Trump’s border wall would be an ineffective way to halt illegal immigration


Trump is putting into action plans to build his infamous wall again, sparking the question of “is it worth it?”

Although illegal immigration is a serious economic and social issue, a wall is absolutely not an effective solution. According to the New York Times, the wall will cover half the length of the border at most. Trump claims that other natural boundaries will be able to border the rest.

What previous natural formation or infrastructure has stopped illegal crossings of the border?




Newsweek reported that Trump’s latest plan envisions a 50-foot wall. To put that in perspective, Demoss Hall is 45 feet tall, the Hollywood sign is 49 feet tall, and the average length of a bowling lane is just over 60 feet.

To individuals trying to get into America, fifty feet is not an insurmountable height. They are so dedicated and driven to make it to America that they are prepared to do whatever it takes get past the border. By the time they reach the wall, they have fully committed to either making it to America or die trying.

In addition to failing to solve the issue of illegal immigration, the wall will be an ineffective blockade with regards to the issue of drug smuggling. USA Today and many other large news companies reported on a drug catapult found attached to the border in February 2017, proving people have already developed ways around current barriers. If drugs were already being thrown over the wall who is to say that a higher wall will not just result in a larger catapult?

Trump intends to complete the project before the end of his presidency. Any setback would make that goal unrealistic. Unless this project was executed flawlessly, there is no way it could be completed in three years. Environmental issues, resources and other complications could all push construction back.

So, what happens if Trump leaves office with the project incomplete? If the next president disagrees with the project, will it be torn down? Left half completed? Then all we are left with is another ineffective solution.

Completely separate to the effectiveness of the wall are the financial aspects. The portion of the budget being put towards this wall could be used to fix the issues already rooted in America. Using $1.6 billion as a starting budget to throw together concrete in an attempt to keep people away while having a high probability of failure is utterly irresponsible.

That $1.6 billion could go back towards education, an area that has suffered funding cuts over the past few years. That money could go towards helping the victims of the series of hurricanes that have hit the southern coast in the past month. That money should be focused on our citizens, on our issues and on improving ourselves.

Trump needs to reconsider the effectiveness of his plans before he haphazardly throws funds into things that could very well end before they are ever completed.


One comment

  • Could not agree more, the wall is absolutely an ineffective solution to combating illegal immigration and the trafficking of illicit goods. Between bribes, drones, submarines, boats, catapults, courier pigeons, tunnels, and so on – how does anyone actually expect a wall to have a positive cost-effective impact?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *