I am very familiar with the ethics of border security, having grown up in El Paso, Texas. The city sits right next to Juarez, Mexico with a population of over 2 million. As stated in the Debate.org article, “Border Fence”, El Paso, San Diego, and McAllen are the epicenter for cartel violence, hub for drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. There is a border fence that stretches over 30 miles in and around the El Paso area, with a border patrol agent stationed every 300 yards over the same span. With a population of close to 800,000 with over 80% of that being Hispanic, it is a very controversial subject along the border region. (Debate.org Article)
There are multiple political forces that are playing a part in the border security/illegal immigration controversy. The current administration has publicly made reference that they will not revisit securing the border without a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The conservatives believe that in order to have a discussion regarding immigration reform, securing the border must come first. Depending upon which “side of the isle” that a person takes regarding the securing of the border, they fall in two categories – the conservatives mainly reside on the pros, and the liberal party tends to side on the cons of building a fence.
Pros of Building a Fence
One of the pros for building the fence is that “control of the borders are required for national security”. With the rise of terrorist groups around the world including
Should our military guard The United States and Mexico border? The opposing views think that military involvement is not the solution to the problem. The following writing will discuss reasons for that our military needs to be involved in protecting the borders of The United State and Mexico and the arguments regarding our military being used to guard our borders. Many people dispute the military involvement and many are in its favor. This paper will discuss reasons why military involvement is vital in the protection of the United States-Mexican border. The border between The United States and Mexico has been the routes used for trafficking drugs, illegal immigrants and the entry
Matt Myers said ¨Given the rising global instability in North Korea and the Middle East, it isn't that hard to imagine terrorists getting their hands on biological, chemical or radiological weapons. With an insecure border, it is even easier to imagine those terrorists bringing those weapons across the southern border and launching a devastating attack inside America. Extending the physical and technological wall along the southern border gives us the best chance to detect and to stop the flow of drugs, humans trapped in bondage, and terror.¨ Most of our drugs actually come from Mexico and it comes from the immigrants that cross over the border. Pitlane Magazines says, “A border fence would give those people who want one a sense of security. It would also take longer for those who want to cross the border illegally to do so, increasing the likelihood that they will get caught. It would clearly delineate the borders between the two countries, making it easy to tell where they are. It may help those who patrol the borders to keep better track of who is crossing.” So if we lessen the amount of immagrants that come over the border, then we can lessen the amount of drugs that are affecting people today. This means that we need to control this border and the longer it takes for us to control this border then the more attacks we´ll have and more illegal drugs would be in the U.S. and that isn´t something that we would
The debate over illegal immigration has been a constant and ongoing struggle in the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants are living among us in the country, we have more entering daily. Recently, President Barack Obama touched on the topic with his immigration executive order. Unfortunately, with the republican takeover of the white house, many of his actions are not being supported. This is viable evidence that there are people who want to help fix the immigration system in a way that will benefit illegal immigrants and give them a fighting chance to prosper here in the United States. With that being said, there are also powers who do not want to see that happen because they believe that it is not in the best interest of the United States to open their borders to illegals. This puts to question what the next steps for the United States will decide and how that will affect Americans across the country. My goal of this essay is to enlighten the moral concerns in the debates pertaining to immigration.
Although the issue with illegal immigration is prominent, the solution is not as clear. Some say the annual quota of 20,000 Mexicans should be raised (Anderson 65). This does not help the fact that there is a 5-9 year wait for over 1 million immigrants to enter the country legally (Anderson 57). "Most illegals are of working age and looking for jobs" (Anderson 57). They don't want to wait years to get a job. Otherwise, there would not be near as many people crossing the border every year. Some people call for a border fence in order to lower the number of illegals (Marcovitz 27). In 2006, Congress began a $2.5 billion project to fence nearly 700 miles of the Mexican border (Marcovitz 27). Many are still pushing for the entire border to be fenced off (Marcovitz 27). Currently, only about one third of the border has been fenced, and over 1,000 miles still remain open (Marcovitz 28). The fence is patrolled by border officers. In 1992 there were about 3,500 border patrol officers. In 2010 that number had grown to over 20,000 (Marcovitz
Mexican border secured would be a rise for the economy growth and/or goods and services ("The US-Mexican…). Officers encounter many violent scenes at the border. People get shot in a car and they are sometimes hidden in unexpected places and the cause of the killing are by drug traffickers. Bringing drugs to the U.S. is a disadvantage for immigrants and it is one of the reasons why immigrants should not be allowed to cross. When immigrants cross the border to the U.S. they risks themselves by being forces to take drugs with them. All criminal activities happen in the border and they bring weapons, drugs, and money ("The US-Mexican…). For bringing all these items the national security are
Jeff Corwin stated that “If this border wall actually happens, it will be an environmental catastrophe. Essentially, what it’s doing is cutting through nature’s bridge, which connects Central America to North America and South America.” Which in many cases this can be supported but then again many people work very hard to become a citizen in the United States for many to come across the border to get here illegally and to most this is unfair. To make another main statement given the rising global instability in North Korea and the Middle East with a strong and supportive border it would be harder for terrorist to get their hands on biological, chemical or radiological weapons. With an insecure border it makes it easier for them to bring them into the United States and launch a devastating attack on the United States.
