Rosalie came up with an easy fix for the “Wall Disagreement” that is so simple I wonder why the rest of us didn’t think of it. But, before I let you in on her idea, let’s talk a moment about “immorality.”
I’m sure you have heard how some are contending that the building of a wall on our southern border is immoral. I’ve asked some of my deeply liberal friends to explain how a border wall is immoral; not unnecessary, not inefficient, not wasteful of resources, but immoral.
Why is a fence moral, and a wall immoral? Why are border agents moral but not a wall? Why was it moral, or at least we heard no such complaints, when Mexico was paying for the wall, but not if we carried the cost?
Indeed, is ANY border security of ANY sort immoral? Any restraint of free travel across national borders immoral? If we accept the proposition that countries must control who enters their country, when and under what circumstances (and some may not), then that required practical necessity cannot of itself be immoral. But, the methods by which that control is achieved might be.
Buried, anti–personal mines unannounced and replacing fences or walls might be considered immoral, don’t you think? Or, perhaps not? You decide.
But, moving from the argument on morality, and given that a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum believe some sort of border security is not just acceptable, but is essential, here’s Rosalie’s idea:
Mexico builds a wall on their side of our shared mutual border. A wall designed by Mexicans, built by Mexicans, maintained by Mexicans, and paid for by the financial benefits that accrue on the sly to Mexico by various deals between President Trump and Mexican officials. Deals we never hear about that benefit American and Mexican legislators to such an extent that they cannot be refused.
A Mexican wall over which the United States of America has no control, has no input, exhibits plausible deniability, and costs literally a drop in the bucket of our yearly budget. Would it be immoral if Mexico decided to build it? And even if it was immoral, what business is it of ours what Mexico does in Mexico?
Would the United States of America be responsible for an immoral wall if ANY of the funds of any type for any reason showing up in Mexico were used to build it? And how would anyone differentiate between funds finding their way into the general treasury of Mexico that might be used for any Mexican project, bridge, airport, hospital, civil servant salaries, or wall?
Sounds like a good idea to me, unless a wall is immoral.