Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
                                                           --Robert Frost in Mending Wall

Critics often do not think their positions through before opining about another’s work, be it prose, poetry, architecture, theories, walls, or promises. It shows a lack of knowledge and professionalism, two serious drawbacks to credibility. And those are good reasons to be hesitant before giving an opinion about almost anything, unless you don’t mind walking around with egg on your face.

A case in point is Donald Trump’s dual promises to build a wall along our border with Mexico and to make Mexico pay for it. On the surface those two promises would appear to be rather straight forward. I would not want to defend Donald Trump on almost any issue, but even he deserves carefulness when it comes to authentic criticism.

For starters, a security wall is not necessarily one made of bricks and mortar, or even electrified fencing. A high-tech fence that cannot be seen is probably a better choice. One with hidden cameras, or motion detectors, or multiple kinds of invisible beams, or any number of surveillance gadgets would likely be more effective than an old-style prison wall. So, let’s give the devil his due. That aside, we still don’t need a 2,000-mile-long brick wall to keep people out who are less likely to rape, pillage, or plunder than are those who live on this side of that wall. Better to concentrate our efforts more intensely on where and by whom most of those crimes are being committed. A cost/benefit analysis could show that our present plans and implementations are close to optimal given our limited resources. Critics need to dig a lot deeper and show us they have done their homework about how and why to commit money and resources wisely.  

As to making Mexico pay for the costs, that too requires more from critics than to expect to see trucks from Mexico arriving at the border with bags of Pesos in payment for a wall, under construction or not. There are many other ways to collect payments or to be reimbursed for our costs. Perhaps we could evaluate Gov. Jerry Brown’s novel idea of keeping oil barges away from our west coast ports by purchasing oil directly from Mexico and diverting oil barrages away from our shores to other ports in satisfaction of their needs. The governor has suggested that diverting oil from Alaska to Japan in return for oil from Mexico could also eliminate the need for pipe lines from Alaska to the U.S.  Perhaps in doing so we could enhance Mexico’s profits moderately, while cutting our shipping costs and safeguarding our west coast ports from spills in such an arrangement. If Trump is the grand master in the art of the deal, let him show his stuff in this arena. Preventing future oil spills anywhere on our west coast or inland while making a profit well beyond the cost of a wall would be quite a legacy for him. Critics might even stop bemoaning his cognitive skills if he could bring about such a deal. (I have serious doubts about the success of this idea under Trump's guidance, but this narrative is more for thinking than it is for doing).

But here is the grand thought that overshadows the Mexico/Wall discussion. Back in 1846, President Polk masterminded a grand theft from Mexico. That theft concerns the manner in which the United States “acquired” Texas and all the land now occupied by New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. All this land was acquired from Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 following the War with Mexico (1846-1848). That war followed our illegal annexation of Texas from Mexico.  Mexico immediately declared war.  They were overtaken by our much larger forces.  With their backs to the “wall,” Mexico finally surrendered and its army was forced to sign away all the described territories. The U.S. paid Mexico $15 million to calm Mexican tempers while seeking solace to American consciences.

A bit of arithmetic shows what $15 million (c. 1848) would be worth in today’s dollars:
Assume an inflation rate of 2.5 percent, 1848 to 2018, therefore:

Future value of ($15 X 10^6) X (1.025)^170 = $998 million

The land area acquired is equal to approximately 525,000 square miles, or 336 million acres. At $1,000 per acre, that land mass today (devoid of any development) would be worth $336 billion.

The current estimate for the cost of the security wall today is $15 billion. I would therefore conclude that we would still owe Mexico $320.85 billion after the wall is built as fair compensation for their land. We might also want to consider making a sincere apology to them for all the insults hurled at them in the intervening 170 years, while thanking them for the heroic actions by their brave warriors who fought with us in every war since 1848. Moreover, our entire heritage is interwoven with Mexico's probably more so than by any other country.  Our burgeoning Hispanic population proclaims it.  Millions of blood ties on both sides of the border support it.  Their combined actions in those 170 years have also brought honor, distinction, and a lot of pride to all those of us who have been paying attention to such things.  A plaque with those words placed every hundred miles or so along the border would be appropriate because, more likely than not, these senitments represent the majority view of Americans.  An update about the real debt owed and by whom would be optional.

And so, I will end this essay by again recalling the words from our most celebrated poet, but in the form of an honest question:

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence?