Should Donald Trump Build The Wall?

Should Donald Trump Build The Wall?
By: Anthony Park

The obvious answer to this question is simple: of course not. The creation the barrier, as Trump calls it, is meant to keep illegal immigrants from Mexico out of the US. This obviously wrong because one can't just simply remove an entire country from entering the US. Many people agree with this statement. According to the Pew Research Center, 60% of Americans opposed Trump's proposal of expanding the barrier, which is already 654 miles along the southern border. Not even the Democrats want the creation of the wall. Trump wants to make the barrier out of steel, as opposed to concrete, which will increase the cost; furthermore, even Donald Trump has no idea about the total cost to create the vast barrier. All of these downsides to the creation of the wall, and yet Trump still wants to create it. The economic and political evidence clearly does not stop Trump, but will the environmental consequences of the wall convince Trump to stop the barrier?

Map showing current barriers on the US-Mexico border
As seen in the picture above, the barrier is designed to go from the Gulf of Mexico in Texas to the Pacific Ocean in California. The area in between contains six separate eco-regions, ranging from desert scrubs to forest woodlands to wetland marshes, and both contain large amounts of saltwater and freshwater. Constructing the barrier will bisect the habitats of 1506 native animals and plants, including 62 species that are listed as critically endangered. This barrier will also increase soil erosion, alternate water flow and patterns of wildfires, causing and increase in the risk to both people and animals by trapping their escape.  
Image result for how do walls increase floods
The barrier would also increase flooding in certain areas. For example, in 2008, a 5 mile long segment of a 15 feet high wire mesh, intended to restrict illegal activity, trapped debris flowing through the national was during a 90 minute thunderstorm, causing water to flood from two to seven feet high. This flood alone caused $8 million worth of damage and drowned two people. This flood happened in Arizona, a location of where the barrier was already built. It is safe to say that if this barrier extends to areas such as the Rio Grande Valley, the same flooding issues would also occur. In fact, this has already happened, to an extent. In 2006, cities in Texas and Mexico experienced heavy precipitation, causing $600 million in damage in Mexico and $200 million in Texas. These damages occured because of debris being trapped in the Mexico side. The reasons the barrier creates floods is because the debris gets trapped inside the barrier, which creates a dam and pushes water into other areas, causing other areas to flood. 
Image result for how does the wall affect animals
As mentioned before, the creation of the barrier will disrupt the wildlife living in the area. The barrier will increase the risk to species survival by isolating animal populations and limiting the species ability to roam for food, water, and reproduction. The barrier will also trap wildlife from escaping fires, floods, or heat waves. The barrier will also disrupt season migration, affecting access to water and birthing sites for the Peninsular bighorn sheep that roam between California and Mexico. The barrier has fragmented populations of the Sonoran pronghorn and diminished chances of re-establishing colonies of the Mexican gray wolf, jaguars, and ocelots in their range in the United States. These limits on animals will also have an effect on the plants. For example, the seeds of mesquite trees germinate best after they have passed through the digestive systmes of javelinas and coyotes, but if these animals can not reach the plants, the plants will die off and will not reproduce. 

As you can clearly see, not only will the barrier created by Trump create a lot of political and economic issues, but it will also create huge environmental issues. So here is some things to think about...

1. Do you believe that these economic issues will be enough to convince people to stop the creation of the barrier? Why or why not?
2. Are there any other ways you can think of that will affect the environment that were not discussed?


Sources
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/15/trump-mexico-border-wall-status-migrants
3. https://qz.com/1353798/the-us-mexico-border-walls-dangerous-costly-side-effect-enormous-floods/
4. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/how-trump-us-mexico-border-wall-could-impact-environment-wildlife-water/

