Walls such as the Great Wall of China have been constructed since the ancient times of Socrates and Plato to the construction of the Berlin wall in the 19th century. The walls run over thousands of kilometers and server particular purpose.  Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a surge in illegal immigrants from Mexico. Some immigrants enter the US soil as drug traffickers while others gain illegal access as they seek a home away from home. Efforts to curtain illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border have not been fruitful.  “The wall,” as proposed by President Donald Trump is no difference. According to trump, construction of the wall will prevent direct access between of US by Mexicans. The proposal by the president has however not been positively received by all Americans. While some view the endeavor as impractical and a waste of taxpayers’ money, others consider it a a sure way of cutting out illegal Mexican Immigrants to the United States and This paper is therefore aimed at discussing policy documents in support and in objection of the wall policy, as well as providing an explanation based on the needs of the affected people.

Lawyers and human rights activists have been in the forefront in opposing the policy of building the wall. The Fifth Amendment has been instrumental in supporting the claims by the lawmakers on the breach of constitution in case the policy is adopted. The takings clause states that the government has to pay a fair price for land taken (Livni 6). Livni argues that it would be impractical to pay for land running over 2000 miles Livni goes further and states that 95 percent of the Rio Grande- Texas stretch is privately owned (6). According to an article written by Roche, David, et al. in the Environmental Law Reporter 2017, much of the wall is bound to pass along privately held land, or lands owned by Native tribes (63). Additionally, the wall poses environmental restrictions to animals. According to an article written by Cohn, Jeffrey P. building of the wall would restrict Mexican wildlife such as javelinas and ocelots (96). Cohn, and Jeffrey goes further and says the wall will also prevent jaguars from accessing and repopulating the southern areas of US such as Arizona, as is the case at present (96).

According to an article dated 8th October 2017 by the congressional digest, a speech by the secretary of state, John F. Kelly proves that the US- Mexico border wall is good. The secretary of state, while addressing a committee of the Department of Homeland Security outlines that the wall will help Homeland security in ensuring security in the southern region (9). The secretary of state says that the executive order by the president will help in creating a foundation for tighter security at the southern border. This is particularly because by initiating the project, tools and resources needed in provision of security will be provided by the state. Additionally, the secretary of state outlined to the Homeland Security Department that by supporting the bill on US-Mexico border wall will help in eliminating obstacles that have been key in impeding the Security officers from carrying out their roles of protecting the border(9). 

In consideration of the need of the people, the government has the mandate of providing security to its people. For instance, it is the role of the government to ensure that immigration rules are followed, and the methods in applying such rules solely depend on the government. However, public opinion and laws determine the extent of the application of directives by the government. According to Vice, Margaret, and Chwe of the Pew Research Center, Mexicans received the wall information negatively (14). The effect of the US-Mexican wall as proposed by President Donald trump has therefore led to a deteriorating US- Mexico relationship

Conclusively, the US-Mexico border wall is likely to cause harm than good. The fact that the wall is a breach to the constitution, prevents free movement of wildlife between the two countries, and portrays a state of isolation between US and Mexico is an indication that the president should consider other better ways of solving illegal immigration of Mexicans to America. Proposals to increase immigration as advocated by human rights activists should be adopted by the president because they promote unity, harmony and humanistic treatment of people. In my view, I would recommend for abolition of the Wall policy as presented by President Donald trump.