Understanding The Conversations and Debate on The Mexican Border

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
The Mexican Border Wall
During his presidential campaigns, Donald Trump mentioned time and time again that he wished to restore America’s former glory. According to his manifesto, this would partly be achieved by regulating immigrants that enter the country, especially from Southern America. In Trump’s perspective, a physical barrier would serve to halt his uncontrolled entry into America via the Southern Border. Additionally, it would alleviate the suffering that immigrants undergo while crossing the Desert of Mexico en route to the US. When Trump occupied the White House, he began the process of actualizing his dream for the barrier. Thus, he lobbied for support from different groups in building the wall. The idea has received support and backlash with equal measure in America and beyond. Currently, there are different voices at work, commending or rebuking the building of the wall. The various stakeholders in action include President Trump himself, the Democrats, Mexican-Americans and other immigrants, human rights activists, and the international community.
The dominant trend in the conversations includes the necessity of the wall, the court case against the idea, the source of funding for the wall, Trump’s adamancy on the issue, and Democrats’ undedicated opinion (Turley). President Trump from inception thought that the border wall was an effective gesture towards regulating immigration in the country. “The wall would also curb the illegal narcotics trade that amounts to about $150 billion annually” (Bloomberg). In June 2015, Trump termed the Latino immigrants who get into the US through the border as “people with numerous problems, criminals, and rapists” (Morin). He further cited that Mexico as a country is responsible for the influx of apparently “useless” people into the country. The Latino immigrants in the country also competed for American Jobs, making native and legitimate citizens to stay jobless. In his address to the Congress in January 2017, President Trump reiterated that “The wall would restore border control and observance of the law guarding the American perimeter” (Turley). His latest gesture related to the wall was a temporary government shutdown in garnering financial and logistical support for the erecting the barrier.
President Trump has all along maintained his stance that Mexico would pay for the construction of the 722-foot wall that would cost approximately $19 billion throughout 10 years (Quester). Trump suggested that cutting tax remittances to Mexico through a review of The Patriot Act would provide the money required for the construction of the wall. The US may also decide to reduce trade dynamics with Mexico and use the proceeds of this business distortion to fund the wall. Mexican President Mr. Pena has consistently maintained that his country “would not pay for a project that stands in the way of all what his nation believes in” (Quester). Since the initial plans to have Mexico pay for the wall are not forthcoming, President Trump is now desperately turning to the Congress to have it provide the much-needed money to build the wall. He plans to exchange this favor for his support of the Democrats’ sponsored program on legitimizing 800000 undocumented young Mexican immigrants (Morin). The Democrats have expressed disapproval of the construction of the wall and thus refused to throw their weight behind Trump’s budgetary request for border security. In an interesting observation, the same left-wing politicians were for the construction of a 700-feet border wall five years ago (Thiessen).
The various trends in this discussion are important in shaping modern democracy in America. First, the trends introduce a delay tactic that is important in producing a balanced opinion from all political sectors. If the Congress approved the border wall budget the first time it was proposed, the American citizenry would have lost faith in its regulatory authority. The trends also put to test the accountability of the government regarding the control of public funds. For instance, Trump’s suggestion that Mexico would pay for the wall is a gesture to indicate that he was sensitive to the Americans’ opinion on the utilization of the public coffers. Perhaps the most important reason to explain why the border wall proposal is yet to materialize is the validity of Trump’s proposals. Different spheres keep on asking if building a border wall is moral.
Further, it is questionable if the intended purpose of the wall would be achieved. Even without the wall, there are forces involved in the smuggling of drugs into the country. These illicit dealings happen in the full glare of law-enforcing authorities. Additionally, immigration in the United States is not solely from Latinos. There are other avenues through which immigrants enter the country which may not be resolved by the building of the wall. The rhetorical trends behind this conversation are taking the better part of the proposal and would eventually carry the day in the materialization or the collapse of the wall.
The key voices that define the conversation about the Mexican border wall are those of President Trump and those of his Democratic counterparts. These are the voices involved in the heated altercation on to or not to build the wall. The wall was the Democrats idea from the beginning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2013 supported the building of a 700-foot long wall along the US-Mexico border. In 2019, however, she was in the frontline in condemning the construction of the barrier terming it “immoral” (Thiessen). Trump’s idea on the wall was based on a popular policy running in the political circles for close to three years. The wall was central to his...