Comments

Anonymous said…
Prior to reading this article, I was only aware of the political and economic disadvantages fro building the wall. I had no idea that such environmental impacts existed and pose threats to various ecosystem. What environmental impacts would change depending on the material the wall is made out of? Steel would spike up costs for sure, but what if the wall was made from different material based not he ecosystem and habitat? IF it were made of different materials, would that shift some views of the environmatal impacts?
March 20, 2019 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said…
I think a lot of people over look the environmental effects when thinking about building the wall. People just think about the political and economic factors of it. Building the wall would be very expensive and would have many negative effects on the environment. If more people learned about all the environmental consequences of the wall I think more people would be against it.
March 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said…
Along with the potential detrimental effects that a wall pose to wildlife, flooding conditions, and the disruption of ecosystems, the wall would also divide the Rio Grande River, which serves as the border between the US and Mexico. The problem is that the wall would either isolate access to the fiver to one of the nations while the other would lose access to a precious source of water or to build portions of the wall on top of flood control levees as planned by Homeland Security. Furthermore, the proposals made in regards to the planned location of the construction of the wall plan for the wall to pass through and divide seven wildlife conservation areas, including Big Bend National Park, a wildlife refuge, and a state park while allowing most of the bisected land to lie on the side owned by Mexico. Lastly, the border wall also would be exempt from the vital environmental oversight laws as the construction of the border wall does not have to abide by the regulations and requirements of more than 30 federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and more as a result of the Real ID Act passed in response to 9/11 and allows Homeland Security to waive any law for the sake of national security. With the numerous risks that the constructional the border wall could potentially have on the environment, those who support the construction of the wall must weigh whether the damages inflicted upon the environment would be worth it. (Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/how-trump-us-mexico-border-wall-could-impact-environment-wildlife-water/).
March 21, 2019 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said…
I think that the border wall that is currently proposed would create more problems than it would solve. The environmental impact to the environment would be significantly harmful, dividing the Rio Grande. Moreover, it would destroy the habitat of many of the animals that currently live there, displacing the animals and leading to a loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, other than the clear environmental impacts, the wall create great finance issues. Who is going to pay for the wall? If the United States government funds it then they will have to waste precious tax payer dollars, upsetting many citizens. There is no guarantee that the wall will even succeed in its mission, so what even is the point?
March 21, 2019 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous said…
I don’t think that Donald Trump would ever concern himself with the environment. For example, he appointed Scott Pruit, an anti climate change dum dum, to be head of the EPA, he ceded over national land in Alaska to oil comanies, hurt the EPA, has allowed the Key Stone pipe line to leak oil, and has refused to help the people in Flint Michigain with their ongoing water crisis. To say that DJT would ever place the environment over his biggest campaign lie is simply foolish.
March 22, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said…
It’s funny how most politicians only focus on the financial cost of the wall, rather than the environmental costs. The fact that the wall intends to block an entire country off is negative enough, but realizing that the wall would hurt biological communities and cause damage to people and animals is even worse. I never knew that a wall could even influence flooding patterns and induce more damage on towns on the border, nor did I know the consequences of bisecting ecological communities. All in all, this post simply reinforces the idea that the wall itself is a bad idea, and that dealing with illegal immigration probably will require a different approach.
March 23, 2019 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous said…
Trump's wall will cause many environmental problems that I think in and of itself should be enough to deter anyone from supporting him or his wall. Construction of a border wall will bisect the geographic range of thousands of native animals and plants, including many species that are listed as critically endangered. Additionally, a wall increases soil erosion. It will alter natural water flows and the patterns of wildfire, exacerbating the risks of both to people and animals by trapping their escape. Lastly, the meandering Rio Grande, the official border between the United States and Mexico, was long believed to be a geologic obstacle to construction of a border fence. The river channel shifts course from time to time and floods in the spring. To build a wall north of the river would, in effect, cede control of those lands to Mexico and isolate property and homes owned by U.S. citizens on the Mexican side of the wall. In conclusion, all these issues are more than enough to prevent the creation of Trump's wall.
March 24, 2019 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said…
This was really enlightening to read about the environmental consequences building a wall may have. I think that people should be more aware about these impacts, apart from the political and economic stances. Constructing the wall would disrupt many habitats, destroy ecosystems, and alter natural resources. This issue would bring upon very critical circumstances and I think it is very important think about such things before going ahead with the construction.
March 24, 2019 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said…
Although the economic issues involved with the wall are overwhelming, I doubt that it would be enough to convince Trump's proponents. Many have challenged the effectiveness of the wall including journalists and politicians by calling it ineffective, wasteful, and destructive. However, supporters of the wall have remained their ground despite the criticism of other groups. In addition to harming species, the wall would also damage the beautiful scenery along the border and would destroy prominent ecosystems.
March 25, 2019 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous said…
Whenever i hear about Trump's wall, I cant help but roll my eyes and try to tune it out . Reading this blog however brought so many new aspects of this concept to my attention . The construction of this wall would not only create a major eye sore and isolate the US more than it already is from its surrounding countries, it would disrupt any ecosystem it touches, destroy land quality, and separate many species from their own . I knew building the wall was a bad idea, but all of these additional cons just solidifies my beliefs of just how bad it would be .
March 25, 2019 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said…
I like how you discussed a very controversial topic in terms of its environmental impact. I think what people fail to realize that building a wall doesn't just cost money, it costs time, energy, resources, and life. That being said, I don't think that people who support Trump's wall believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I think that we must shift the mindset of society towards helping others as opposed to seeing things only in our light.
March 25, 2019 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Usually, the terms of the wall are discussed in political and economic reports; however, the environmental impact is often neglected. Your article sheds light on this important side of the wall; now, it’s not just a matter of keeping out illegal immigrants. Rather, building the wall will massively harm the environment through the large amount of resources required.. importantly, the wall would harm ecosystems, drain water supplies, and also be a major drain on energy supplies, furthering my position that the wall should not be built due to its negative environmental impact.
March 25, 2019 at 7:54 PM
Anonymous said…
