Running into a wall

By Mark Hopkins

A few weeks back I wrote a column titled, "The Southern Border Wall: Another Boondoggle?" Many wrote to support my contention that such a border wall is a waste of money, time and effort. However, a few wanted a more thorough explanation.

Here it is.

History teaches us the border wall won't work. Walls never work. That includes Hadrian's Wall in England, The Great Wall of China, and the Berlin Wall in Germany. People who want to get over or around a wall just find another way.

George W. Bush proposed building a wall back in 2005, which he anticipated would cost $5 billion. Today, that proposed cost has ballooned by some estimates to more than $30 billion. But, money isn't our problem. Our government owns a printing press. (Isn't Mexico going to pay for it anyway?) The problem is a wall just isn't practical. The experts who have tried to find a way to make such a wall work have mostly given up. Janet Napolitano, former secretary of Homeland Security, worked on the fence from 2009 until 2013. She said, "It has never worked as planned. I will freeze all funding for the border fence." Texas Governor Rick Perry opposed the wall from the beginning, saying, "It won't accomplish its purpose and will prove to be impossible to build."

Even if it would eventually work, most of us won't live to see it. Why not? Building the wall is not just a construction job. If it was, we could haul some equipment down there and put up a wall in a few months. So, what is the problem? The problem is we live in a democracy where people have property rights. The government can't just step in and take whatever they want without due process.

The Bush border wall proposal was sent to Congress in September of 2006. It passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress. Once the plan was in place and the parcels of land identified that needed to be purchased, the legal issues began to materialize. More than 345 legal processes were involved. Most were related to "emanate domain," the law that allows government to take land for the public good, for fair compensation. Of course, what is fair compensation to the government may not at all appear fair to the person who owns the land. The first lawsuit was filed 11 years ago. Today, more than a decade later, we still have 80 lawsuits pending related to the first series of land parcels. According to some conservative estimates, the land parcels for the rest of the wall may generate as many as 750 more legal issues.

If it has taken us 11 years to get to the last 80 lawsuits, can we project anything less than another 15 to 20 years for 750 additional lawsuits before construction can start on the wall? (At least it gives Mexico time to save its money.)

Folks, both history and logic tell us our problem with illegal immigration cannot be solved with a wall. We have four borders to protect, not just one. The other three are greater problems to enforce than the one between the U.S. and Mexico. Consider, also, if we did have secure borders, we still have a problem: 40 percent of those in the country illegally, came here with legal visas and just stayed.

The only way to solve our dilemma is by enforcing our work-place laws. Illegal immigrants have to eat like the rest of us. If they can't find work, they will not come. If they do come and can't find work, they will not stay.