Many images come to mind when I hear the words “the wall.” There is the Great Wall of China. The Berlin Wall. Israel’s Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. The massive wall defended by the Night’s Watch on “Game of Thrones.” And, of course, the Pink Floyd album of the same name from my childhood days blaring, “We don’t need no thought control.”
Nowadays, in the United States, “the wall” has become a point of contention in our polarized political discourse over border security and immigration. It’s part of a national debate that increasingly seems to be an intractable all-or-nothing proposition with no winners.
In reality, though, there is good opportunity for compromise on this issue that would make us more secure as a nation while at the same time providing a more stable future for hundreds of thousands of U.S. residents who were born in other countries.
Rather than purely a physical structure, “the wall” is a euphemism for securing our borders by any means necessary — particularly our southern border separating the United States from Mexico. That we are still talking about the need to secure our borders — today, 17 years after 9/11 — demonstrates an appalling failure on the part of Congress and our federal government.
It may be fair to debate the necessity of an actual physical wall along certain parts of our southern border. The necessity of securing our borders, however, is undeniable.
In his State of the Union address, President Trump clarified that his vision of “the wall” includes structural barriers where necessary (already in use at many border locations) in addition to an investment of greater resources into increased technology and personnel. His goal is to protect Americans’ safety and make immigration policy changes that would more sensibly grow our nation’s diverse population. That means ending our historic tolerance of porous borders.
In proposing solutions to the recent shutdown impasse, Trump opened a dialogue on extending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA. He proposed, as a starting point, to legally extend DACA protections for three years.
In return for extending the DACA policy supported by many of the president’s Democratic critics in Congress, Trump asked for funding to pay for increased border security which he has referred to as “the wall” ever since 2015.
The president’s proposal represents a reasonable approach that balances improvements in border security with appropriate compassion for immigrants already living in our nation.
Several Democrats have responded positively to the president’s recent overtures. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said, “I remain a bit more hopeful. … What we are trying to do is to come to a conclusion as to how best to secure the border efficiently, effectively and, I like to say, humanely.”
As reported by Politico, Clyburn suggested Democrats might be open to approving the president’s request for $5.7 billion in new border-security funding with the assurance that “the wall” would be a “smart wall” that “requires technology, not concrete barriers.”
In keeping with the spirit recently demonstrated by both the president and certain Democratic members of Congress such as Clyburn, the gamesmanship and grandstanding must end. All sides should come to the negotiation table in good faith.
Let’s keep the federal government open beyond the current temporary extension. Let’s achieve meaningful progress on immigration policy. And let’s establish a more effective barrier on the southern border.
Democrats in Congress willing to negotiate can make this happen. “The wall” is in their court.
Curtis Hill is Indiana’s attorney general.