I think it’s really important to discuss the environmental impacts of building such a wall because this side of the story is usually the one that is left out of discussion. Many people on either side of the spectrum disagree on the nature of the wall, and this is mostly due to moral values and political views. They cannot agree on what is “the right thing to do” in this situation. Contrastingly, the negative environmental effects are clear, substantial, and indisputable. The aftermath of building this wall has factual evidence that the environment will suffer in more ways than one. So, it would be smart not to ignore this and instead devise a better solution for immigrants than this pesky wall. Ultimately. Not erecting the wall seems to be the best solution for all outcomes, for Americans, the immigrants, and equally as important: the environment.
March 25, 2019 at 8:42 PM
Anonymous said…
This post was interesting as it shed light on an issue with a popular subject that most people never discuss. One reason for this is the right often neglects issues surrounding climate change and the environment in order to prioritize economics. Obviously, there is economic flaws in building this wall, some in which connect to the environment when dealing with things like flood damage. I think its important to focus on the environmental costs of building the wall instead of the economic costs. From this blog, it seems that the building of the wall would be detrimental to the environment on the border.
March 26, 2019 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous said…
The wall is controversial for many reasons, but it is interesting to learn about the potential environmental impacts the wall can cause. We discarded the issues surrounding the environment in the wall issue. It is important to acknowledge these issues and, if the wall is to be built, implement safety guards against environmental damage, such as flood damage. These costs are as important as the potential economic cost, and more politicians should touch up on this problem.
March 26, 2019 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous said…
Never saw the environmental impacts of the wall. Kind of silly to think that Trump would care about it after what he did with the Paris Agreement. I am curious to see how they address these issues if the wall is even completed becuase I know there will eventually be some unknown consequence for cutting a continent in half with metal rods.
March 26, 2019 at 3:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Of course the wall comes with environmental downsides. The same people who want to build the wall are also the same people who don’t believe that climate change exists so they seem to have no intrest in protecting the environment.
March 26, 2019 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said…
I think addressing the environmental consequences on a widely debated topic was a good idea. However, I’m not sure that the people that support the creation of the wall care much about the environment. The environmental reasons alone should be enough to stop the building of the wall. Simply put, the wall is detrimental and should not happen. There’s no reason to ruin multiple ecosystems that are vital to many species survival.!
March 26, 2019 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous said…
Even putting these environmental consequences aside, the US would have to use eminent domain to secure land for the construction of the wall which is not plausible. There would be thousands of court cases against the US taking the land of Americans who live close to the border. This with the consideration of the environmental consequences that could topple ecosystems and split ecosystems into two shows why the building of a wall on the border is an option that is far from plausible.
-Adam Ghanem
March 26, 2019 at 8:22 PM
Anonymous said…
I think this blog is especially interesting because it sheds a light on a hot topic of this time. I find it that the people in support of the wall aren't aware of it's many detrimental effects. Therefore, it is vital for those to be educated on how this proposition would go on to later destroy our ecosystems and entail other environmental costs.
March 26, 2019 at 10:09 PM
Yashu said…
The fact that Trump wants to build a wall has been a huge topic of discussion in recent months. However, I don't think anyone has really paid much attention to environmental downsides. People who support the building of the wall aren't exactly aware of the environmental effects of it. Building a wall on the border would damage ecosystems badly and people completely ignore that for their social and economic benefits instead.
March 27, 2019 at 5:51 AM
Anonymous said…
Trump’s wall has often been debated over due to its political and economic implications. Unfortunately, many people overlook or fail to see the possible environmental impact of building such a wall. The building of a wall on the US-Mexico border would destroy ecosystems located at the wall, and the division of a river by the wall would cause pollution. The environment must be considered first before any political or economic implications.
March 27, 2019 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said…
There really is a environmental disadvantage that comes with the wall. Unfortunately it is something that people are often willing to overlook instead of adress. I would just like to say though that even if a wall was built, all migration would not end that is just not how it works. However I find the rest of your post very insightful.
March 27, 2019 at 12:50 PM
Anonymous said…
When it comes to Trump’s wall, most people have no knowledge of the impact it would have on our country much less then environment. People can be too politically biased to see the bigger picture and pay attention to the many consequences a wall could have. If more people knew about the economic and environmental impacts of the wall, maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to support the concept.
March 27, 2019 at 8:31 PM
Anonymous said…
I think when people think of Trump’s wall, people only think of the social, political, and economic consequences of the wall, but not the environmental ones. Before this post, I was not even aware of the environmental effects it would have. Aside from all the other aspects of the wall, I believe that this wall would absolutely devastate the ecosystem where it currently is. We as a nation should find an alternative to building this wall that doesn’t harm the environment as much.
March 28, 2019 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said…
I think that many people do not ever consider the environmental affects of the wall. It will destroy and cut off man migration routes of many different species. This might cause extinction of certain species as many predatory animals in the region rely on the migration routes of their prey. If there is no prey they either have to turn to an alternate source of food or they will eventually die off. I believe the government needs to find a different method of putting their plan in place if they want to.
March 28, 2019 at 2:43 PM
Anonymous said…
There are definite disadvateges to building a wall along the border. Most people do not consider its various environmental consequences and instead overlook them as they focus more on its political purposes. I think this wall will have many impacts on our environment as it will devastate our ecosystems by displacing animals and therefore lessening biodiversity. I believe the government needs to find a way to eliminate as many environmental damages as possible if they want to go forward with this.
April 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM
J No said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 1, 2019 at 6:20 PM
J No said…
I think people far too often seem to forget about the lives and habitats that could be affected by the building of the wall and only seem to focus on the social and political impacts of it. If the plan for the wall is truly carried out, countless amount of wildlife species and animals could be affected and it could detrimental affects on the environment as a whole. There must be a alternative decision or plan put into place and the public must be informed of the consequences that could come from these actions
April 1, 2019 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said…
I feel like environmental impacts are not typically considered when the topic of the wall is brought up. The building of the wall has inevitable impacts on several aspects. Construction of a border wall will bisect the geographic range of native animals and plants, including 62 species that are listed as critically endangered. A border wall puts habitats at risk as well, and the wall can increases soil erosion. It will alter natural water flows and the patterns of wildfire, exacerbating the risks of both to people and animals by trapping their escape.
April 3, 2019 at 12:26 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Disappearance of Honey Bees Yashu Pindi

