A Conspicuous Absence from the Debate: Immigration
In the first U.S. presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump coined several new terms and phrases. Trump, who once boasted having the “best words,” introduced the term “big” to mean the adverbial form of the adjective “big.” Clinton, for her part, introduced the term “Trumped-up trickle-down economics,” a failed attempt to gain some laughter. Trump mentioned “stamina” a confusing number of times. When Clinton mentioned her father’s dealings as a drapery maker, it sounded a little like the HGTV show Property Brothers commentary. Interestingly, however, no words were exchanged about Donald Trump’s immigration policy.
As outlined in his website, the foundation of Trump’s immigration reform initiative rests on the notion that “a nation without borders is not a nation.” Ambitiously, the Republican candidate claims he will force Mexico to pay for the massive construction project. Yet, the logic behind this assumption is considered fairly preposterous by Trump’s critics. First, the government would use its tenuous legal authority to mandate banks to require proof of American citizenship or lawful residency before allowing customers to transfer money overseas. However, such a policy would be implausibly burdensome and would not specifically target Mexican immigrants. Data from the Pew Research Center demonstrates that over 80 percent of remittances, or money sent abroad, are not sent to Mexico.
Although Mexico receives the largest share of U.S. remittances of any single country, most remittances overall are sent to East Asia and India. Thus, the method Trump proposes to force Mexico to pay for a wall would harm millions of non-Mexican immigrants and tarnish U.S. relations with other countries. Furthermore, building a physical barrier securing the 1,954-mile border between the United States and Mexico is essentially an engineering, environmental, economic, and legal impossibility. Although the Republican presidential nominee has estimated the cost at $10 billion, construction experts call the prediction low. In fact, preliminary analysis has placed the cost at least $26 billion. Building costs would increase in remote areas where infrastructure is lacking, and continual maintenance would ensure the wall would remain costly years after it has been constructed. Moreover, the measure would require excessive use of eminent domain to acquire privately-owned land, a move that would prompt a significant public backlash. The process of obtaining property by the federal government is difficult, requiring lengthy and costly negotiations.
Even if a wall were erected, it would be impossible to ensure that the wall was truly impenetrable. Trump plans to overcome this obstacle by tripling the number of on-duty border patrol officers. However, a considerable amount of money is already allocated to the border police. In ten years, Congressional appropriation to border security increased from $1.5 billion in 2005 to $3.8 billion in 2015. This funding increase has expanded the number of ICE officers by 500 percent.
READ MORE :
- It Takes a Ruling-Class Village to Staff the White House
- How to Go About Home Renovations Successfully
- Q&A with Ian McEwan: The art of writing, the writer’s life
- Locksmith Service and Its Benefits
- The Classic Cars of the Future is the Automobile You Are Driving Today
It would have been good to hear the candidates speak on this issue at the debate if only to hear the new terms they would coin on the topic.