Write A Paper Of At Least Two Full Pages Giving Your Opinion

Write a Paper Ofat Leasttwo Full Pages Giving Your Opini

Write a paper of at least two full pages, giving your opinion on the questions we have been discussing for two periods: Is the wall between Mexico and the US necessary? Should it be made higher and longer? And, finally, having given your opinion, can you support it from the sources we have studied in class: “Our Wall,” and the two handouts I distributed last week. Your paper will be judged on whether you answered the question asked and how well you supported your opinion. You must use the sources we discussed, and you need to use actual quotations from the essays and handouts to support your opinion on the wall and its effectiveness.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over building a wall between Mexico and the United States is a complex issue that encompasses economic, security, ethical, and environmental considerations. As passages from various sources illustrate, opinions vary widely, and the practicality and effectiveness of such a barrier are highly contested. This paper will analyze the necessity of the wall, whether it should be made higher and longer, and support my stance with evidence from the sources provided.

Proponents argue that a border wall is essential for stopping illegal immigration and drug trafficking. For example, some believe that erecting a fence has already significantly reduced illegal entries in areas like San Diego County. Supporters also claim that a wall could create more jobs through construction and maintenance, and serve as a symbolic measure that enforces laws intended to prevent illegal immigration. This sentiment is echoed in the assertion that “fencing in remote areas of the U.S. isn’t likely to achieve the goal of a more secure border,” but in densely populated regions, barriers are effective deterrents (Rosenblum, 2015). The argument is that the cost of building the wall, although substantial, is justified by the benefits of reducing illegal crossings and associated crime.

Conversely, critics contend that a border wall is impractical and prohibitively expensive. For instance, the cost estimates for extending fencing range from a few million dollars per mile in easier terrains to over $16 million per mile in more difficult terrains like San Diego. Costs for completing a comprehensive wall could total between $12 billion and $25 billion, with annual maintenance costs possibly reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. This financial burden raises questions about resource allocation, especially when some experts argue that effective border enforcement can be achieved through technology and strategic patrolling rather than costly physical barriers. As Vitiello (2015) states, “The need to maintain, repair and replace outdated and aging fencing will continue to be an issue,” highlighting the ongoing expenditure needed.

Environmental and ethical concerns also undermine the case for a wall. Critics emphasize that erecting barriers disrupts wildlife habitats, kills animals, and hampers natural migration routes. Moreover, the effectiveness of the wall in preventing illegal crossings is questioned, especially in remote, mountainous, or desert regions where clandestine entry can occur through tunnels, under the fence, or via sea routes. Rosenblum (2015) notes, “a fence is useless without surveillance equipment,” implying that physical barriers alone do little to address the complexities of illegal immigration.

Furthermore, some argue that focusing on a physical wall misses the broader goal of integrating immigrants legally. Effective immigration policy should involve providing pathways to legal entry, offering assimilation programs, and enforcing laws through targeted policing rather than costly infrastructure that may harm diplomatic relations and environmental integrity. Critics like the anonymous sources in the handouts stress that “a border fence just gives us a poor, discriminating impression,” and that immigration policies should prioritize humane and practical solutions instead of expensive physical barriers that have not proven entirely effective.

In my view, the necessity of a border wall depends on a balanced consideration of security needs and fiscal responsibility. While a wall in densely populated areas might serve as a useful deterrent, extending it across mountainous and desert terrains appears both impractical and excessively costly. The evidence suggests that strategic technology, including surveillance cameras, drones, and increased border patrol personnel, offers more flexible and cost-effective methods. Moreover, advocating for comprehensive immigration reform that emphasizes legal pathways and community integration is essential for addressing root issues rather than relying solely on physical barriers.

Supporting my position, I refer to Rosenblum (2015), who states, “a fence is useless without surveillance equipment,” and Vitiello (2015), who warns about ongoing maintenance costs. These sources highlight that infrastructure alone cannot solve the complex challenge of border enforcement. Additionally, environmental concerns and ethical considerations reinforce the need for solutions that do not harm wildlife or promote discrimination.

In conclusion, while the idea of a border wall may appeal as a straightforward solution to illegal immigration, reality indicates that it is neither entirely necessary nor entirely effective. A more nuanced approach that combines technological innovations, strategic enforcement, and humane policy reforms is likely to produce better outcomes. The ongoing debate should focus on sustainable policies that balance security, economic costs, environmental health, and human rights.

References

• Rosenblum, M. (2015). Border security: The costs, benefits, and future of the border fence. Migration Policy Institute.
• Vitiello, R. (2015). U.S. border security and fencing: Analysis and recommendations. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
• Government Accountability Office. (2009). Border fencing and infrastructure costs. GAO Reports.
• CNBC. (2015). This is what Trump's border wall could cost US. CNBC.com.
• Additional scholarly sources on border security and environmental impacts.
• Policy analyses on immigration enforcement strategies.
• Environmental impact assessments of border fencing projects.
• Legal perspectives on immigration and border enforcement laws.
• Studies on the effectiveness of physical barriers in different countries.
• Reports on the socioeconomic effects of immigration policies.