Throughout the history of humanity, anthropogenic barriers have been built to mark the divide between nations, and to separate and protect those on one side from the other. From Hadrian’s Wall of the Roman Empire, to the Great Wall of China, humans together as a society seem to have always had an inherent urge to protect and secure their homeland, and the most basic line of defense against intruders is the wall. A more recent example of a nation’s government building a barrier to separate two groups of people is the Berlin Wall, which was built in 1961 to separate the people of East and West Germany and prevent supplies from crossing the border. When the wall was torn down in 1989, it seemed as though the world had finally had enough of building barriers and was ready to finally come together. However, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 sent a shockwave across the world, stimulating a global resurgence of the border wall. In fact, it was recently estimated that the total length of all border fences in Eurasia (excluding the Middle East) is over 18,000 miles. (Ogden 2017) Today, in the United States, we are in the middle of an incredibly contentious debate revolving around how we as a nation should implement immigration reform. It is nearly impossible to avoid right now, and as the mainstream media becomes ever more politicized, their reporting becomes increasingly polarizing. Outlets on both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of having actively stoked the flames of public unrest surrounding immigration.
In a 2011 study from the University of Texas, two researchers “analyzed some of the ‘numbers’ behind the migration phenomenon and immigration policy design in the United States.” The ultimate goal of their study was to assess the use of quantitative data and analysis, migration statistics, and the mass media to support the passage (or justify the failure) of recent initiatives that have an affect on undocumented immigration within the United States, with an emphasis on immigrants originating in Mexico. The researchers; Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera and Miriam Rojas-Arenaza; concluded, after thorough analysis, The study concluded that a number of factors including, “(1)the misuse of quantitative data, (2) the production of media spectacles that present illegal immigrants as quite harmful for the U.S economy and society, and (3) the politicization of the immigration process in general, have had a major impact on past failed attempts at immigration reform.” (Correa-Cabrera and Rojas-Arenaza) The study also found evidence that these same factors also influenced the successful passage of a number of anti-immigration legislation across several states. Today, these factors listed seem obvious. Today, immigration policy and politics seem to be almost symbiotic. Even our president does not hold back when discussing immigration policy, using vulgar, often racial terms to describe those immigrating into this country. As he said during his announcement for candidacy back in 2015, “They’re [Mexico] sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists…” (Trump 2015) While these comments are cruel, vulgar, racist, and not backed by any truth, for millions of Americans, they validate the fears and hatred of the working class.
Proponents of the border wall make claims that illegal immigrants are coming into our country and taking the jobs from American people, causing Americans physical harm, and taking advantage of our nations benefits without paying their fair share in taxes. These arguments are often rooted in generalizations and misguiding headlines. For example, many people believe that the undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. are taking advantage of American taxpayer programs like Social Security. However, this has been proven not to be the case. In the “fine print” of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, the trustees had noted that the growing numbers of ‘illegal’ workers in the American workforce was actually expected to holster the program over the coming decades. The reason for this is that in reality, a majority of undocumented immigrants end up paying Social Security taxes on all earned income, without ever being able to collect any of the benefits later on. According to an article from the New York Times, this essentially creates a “double boon to Social Securities bottom line” (New York Times, April 2, 2008)
After the attacks on 9/11, our nation went through a period of paranoia, and it became incredibly easy for lawmakers to pass anti-immigration legislation in the name of homeland security. George W. Bush had made a previous attempt to build a U.S. – Mexico border wall with his Secure Fence Act of 2006. The act directs the secretary of Homeland Security to take, “appropriate actions to achieve operational control over United States land and maritime borders.” These actions included drones, sensors, and called for “physical infrastructure enhancements” in order to prevent unlawful entry. (H.R. 6061 – Secure Fence Act of 2006) During this 2007 phase of construction, over 650 miles of barrier had gone up across the border, including 70 miles which ran through the Rio Grande Valley. This 70 miles of barrier cut through sections of several different state Wildlife Management Areas, the Nature Conservancy’s Southmost Preserve, and portions of the Laguna Atacosta National Wildlife Refuge. (Gaskill 2017) The effects of this disruption to the naturally diverse ecosystems there is just being seen today, as researchers look more closely into a border walls possible effects on the ecosystem.
