Should President Biden Revisit Trump’s Border Wall Decisions?
The construction of a border wall has long been a contentious issue in the United States, with questions surrounding its effectiveness and the rationale behind its funding. As President Biden faces criticism for potentially reversing some of former President Trump’s decisions on border wall construction, it's crucial to examine the arguments supporting and opposing this policy.
Effectiveness of the Border Wall Construction
Much of the debate centers around the effectiveness of the border wall in curbing illegal immigration. Proponents of border walls argue that they have indeed slowed down the process of illegal border crossings, even if they did not entirely stop it. This reduction in the rate of crossings has allowed border security to manage the influx more effectively.
On the other hand, proponents of continuing with border wall construction argue that the $2 billion in additional costs that will accrue due to Biden’s delay could have been avoided. This raises the question: if the current wall is not providing the intended results, why not invest in its expansion?
The Funding and Responsibility of the President
The funds allocated for the border wall were appropriated in 2019, and the responsibility of the current administration is to ensure the allocation of these funds is done appropriately. Critics argue that President Biden, as the head of the executive branch, has a duty to use these funds as intended and should not have the choice to delay their spending unilaterally. This undermines his ability to effectively govern and make policy decisions.
Historically, the President's role is not to make policy but to execute it. By having the option to delay or bypass certain decisions, President Biden may be seen as overstepping his authority and potentially compromising the integrity of government operations.
Current Migration Crisis and Border Security Needs
The current migration crisis has escalated significantly, with over 2.5 million undocumented immigrants entering the United States this fiscal year alone. This dramatic influx, along with an additional estimated 1.5 million who have entered without proper authorization, necessitates a more robust approach to border security.
The decision to have 20 miles of wall built in the Rio Grande Valley in Southeast Texas was made in response to the urgent need to construct physical barriers to prevent further illegal immigration. Despite initial statements from President Biden questioning the value of the wall, he now acknowledges the immediate need for such measures.
Critics claim that the decision to build this additional 20 miles was made more as a political maneuver than a genuine response to the crisis. As President, Biden could have delayed this decision using administrative measures, such as tying it up in red tape or delaying lengthy review processes, thus avoiding the need for immediate construction.
Legality and Executive Authority
One of the key points of contention is whether President Biden is abiding by the law. Some argue that he is going against Supreme Court rulings by suing cities and states, yet now claims to believe in the order of law. This hypocrisy has led to accusations of inconstancy and double standards.
Proponents argue that the Chief of Staff could have delayed construction by avoiding lengthy review processes or environmental lawsuits that typically accompany major projects. Instead, the decision to proceed with construction was made without considering these potential roadblocks, raising questions about the true intentions behind the decision.
Conclusion
The debate over border wall construction under President Biden reflects a deeper issue of executive authority and the balance of power within the government. Whether one supports or opposes the border wall, the current situation raises serious questions about the appropriate use of allocated funds and the role of the President in executing government policies.
The construction of 20 miles of wall in the Rio Grande Valley is a critical step in addressing the current migration crisis, but the overall debate around border wall decisions highlights the need for more comprehensive and sustained strategies to manage border security and immigration policies.