Is The Mexico-US border fence justified?
The United States Congress approved the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which sanctioned the construction of numerous separation barricades at the Mexican-American border and the installation of a virtual fence entailing surveillance cameras, sensors, and other equipment to cover those parts of the border that do not have a physical wall. The debate is related to the American debate on immigration, and controversies about the fence centre on its effectiveness, expense, representational value, and more. How accurate however, is the claim that the Mexico-US border fence is justified?
The main argument for the preservation of the Mexico-US border fence is economic. It is claimed that illegal immigrants drain the benefits system leaving less money to be spent on other areas such as health care and reforms. It is a common misconception that Mexican immigrants do low paid unskilled work which the majority of American citizens are unwilling to undertake. However these facts are disputed by the writer Steven Camarota who states ‘Of the 465 civilian occupations, only four are majority immigrants. These four occupations account for less than 1 per cent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans comprise 47 per cent of workers in these occupations.’
Drug trafficking and the resultant violence in Northern Mexico is a real problem for the United States and for the Mexicans themselves. However by constructing a fence which has been called a ‘wall of hate’ then surely this exacerbates the situation. Barriers like this such as dividing East and West Germany and the Palestinians and Israelis, have only antagonised each side. If the Americans cannot reach agreements with Mexico on the issue of the wall then it creates many problems in relation to controlling drug cartels and protecting national security. The United States