Not only do illegal immigrants crossing the border cause border control issues, but they also cause critical national security issues by jeopardizing the safety of the US citizens. For example, in September of 2007, forty-one illegal immigrants with gang ties to the Mexican Mafia, Sureno 13, and the Latin Kings were detained for severe crimes in Northwest Arkansas. A number of of the gang members had been previously deported, however, crossed the border illegally yet again. If a drastic number of deported immigrants are able to cross the border more than once, it is only a matter of time until a terrorist comes along and does a great amount of damage to the
The other issues that have raised concern relate to national security and unfairness. In order to protect our security, some opponents want to discourage entry by increasing patrols and surveillance and raising a wall to protect our southern border. These measures have failed in the past, and will likely do so in the future. By increasing the money we spend for added patrols and surveillance, we will only increase our costs. We should recognize that the majority of the individuals that have entered our country, by slipping across the border, are, otherwise, willing to abide by our laws for an opportunity at a better life. Their primary purpose is to improve their economic conditions, not to jeopardize our security or cause controversy with people holding legal status.
Posted a few years ago as well, the Christian Science monitor expresses his view and opinion on a published note: Border Fence: symptom of a failed policy. He emphasizes his main point in this note being and quote “A fence is a tactic, not a policy. In fact, it's symptomatic of the failure of federal policy to get a grip on illegal immigration.” This fence may be a tactic, but hiring illegal immigrants flouts the law. Illegal immigration is moving all over the country and custom agents like I.C.E, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, tend to shut down day labor sites populated with frequent undocumented workers. Again we see how the fence in
At a cost ranging in the billions, this multi year project was not without costly troubles. A byproduct of the SBI is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The SFA increased the border control funding from a low of $4.6 billion to $10.4 billion. The goal was to employ the use of technology like radar, cameras and sensors, as well as infrastructure via fences, roads and lighting to detect and deter illegal entry. The focus was on the southwest border at areas deemed “more vulnerable” than other entry points. The fence was to be 700 miles long and equipped with the latest and greatest technology tax payers could buy. The fence was a failure. Radar and motion detectors set off alarms sending in the troops but often they are false alarms. Birds fly into the fence and set the alarms off and even high winds will set it off.(3) What’s the solution? A political debate of course! How can the government ineffectually spend more? A proposal by Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, called for two fences composed of metal and wire that would run from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. Additionally, he proposed that a two layer 15’ fence be constructed along the entire length of the U.S/Mexico border. (3) The cost was estimated to be from 4 billion to eight billion dollars for the 2,000 mile fence. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll indicated that Americans favored a proposal to build a 2,000-mile security fence by a 51-to-37 percent margin.
There exists a problem in America today that cannot fail to enter the houses of every citizen, influence the thoughts of every individual, and stir the wild imaginations of every free thinker: the problem of illegal aliens traversing the sacred borders of our beloved country. Certain individuals have recently proposed ideas regarding this that have entranced the American people, advocating building a wall separating the United States from its long-time neighbor and trade-partner Mexico. However, after much consideration and calculation I have found his idea grossly mistaken in its computation. A simple wall will be insufficient and far too conservative to solve this crisis of borders. Therefore, in response to America's growing interest in
For quite a long time U.S. immigration policy and the current illegal immigration crisis has been one reason for political debates among democrats and republicans, as policymakers address problems related to U.S. labor demand and border security.
Every four years, people from all over this country argue and debate what is best for this country, the so-called winner of these series of debates, becomes our next president. These people want what is best for this country, but often times are unwilling to try anything absurd, with the exception of Donald Trump. One of the biggest issues currently debated within the candidates, and all over the country, is the dilemma of the border between Mexico and the United States. Millions of people every year, not just Mexicans, cross this border in hopes of finding a better life, just as the pilgrims and everyone since them has done. The argument arises of what we, as the people of The United States, should do with the border. Our current administration
Although written in 2003, Andreas’ article “Redrawing the Line” provides an interesting perspective into national sovereignty and contemporary anxiety regarding American border security, specifically as applied to Mexico. Poignantly, the author states that no state will ever ensure complete control of its territorial integrity by sealing its borders (109). However, Andreas contends that this reality does not, in fact, imply that “states have ‘lost control’ over their borders” (110). Furthermore, he offers an interesting perspective into the different types of borders, which he categorizes as military, economic, and police (85). Each type of border, and its associated security, maintain their own costs and benefits. For example, although strict
Implementing stringent security controls along the borders is likely to reduce the influx of illegal immigration into the United States. With the increased border security, the American government could have helped alleviate the occurrence of the 9/11 bombing. Though this strategy is essential in alleviating the influx of illegal immigrants to certain geographic areas, increased border controls in these locations have made other, less controlled areas of the border more vulnerable. Rising crime rates, discarded debris, increased apprehension rates, and growing public scrutiny in these less secure areas provide clear evidence that border security is at once a social, an economic, and a national security issue.