Wall's Biggest Problem

Borderline
Feels like I'm going to lose my mind
--Madonna

Most arguments against construction of a barrier wall across the southern border are weak. The most popular one, that 'walls don't work,' is among the weakest. As discussed on these pages, humans have been building walls as effective deterrents for thousands of years. While they do not eliminate intruders, particularly those who are highly motivated, walls certainly reduce them.

However, there is one argument against the wall that is difficult to ignore. In order to build a comprehensive walls across the southern border, the government would have to expropriate property from hundreds if not thousands of private landowners. Commonly known as 'eminent domain,' the process is justified under the auspices that it is being done for the 'common good' or for purposes of 'national security.'

Now, to be sure, many of the president's political opponents, particularly those on the left, who have voiced opposition to the eminent domain approach can hardly be taken seriously. After all, these same people generally have no problem with government confiscating property in other contexts for the 'common good.' Their motivation is purely political. They are desperate to employ any means necessary, no matter how inconsistent with their beliefs and past actions, to defeat this president's agenda.

However, opposition to the eminent domain approach is not coming solely from the left. Several congressional representatives and thousands of citizens, particularly from the state of Texas where much of the eminent domain process would likely be employed, have voiced their objections as well.

And their argument is a strong one, as these pages have made clear in the past (here, here, here, here).

To be fair, though, I do sense that there may be a couple of arguments that may have some merit from the pro-wall side. One might be called the 'airline emergency door' argument. If you are a passenger on a flight and you are sitting next to an emergency exit, then you are asked whether you are willing to operate the door in the event of an emergency. If you say 'no,' then you are asked to move in favor of someone who is willing to be responsible for 'securing the border' for travel.

A similar argument might be made for land owners whose property buts up against a national border. Because the border is subject to policies such as those related to national security, property owners adjacent to that border may be viewed as being obligated to secure their properties' boundaries, or be open to the government doing so, so that national security policies can be realized. If those property owners choose not to do so, then they would have to move--similar to those unwilling airline passengers seated next to emergency doors.

The other argument might be called the 'outside the fort' policy. As settlers moved west, forts were often erected so that those living behind those walls would be safer. Some settlers, however, chose to live outside of the fort's walls. By doing so, those settlers could live on their own land as they saw fit with greater freedom. However, they were also more exposed to unwanted invasion by intruders.

For border line property owners in Texas and elsewhere who do not want a wall erected on their land, then perhaps the government should look inland until it finds land owners who will voluntarily cooperate with wall construction. That would simply leave landowners who do not want the wall erected on their property 'outside the fort' by their own choosing.

Those are two arguments that I can think of that might hold some water against those who oppose the wall on eminent domain grounds.