By definition, walls are obstacles to passage. But nearly all walls have secure checkpoints or chokepoints that channel and control the flow of traffic through the wall. Trumps’ proposed wall with Mexico is choking more than the flow of traffic, as evidenced by last week’s angry response from former Mexican president, Vicente Fox, who said: “I’m not going to pay for that f***ing wall. He should pay for it.” Mr. Trump’s response to Mr. Fox was that “… the wall just got 10 feet taller.”
The ongoing war between the political establishment and presidential hopeful Trump continues to boil over. Not only have the Pope and President Obama weighed in on the billionaire’s sharp rhetoric regarding a border wall with Mexico, two former Mexican presidents condemned the idea America should protect its southern border and have Mexico pay for it.
In his victory speech on Super Tuesday, Mr. Trump doubled down on his promise; “We are going to have a wall. Mexico’s going to pay for the wall; we have the trade deficit with Mexico of 58 billion dollars a year, 58 billion dollars. The wall is going to cost 10 billion dollars – it’s so easy. I’ve had these guys I’m on the stage with me come out wondering does he really mean Mexico’s going paid for the wall. As sure as you’re standing there (he points to member of the media), 100 percent Mexico’s going to pay, 100 percent.”
However, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly advocated the breaking-down of barriers that divide people and suggests America build bridges to unite people.
Another election hot button issue is America’s illegal drug problem. Many candidates speak about addiction from personal experience, but few have addressed solutions. Trump directly ties the US drug problem to the porous Mexican border.
“The drugs pouring into New Hampshire is (sic) incredible, it’s pouring in, largely from the southern border and we’re going to put up that wall and you’re not going to have that problem and we’re going to get the people that are addicted, badly, badly addicted and we’re going to make them better.”
On the flip side, leading Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton opposes Trump’s “big beautiful border wall” idea. She told a Fusion candidate forum, “I voted for border security and some of it was a fence.” Clinton explained, “I don’t think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places, it was a wall.”
What the former Secretary of State has approved is lots of security measures. The waning years of the Bush administration produced the Mérida Initiative, a $2.5 billion behemoth deal with Mexico that appropriated money for security aid to assist in the decades’ long Mexican drug war. Hillary Clinton’s State Department fought aggressively to keep the transfer of security funds to Mexico and that initiative continues today.
A large portion of the Mérida Initiative funds goes to US-based security, information, and technology contracting firms, that act as middlemen in selling Mexico millions of dollars worth of training in communications, equipment, helicopters, night-vision goggles, surveillance aircraft, as well as satellite information.
But the big-ticket item is arms sales. According to the New York Times, the majority of the aid is weapons. The estimated sales in 2012 reached $1.2 billion. So far, under the Mérida Initiative, Mexico’s purchase of US military arms have not slowed Mexico’s violent drug war.
In fact, a Wikileaks cable directly correlates the purchase of US military equipment to the growing violence in Mexico. Despite the record corruption and human rights’ abuses, the same cable identified that Clinton’s State Department received information on extensive “official corruption“ in Mexico, even though some of the equipment and training was reaching corrupt Mexican security forces.
Furthermore, leaked cables and declassified Mexican and US records establish that Clinton repeatedly cleared the delivery of US contractor assistance and military equipment to the allegedly corrupt Mexican security forces.
According to the National Southwest Counternarcotic Strategy, “The US was to train Mexico’s security forces.” Clinton’s State Department intent was to bolster Mexico’s wiretap capabilities; Enhance intelligence capabilities associated with the Southwest Border; Interdict drugs, drug proceeds, and associated instruments of violence at the ports of entry, between the ports of entry, and in the air and maritime domains along the Southwest Border; Ensure the prosecution of all significant drug trafficking, money laundering, bulk currency, and weapons smuggling/trafficking cases; Disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations; Enhance counterdrug technologies for drug detection and interdiction along the Southwest Border, Enhance U.S./Mexico cooperation regarding joint counterdrug efforts.”
The execution and delivery of the US military arms benefited private contractors like General Electric, Honeywell, Motorola, Sharp, IBM, and Dell. All have transactional records proving the US/Mexico transactions took place.
It may be alarming to know that many of those private contractors have donated large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation. Companies like General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies Corporation, reportedly donated tons of money to the Clinton Foundation. And according to Open Secrets, Clinton tops the presidential candidates receiving campaign money from the defense contracting industry.
Of course, the real beneficiary of open borders is the illicit drug trade that has wreaked havoc inside America. The drug epidemic was the number one issue for the primary presidential race in New Hampshire. The issue has prompted Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte to cosponsor new legislation in an effort to boost her reelection chances.
The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) will likely pass the Senate without pushback from Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who confirmed late last week he wouldn’t block the legislation. “We’re not holding up this bill. We’re not going to oppose cloture.” It passed the Senate 89-0.
According to the federal government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually and treatment can help reduce these costs. Drug addiction treatment has been shown to reduce associated health and social costs by far more than the cost of the treatment itself. Treatment is also much less expensive than its alternatives, such as incarcerating addicted persons. For example, the average cost for 1 full year of methadone maintenance treatment is approximately $4,700 per patient, whereas 1 full year of imprisonment costs approximately $24,000 per person.”
Unfortunately, the taxpayer’s will be on the hook for another half a billion in the never-ending decade’s long, trillion-dollar “war on drugs.”
While precedent suggests walls can be effective against human traffic as Israel can attest, “In areas where the fence has been completed, such terrorist attacks have dramatically declined,” the Israel Defense Forces website cites. But US statistics suggest that most drugs enter the US through ports of entry not across the unmanned border. So, Mr. Trump’s wall may very well be effective against illegal immigration, but the jury is still out as far as drug trafficking is concerned.