There are so many reasons someone could choose to be against the building of a massive barrier between the U.S and Mexico. Even aside from the sheer cost of erecting Donald’s 700 miles of proposed border wall, which, according to the Department of Homeland Security will cost taxpayers about 21.6 billion dollars.(McGlashen 2017) One of the most important, yet rarely discussed reasons for opposing the wall is for the sake of the environment. The most devastating effects of such a wall would be in fact be on the wildlife inhabiting the surrounding areas. Environmentalists argue that the barrier could cut populations of species off from each other or eliminate their access to food or water, which could devastate the massively diverse wildlife populating the area. Jesse Lasky, a biologist at Penn State, estimated that there are 134 mammal, 178 reptile, and 57 species living within thirty miles of the proposed border line. Of those, he estimates that around 50 of those species are already either endangered or threatened, and such a disturbance could put them over the edge. (Barclay 2018)
Such a species that could be especially harmed by the erection of a border wall is the Glaucidium brasilianum commonly referred to as the ferruginous pygmy owl. The ferruginous pygmy owl is currently considered to be threatened in limited range in the United States. It’s habitat includes mesquite thickets, desert riverine woods, and saguaro; which is a large, tree-like cactus species that can grow over 40 feet tall. (Kaufman 2001) The largest current population of pygmy owls reside in southern Texas, just along the proposed border route. Telemetry work performed by the University of Arizona’s Aaron Flesch suggests that habitat use by the ferruginous pygmy owl is “profoundly curtailed by fragmentation and barriers.” (Ogden 2017)
Habitat fragmentation is a form of habitat loss, which is the absolute greatest cause in the decline of biodiversity today. Each organism within any given area has adapted over the course of thousands of years to suit the habitat in which it lives, so it’s likely that any major change in the habitat is will render the habitat less suitable for the organism. (Withgott and Laposata 2015) The effects of habitat fragmentation has been actively studied by researchers over the past decade, while research into the effects of a border wall unfortunately have not. Though habitat fragmentation is generally caused by road building, farming, and logging, it is likely that the effects of a tall, solid barrier could be very similar to the effects of fragmentation. This is especially true for species that may habitually cross the border for resources like food and water, who may lose access to them after the barrier is built. It could also be devastating for species that live is small, already fragmented populations, like the before mentioned ferruginous pygmy owl.
While one might think that a bird of flight could easily fly over the wall, the pygmy owl has an average flight height of just about four-and-a-half feet. Flesch, along with a team of collaborators, conducted an investigation into the potential effects of the barrier on the pygmy owl. They determined that the species prime habitat only occurred in spotty patches across a widely spread area, resulting in a spotty distribution of owl populations. According to this information, they determined the owls; generally in groups of four; could at any time be separated from their nearest neighbor by over 12 miles.(Ogden 2017) Flesch and his team came to the conclusion that if the border wall is put into place, some patches of pygmy owl habitat will have “insufficient recolonization in the even of drought or disease, and local populations could slowly die off. (Ogden 2017) This is just one example of a species that could be harmed; Jeffrey Cohn writes that other threatened species would be at risk as well, including javelinas, ocelots, and Sonoran pronghorn. (Cohn 2007)
Though Trump’s administration could use eminent domain to purchase privately owned land for the wall, Bush proved that this method is costly and ineffective. They instead appear to have taken a stealthier approach, and they have eliminated over 30 regulations protecting wildlife, notably for a number of aviary species. This will allow them to build their wall through areas such as the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, located in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley. The refuge boasts over 450 different species of plants, lush vegetation, and several small wetlands, all of which come together to provide an oasis for over 400 species of resident and migrating birds, making it out to be one of the most renown birding destinations in the world. (Gaskill 2017)
The work is moving so fast and hidden from the public, some of the locals have been surprised to learn development has already begun. An anonymous tip was given to a reporter at the Texas Observer, claiming that there was a private contractor that had been, according the source, “working on the refuge for at least six months [prior], and had apparently been flying under the radar intentionally.” (Gaskill 2017) This news caught even the locals by surprise, some of whom were asked to leave when they started asking the workers questions. “Documents published by the Texas Observer show that the goal is to finish the $45-million segment by July 2019,” (McGlashen 2017) making it clear that the priority of the project is expediency rather than legality or environmental impact.
Immigration policy in the United States is a massive issue, one that has endless facets and different sides and angles. It’s near impossible to wrap one’s head around the issue entirely. The border wall is only one part of it, and even that can be mind-boggling to think about. It’s important to look at the issue from the bottom up, and look at each aspect of it individually. After researching the topic, I am staunchly against the building of a national border wall. Aside from the obvious humanitarian issues, I think it’s incredibly important that we persevere the dense biodiversity we have in both of our great countries, and I believe that building a barrier between them can’t do anything but hurt it. I think that we need to do some more research about the wall’s potential effects before we start building anything through our nations most beautiful wildlife refuges.