Informative Essay On US-Mexico Border Fence

Running head: U.S.-MEXICO BORDER FENCE U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Dorothy Watson Axia College of University of Phoenix U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Picture this, a nice little bungalow close to the Rio Grande River, with excellent views and a multitude of wildlife. Six months later, picture that same little bungalow, and instead of the scenic view of the river, picture a 20 foot high wall of concrete posts. The migratory routes for the wildlife have been eliminated, and private property has been condemned. All this just to build a fence. Are the American people aware of the costs associated with the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence? Monetarily the amount is astronomical. Are the American people aware of the fact that during the Bush administration,
Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, was given the power to waive environmental laws, without having his decisions reviewed? Chertoff used this power to build fencing through a national reserve near San Diego, California, and through other wildlife preserves. (Berestein. 2008.) The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence is a waste of money and resources, monetarily and materially, that could be better spent on a different solution to solve illegal immigration, instead of being thrown away on a project that will continue to waste the taxpayer’s money with few results, an eyesore to the landscape, and harmful to the local wildlife. In 2006 the Secure Fence Act was established and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was directed to build a fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. The border patrol estimated that 850 miles of fencing would be needed along the almost 2,000 mile border. That estimate has since changed to 670 miles. The completion date was set for the end of 2008. By January 2009 only 601 miles have been completed. Below is a map of the proposed area that is to be fenced. {draw:frame} The cost to build and maintain the fencing is astronomical. A homeland security bill, numbering $1.2 billion was to pay for the project. Another $2.7 billion has been put aside since 2006. In 2007 a study completed by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the maintenance alone could cost upwards of $49 billion, or more, over the next quarter century. This figure does not include the cost of lawsuits from private property owners, the expense to purchase land from private owners, or labor costs to private contractors. (Hendricks, 2007.) Is this the sight that homeowners should see from their front or back door? {draw:frame} Construction of the new fence (right), with high intensity lights, and the old fence (left) have all but destroyed the land around Russian Hill, an area near San Diego, California.
Is the expense, monetarily and environmentally, associated with the fence worth it? According to Bill Whitaker, a CBS news correspondent, it does not make a difference what type of fence is built. If there is a way around, over or through the barrier, it will be used. Car carriers are used to drive over the smaller sections of fencing. Since 2000, there have been 21 tunnels discovered under the border. (Whitaker. 2008). Some people tout the efficiency of the fence. Border patrol agent Mike Lowrie stated "This used to be a very high-trafficked area, and now it is not." He continued with, “In the Yuma Sector, we would get about 800 a day. Now, 25 maybe, or 10." (King. 2009.) Illegal Immigrant arrests have decreased in the San Diego area. (Spagat. 2007). The immigrants are crossing in areas that are more dangerous to them and have less patrol because of the terrain. The fence has not stopped immigration, only diverted it to other areas. Father John Herman, a Roman Catholic priest, blames the fence for more risky crossings in less-populated desert areas. He says "We know that the way enforcement has gone has driven many people into the desert and caused more deaths. Needless deaths. If we could only get together and work for comprehensive immigration reform." (King.
2008). Sharon Hughes, executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers states “Americans simply aren’t willing to do this work.” (Former Farm and Dairy Reporters.
2004). Howard Berman, a member of the House of Representatives, believes that a guest worker program would be a mistake. Berman believes that this would only encourage the workers to not return home because they would be better off staying and going underground. He also believes that this would only lower the wages of the farm worker because of the abundance of immigrant workers who would arrive. (Berman. 2002.) I live in an area full of apple orchards. In the next small town is the Musselman’s plant where they produce applesauce, juice, and other apple products. A little farther down the road one can find several other companies that use apples for their products. I have been past the orchards and the factories. The majority of the workers are immigrants, legal, or not, I do not know. When a group of recent graduates, that were visiting, were asked if they would consider employment in any of these places, with a substantial amount of pay, there was a resounding “no” from the group. Asked why and the response was because it was not a job they would like to
do. If this group of young men is our next labor force, and they do not wish to work on the farms or in the factories, what is to become of the farmers? How many more foods will the U.S. import instead of using the resources found in their own backyards? These are questions that need answers. The wastefulness of the monies being spent for a fence that can be tunneled under, or gone around could be better spent on an immigration reform bill that works. Monies could be spent on a program to better assist the development of Mexico; this in turn would save our wildlife sanctuaries, and migratory routes from further destruction. A guest worker program, to allow immigrants to cross the border legally, which in turn aids the agricultural farmer, needs to be greatly considered. Think of the wasted man hours and monies that could have been used to implement either of these possible solutions. Again, the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence is a waste of money and resources, monetarily and materially, that could be better spent on a different solution to solve illegal immigration, instead of being thrown away on a project that will continue to waste the taxpayer’s money with few results, an eyesore to the landscape, and harmful to the local wildlife. References Associated Press, (2009) Border fence completion eludes government. MSNBC Berestein, L, (2008) Border fence case is rejected. San Diego Union Tribune Retrieved October 3, 2009 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080624/news_1n24fence.html Berman, H. L. (2002). America Should Not Admit Guest Farmworkers. Opposing Viewpoints: Illegal Immigration. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale PowerSearch Database. Craig, L. (2002). America Should Admit Guest Farmworkers. Opposing Viewpoints: Illegal Immigration. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale PowerSearch Database. King, J. (2009) CNN Border Story Retrieved September 18, 2009 from Martinez, L. (2009) Border fence disrupts landscape. The Brownsville Herald Retrieved September 18, 2009 from http://www.themonitor.com/articles/fence-27609-border-garza.html Spagat, E. (2007) S.D. Border Fence Construction Resumes. The Associated Press. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Whitaker, B. (2008) Is the costly border fence worth it? CBS News Retrieved September 18, 2009 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/08/eveningnews/main4002554.shtml Wood, D. (2008). Where U.S.-Mexico border fence is tall, border crossings fall. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0401/p01s05-usgn.html?page=1