The Fence: Not The Answer, But Not A Crime

by Armando Meza
February 24, 2009

In the unprecedented environment of pop-politics which sprouted from our country’s most recent presidential election, it seems difficult for the general public to fathom that anybody could hold an opposing view from that of the winning party and still be taken with serious regard. One such issue of conflict is the infamous “wall” between Mexico and the US, which has been labeled as a failed conservative/Republican plan. Nevertheless, I feel the need to address certain issues that have stigmatized the planning and building of the United States-Mexico border fence, out-casting ideas and individuals who support its existence.

Foremost, the fence is not an ill-willed attack deliberately aimed at any country’s political abilities—or lack thereof—as a number of immigrants in America, legal and illegal, have been known to believe. The scale of the immigration problem at hand demands that people take the issue with a more objective mentality. The proposition of tearing down the wall, for instance, is a dangerous question to ponder. There wouldn’t be the slightest benefit to anybody in demolishing the fence.

As appalled as some might feel by the sight of the fence, the fact is this: it stands, eleven feet tall and 2.7 billion dollars later. Under the economic situation in the US at present, it seems counter-productive for citizens to advocate such idealistic suggestions after all of the taxpayer money that has gone into the effort. When dealt with strictly as an investment, the borderland is better off letting the fence stand where it is to provide as best a service as it can, rather than leaving no form of resistance in its stead.

A better-grounded argument adopted by those opposing “the wall” is that the physical structure itself will solve no more problems than its predecessor. This is true. Though any previous attempts at an US/Mexico barrier were primitive by contrast, it is a valid point to argue that no structure erected from the ground will of its own accord stop the problem we face.

However, the fence is instrumental to the work of border patrol agents across the country. American citizens expect the government to provide law enforcement officers with proper vehicles and equipment to protect their children from criminals when they are out and about on the streets; yet these same people are quick to chastise the fence-supporters for essentially doing the same for the border patrol. To border patrol officers, this much needed assistance couldn’t have come any sooner, and it might even encourage the overwhelming number of unemployed citizens in the US to pursue the job of protecting the border. With over eleven thousand positions available as of January of this year, a government secured job like this should seem very appealing to struggling Americans living in the borderland. It is with the strategic allocation of skilled officers and the stage-lit fence that we should be able to secure our borders more effectively.

The United States and Mexico currently find themselves dealing with some growing sociopolitical demons of their own kind; the nature of their problems and course of action sustained by each country varies between the two, yet there are few who will deny the unifying bind they share: a crisis which plagues their people and system. It is under these circumstances that Americans should come to accept that the fence could be part of the solution. President Obama has shown no formal disagreement with the fence, so perhaps it’s wiser to seek an immigration reform from him than to expect a bulldozer charging down the Rio Grande.

Print