There are three main reasons given for constructing additional massive walls or barriers along the southern border with Mexico. They are to stop entry of: illegal drugs, terrorists, or violent criminals. In reality, the rationale for those walls is based on three self-generated factors; fear, vanity, and misinformation. None can withstand critical scrutiny, but all garner support from a substantial segment of American society. It should be understood that there are hundreds of miles of existing barriers between the U.S. and Mexico. Contrary to right-wing commentary, almost no one is advocating for open borders. Still, for purely self-serving purposes, Trump wants more walls built. It is not because we need them, but rather he pushed the concept on his base voters who did not comprehend the consequences. Of course, he also convinced them it would be free (because Mexico would pay for it).
First, there is the well-established fallacy in the smuggling argument. Bluntly, the vast majority of illegal substances that do enter from Mexico via land and sea routes, pass through existing official points of entry. At the trial of the infamous Mexican drug cartel leader, Joaquin Guzman, (better known as El Chapo), witnesses stated the bulk shipments are transported by traditional means. They said the drugs most often are hidden in trucks and private vehicles that drive through the authorized checkpoints. Some witnesses mentioned the use of tunnels, but none of them indicated they sent shipments through parts of the border where no wall currently exists. That is contrary to the racist comments of Iowa Representative Steve King when he stated, “they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” Notably, King’s statements formally have been repudiated by Congress, but not by Trump. They are part of the xenophobic trend that subliminally fosters the specious requirements for wall construction.
More fundamentally, while most Americans decry the importation of illegal drugs, they fail to acknowledge that this is a user-driven, not supplier-orchestrated, problem. If there was no demand, smugglers would not be sending drugs across the border. It also must be understood that the current opioid crisis was created by American doctors and American pharmaceutical companies. Billionaire, Dr. Richard Sackler, and his company, Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, have been charged with misleading doctors and patients while pushing their product to an all-too-willing medical establishment that unquestioningly and excessively prescribed them. As incentives for prescribing opioids, thousands of doctors received low-level payoffs. The result was millions of new addicts, not from recreational activities, but from withdrawal symptoms induced by legally prescribed pain medication. That addiction generated a significant number of deaths from overdoses of both prescribed medicines as well as heroin and fentanyl obtained illegally. Rapidly rising, in 2017 there were more than 70,000 drug overdose deaths and more than 47,600 of those were from opioids, including synthetic ones.
Contrary to the vociferous comments of politicians, the evidence indicates that building additional walls/barriers along the southern border would have no significant impact on preventing deaths from opioids. Further, one of the most prolific killers, fentanyl, is generally imported from China, often via mail. Therefore, even tighter control down south would not stop the flow. As I indicated in Solving Southern Border Immigration (11 Dec 2018) the smuggling aspect of the illicit narcotics, and much of the concomitant violent crime, can be terminated or greatly reduced by either legalizing, or decriminalizing, all drugs. While there are other vexatious issues related to that process, taking the leviathan amounts of money out of the equation would be a major accomplishment. Such legislative action would severely damage, if not eliminate, the cartels.
As for human trafficking, that too rarely involves trekking through unguarded stretches of open desert. Of note, some experts differentiate between smuggling and trafficking. The former is viewed as a cooperative effort in which the person voluntarily participates. Trafficking usually involves women and children, often for sexually exploitation though indentured servitude may be involved. Foreign participants are likely to arrive at airports. In this country, a majority of the human trafficking victims are U.S. citizens, frequently runaway teens. While some aliens do pay coyotes to smuggle them across the border, for the larger problem of human trafficking, no wall would help.
The second issue, that of terrorists entering the country, it was just addressed in my article The Terrorist’s Main Port of Entry (17 Jan 2019). The bottom line is that no terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 has been perpetrated by anyone coming through the southern border. Rather, a substantial majority were committed by right-wing groups populated by white males. Of those conducted based on Islamic fundamentalism, nearly all of the jihadists were self-radicalized Americans. The mind has no firewall and entry usually was made via the Internet. Therefore, extending the southern physical barriers would have no impact on such activities. According to the FBI, of the suspected terrorists that have been apprehended attempting to enter the country, many have come from Canada rather than Mexico. If walls work, and terrorists come from Canada, why no northern wall proposal? (Could it be that most native Canadians are Caucasians?)
The third factor, that of undocumented aliens committing violent crime, has been repeatedly addressed in many venues. Crime statistics show that immigrants, documented or undocumented, are considerably less likely to commit violent acts than are native-born American citizens, and by substantial numbers. It is important to note that in media coverage of such crimes, often the undocumented immigrant status of perpetrators is emphasized repeatedly (often in the headlines). An example was the death of Officer Ronil Singh, of the Newman, California Police Department. A tragedy indeed, but the media blared captions about the shooter’s status. Another example was the heartbreaking death of Kathryn “Kate” Steinle, a young woman who was struck by a stray bullet at Pier 14 of the Embarcadero district of San Francisco. The perpetrator was Garcia Zárate, a Mexican who repeatedly had been deported. Though converted into a Republican poster-boy for evil undocumented criminals, he was acquitted of murder for lack of criminal intent. He was found guilty of a lesser offence, but not before the case acquired national attention and Kate’s Law drafted. That case points to two critical issues. One, is the disproportionate emphasis placed on Zárate’s undocumented status. Second, the existing wall did not stop Zárate’s reentry after deportation. More wall would not help. Unfortunately, there are quite a number of law enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty. Very few of those cases get repeated national coverage. The intent of all such coverage is to make the public believe the problem is far worse than it really is.
Similar media exacerbation of the problem is the reporting on violence by Latin American gangs in general and MS-13 in particular. Again, the intent appears to be to invoke fear in American citizens. The inference is that crime committed by these thugs and can be extrapolated to all immigrants (especially black or brown ones). The characterization comes from the top. Consider Trump’s infamous statements about Mexicans being drug dealers and rapists (allowing for a few who might be good people). Yes, MS-13 is a very violent gang and they do commit heinous crimes. While ostensibly from El Salvador, they were created in the Los Angeles County jails then deported. Also, the victims of their crimes are most frequently other gang members or other immigrants from Latin America. The reality is that while natural U.S. citizens normally have little to fear from them. The prevalent anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by this administration increases the risk to law-abiding people from those countries and makes them skeptical of all government officials. The result is that they are more frequently victimized and less willing to assist law enforcement. There is no indication that MS-13 infiltrates the country via unguarded borders. Further, they have been around long enough that some younger members are the children of legal immigrants and born here.
In summary, drugs are a domestically generated problem. Since 9/11, the known terrorists have been Americans. Regarding violent crime, the statistics are very clear. Immigrants, even undocumented ones, are far less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. Those are not the messages that one derives when listening to Trump, his state-sponsoring media outlets, or his supporters. The amount of false or misleading information being injected into the American psyche is endemic. Counterfactual communication, especially that which reverberates on social media, is intentionally overwhelming. Creating fear is the objective.
Contrary to his commentary, the real reason Trump presses for the wall has little to do with national security and everything to do with his personal image. He ran for office based on demonization of “the others,” like those who come from “shithole” countries. His message of fear continues to resonate successfully with millions of people. The wall is symbolic of success in spreading fear. Thus, it needs to be opposed by people of good conscience. A self-avowed nationalist, Trump has withdrawn America from its post-WWII role of attempting to stabilize a chaotic world (though not always successfully). His supporters concur. Frankly, if you are thinking globally, you are thinking too small.