America can do way better than a futile wall

To wall or not to wall. The president has made much of a presumed immigration threat, and is now boxed into having his credibility tied forever to building a wall. Skeptics point to the fact that illegal immigration has been declining for more than 40 years, particularly since 2006.

However, looking to the national interest rather than political rhetoric, we probably do not want whole populations from Central and South America, Africa and the Middle East moving to the United States. Presuming that the public is capable of such a discussion, how can Americans best meet the challenge while remaining true to our heritage?

The idea of a wall appears simple, like fencing one’s backyard. But a backyard fence can be built in a weekend, and is backed up by property rights, law enforcement, and open trade between the homeowner and other economic units — neighbors, school, employer, merchants, the mail, and others. A wall on the national border ignores that most drugs come in by truck through ports of entry, by air, or by sea. Determined immigrants can also come over, under and around, as well as by sea or air. A wall would also raise the cost of international commerce, thus lowering our standard of living through interfering with the least costly economic arrangements that arise when government stays out of markets.

Think of tariffs applied at state borders. What would be Idahoans’ living standards if we could not trade across state lines? Such was the reality under the Articles of Confederation, and a central reason for the Constitutional Convention (e.g., Connecticut levied a tax on firewood exported to New York). Without our continental monetary and customs union, American would be a Third World country.

Compounding these problems are the facts that $5.7 billion would at best build a few hundred miles of wall, which could not be completed in the remaining two years of Donald Trump’s first term. The best estimates are that a complete wall would cost at least $30 billion and take 20 years, due to land acquisition (taken by eminent domain from private landowners), logistics, hiring tens of thousands of workers, issuing contracts, etc. Policy would certainly change long before then.

One is reminded of the French Maginot Line, which was intended to keep Hitler’s army out. A wall on the southern border might become known as America’s Maginot Line. A laughingstock.

So, how to accomplish the legitimate goal while maintaining trade, being true to American traditions, and minimizing costs? The answer lies in helping to improve governance in dysfunctional countries, and in lowering, not increasing, barriers to trade. Immigration from Mexico has decreased significantly since NAFTA was enacted, because Mexicans now have more economic opportunity at home. Improving governance is harder, particularly in failing states such as Honduras and Venezuela, but we have had successes along that line.

Walls are for losers. Americans are better than that.

This story was originally published January 28, 2019 at 3:11 PM.