For most people, the U.S.-Mexico border is an old and tired subject. For too long we have heard the endless bickering and so-called strategizing over the proper size dimensions and electrical wiring needed to keep those who do not legally belong in the U.S. out. The main impediment for these border enthusiasts that keeps them from building a sky-high structure is the cost. A project that is worthwhile embarking on, one that could re-capture part of the cost and actually serve a quantifiable purpose—if it were even possible to actually reach this aim in practice—would require several millions of dollars, all of which would be at the expense of taxpayers, of course. But since the effectiveness of constructing a border is doubtful at best, taxpayers—even in the states that are most conservative—prefer to invest those hefty funds in projects that are certain to yield benefits.
Be that as it may, members of the Arizona Legislature’s border security advisory committee want the state to begin construction on a mile of fencing along the border it shares with Mexico in spite of having raised only 10% of the money that is needed to complete the project. At a total cost of $2.8 million, the construction of the 200 miles of border fencing could begin as soon as the end of the year if private fencing companies take up the task with the contributions made by some donated supplies and prison inmate labor. The project is the brainchild of a committee created in 2010 that was tasked with making recommendations to the governor about how to handle the border.
Yet the members—who include Republican state lawmakers, county sheriffs and state department heads—have not met with the deadlines nor tasks they had been entitled with, having only submitted a single report to the governor detailing the prior nine months of meetings, which needless to say indicates their job to investigate the matter has not been done properly, and therefore they have reached their decision with poor judgment. If they are going to assume the cost and responsibility that such a project entails, they need to make absolutely certain they have adequately assessed all aspects, most importantly the implications such project would have on the particular bordering states, their economy, societal effects and all those repercussions that would occur on a national level. If proper analysis were to be conducted, the conclusion reached would put an end to this project and would dissuade lawmakers from ever bringing this issue back into the negotiating table.