Image
 The Disappearance of Honey Bees Besides making honey and stinging people, honey bees also provide a vital service to agriculture- pollination. Approximately 80& of crops in the US would suffer without the help of honey bees. Honey bees provide us with a colorful, varied, and nutritious diet. Along with pollinating crops for food, they also pollinate wildflower species that make our countryside beautiful. One of the most amazing foods, in my opinion, is honey. Honey is a very healthy alternative to sugar. I personally use honey rather than sugar in daily things like coffee and in baking. However, in the United States, beekeepers have seen the lifespan of bees decrease by more than half over the past decade. Scientists have linked this decrease to parasites, pesticides, and habitat loss. Recent evidence suggests that human activity such as land development, electromagnetic pollution, and the use of neonicotinoid pesticides is making it har for honey bees to reproduc...
Read more

Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere

Image
Vyom Gupta Removing CO2 From the Atmosphere The entrapment of greenhouse gases plays a big part in global warming and Carbon Dioxide as at the forefront of this problem. As the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the more we expedite the global warming process. In order to delay  the effects of carbon dioxide, we need to find temporary solutions to decrease the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere. In the meantime, the first solution is (used by Climeowrks and Global Thermostat) using direct air capture devices and having them pull out CO2 from the air by sucking in lots of air and then through a series of chemical reactions remove the CO2 and re-releasing the air. Because CO2 is only found in one of 2,500 molecules, large volumes are going to be needed to efficiently remove the carbon. The main idea an is industrial cooling tower containing a liquid hydroxide solution which will capture CO₂ and convert it into carbonate. The carb...
Read more

Are GMO Crops Good or Bad for the Environment?

Image
Saaketh Koka Genetically Modified Organisms, commonly known as GMOs, have long been a topic of debate in the scientific community. Humans have been modifying crops for centuries. Native Americans selectively bread maize crops in order to get desirable characteristics out of them. Nowadays, scientists target specific sequences in an organism's DNA and change it to their needs. Many scientists debate whether GMOs help or harm the environment. GM crops harm the environment by decreasing the genetic variation which, in turn, decreases the biodiversity. Although GM crops harm biodiversity, non-GM crops require excessive use of pesticides which harm the environment a lot more. GMOs can be seen as a traditional crop replacement because they harm the environment a lot less than traditionally grown crops. Traditional crops require lots of pesticides to properly grow. These pesticides can runoff into streams and rivers and eventually make their way to l...
Read more