Ryan Hadeed
In 122 AD the Roman Emperor Hadrian commissioned the construction of a wall in Northern Britannia, the empire's most distant frontier. Built by the citizen-soldiers of the Roman army, this stone bulwark was almost 120 kilometres, spanning the entire breadth of the island, and remained garrisoned until the province was abandoned in 410 AD. Was it really an effective security measure for the Roman Empire, the dominant military and economic power of its time? After all, walls are almost as old as civilisation itself, to safeguard population centres from outsiders threatening to take what isn't theirs or to settle where they aren't welcomed. Even today, for any location that needs protection, its first line of defence is usually a barrier of some sort, be it a simple chain-link fence or a towering edifice of concrete. But do they truly serve as an insurmountable obstacle? Or are they just a hindrance to be overcome by sheer determination?
Today marks 31 days that the United States government has been partially shut down. Affected are some 800,000 citizens employed by federal agencies. The sticking point is funding for “the wall”, a proposed barrier along America's border with Mexico, a distance of 3,145 kilometres. It stems from a campaign promise made by then-candidate Trump, one that garnered thunderous approval from his supporters. He sold them on the idea that it would reduce the flow of illegal immigrants from Latin America, whom he cites as being responsible for keeping wages down for low-skilled jobs and, in some extreme cases, commit violent crimes and are involved with the drug trade.
Fast forward to now, halfway through his term in office, and President Trump has suddenly made this a critical issue that needs immediate attention. But here's the hitch. In the mid-term elections of November 2018, the Democrats managed to take control of the House of Representatives, granting them the power of the purse. They are refusing to provide funding for “the wall” and the president, in turn, is refusing to sign any bill that doesn't include it. The result is the longest government shutdown in US history. This means that those furloughed employees are at home not receiving a pay cheque, or, even worse, are forced to work without being compensated.
So why the standoff? Why won't one side just capitulate and end both the public's misery and the political gridlock? After all, to the eye of the beholder, it's either a measly $5 billion or just a stupid wall. Unfortunately, what's going on is the result of the growing hyper-partisanship that impedes the country's democratic process. Democrats don't want to allocate any money to a border wall project because it would give President Trump a victory on his trademark policy. And the president not only needs this victory to appease his base but to also not appear weak before the Democrats. The irony is that if this were a fight about policy, a deal could probably be achieved. But this is a battle of egos, and both sides are being petty…plain and simple.
Without casting blame—though there's enough to go around—let's ask the obvious question. Like the one commissioned by Emperor Hadrian, is “the wall” a necessary security measure for the United States, the world's dominant military and economic power? While illegal crossings do frequently occur, their numbers have been steadily decreasing for the past decade. The real crisis is a backlog in the processing of asylum applications for families, who either have to be detained in makeshift facilities or released while waiting for their court appearance. The so-called threats the president rails against are nothing more than fearmongering and scapegoating. Concerning dangerous narcotics, experts point out that the majority of it enters the US through air and seaports. And statistics show that illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes. The wall thus becomes an overly-expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Furthermore, no barrier is foolproof; as former secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, used to say, “You show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder.” If foreigners really want to come to America, nothing is going to stand in their way.
Regarding ending the standoff, it seems that the longer it goes on, the more entrenched President Trump will be. A key component of his personality is to present himself as a “tough guy”, a “counter-puncher”, so he can't afford to be the first person to waver. This “tan-Trump” is about his sense of authority, and he must either win or see his power, and possibly his support base, becoming diminished. In the meantime, there are the 800,000 federal employees whose lives hang in the balance. Since most average Americans live pay cheque to pay cheque, this situation could have disastrous consequences for them. Therefore, it's my opinion that the Democrat-controlled House should swallow their pride and bring an end to this impasse. But there are also advantages in taking such action. They can spin the decision as “putting country first” which gives them the moral high ground and could win over both independent and some moderate Republican voters. More importantly, it prevents the president from using this tactic ie, shutting down the Government, the next time he wants to pressure the Democrats into giving him what he wants.
In examining the effectiveness of Roman border fortifications, Edward Luttwak's “The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century AD to the Third” noted that it served two important functions. It kept its legions occupied (in having to build them) and kept them stationed far from the capital. The implication is that Hadrian's Wall was less of a practical defence and more about protecting the imperial throne. This notion applies to Trump's border wall as well, because it's a self-serving political device that comes at a high cost to the American taxpayer that will have few of the promised effects. The difference, however, is that history regards Hadrian as one of Rome's “five good emperors”. And, right now, Donald Trump runs the risk of being remembered as one of America's worst presidents.