a fence that, upon completion, ultimately proved ineffective in stemming the flow of immigration, evidenced by the fact that I’m writing this article in the first place.
What escapes the grasp of many is the terrain of the border. Borders do not usually derive from actual geographic stops and starts in nature, but rather from arbitrarily drawn lines on maps. The fence built after 2006 faced this problem and did not fare well against the geographic realities of the U.S.-Mexico border. Among the many blunders that large fences and walls face are hills that are not easily built upon. Another feature that hinders these proposed grandiose fences and walls are towns that literally fall on the border. These highly dense populations live right next to a fence, which makes guarding the border difficult.
On the subject of increasing border patrol, no candidate has yet to acknowledge the steep fee that hiring more guards would incur. In an age where programs are cut due to costs, somehow increasing the number of border patrol officers does not seem to be a wise move.
The main issue with the conservative argument for securing our border is that it attempts to fix only symptoms of a larger problem: our broken immigration system. Contrary to the beliefs of many on the right, most immigrants are not coming over here to commit crimes or rape women — they are here because they see the U.S. as an opportunity. Even laborers who are not paid close to minimum wage still make more than what they would earn in Mexico or the other Latin American countries they emigrate from.
People do not cross deserts with human smugglers or drug cartels just because they do not want to wait for a Visa to travel here and work. These are human beings that have been failed by their native governments. If we started talking about comprehensive immigration reform instead of how to deal with anchor babies, we would not need walls.
The U.S. is unique in that it is composed primarily of immigrant lineage. Candidates who deal primarily in fear mongering about illegal immigrants stealing your job, wallet, welfare or wife should not be listened to. These are people who lack the basic decency of comprehending the human element of the issue and do not deserve a seat anywhere near the White House.
Kevin Foster is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
