Fulfilling his long-promised war on illegal immigration, this Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed executive orders to allow the construction of a wall between the United States and Mexico, according to a Jan. 25 New York Times article. Along with the proposed wall, Trump plans on deporting undocumented immigrants, as well as suspending immigration or asylum from nations that “export terrorism.” What do you think of these actions, and how effective do you think they will be in protecting the United States’ security and economic interests?

Ryan McCarthy ’18

Assuming “The Wall” doesn’t enter the Hall of Fantastical Campaign Promises, I wait with bated breath to find out how the Trump administration intends to pay for what Senator Mitch McConnell has estimated to be a $12-15 billion project. I read the text of the executive order in question, and it seems that Mr. Trump wants to repurpose federal aid money given to Mexico, which, from what numbers I can find, is somewhere in the realm of $250 million. That’s a long way off from McConnell’s estimate, and government projects are notorious for going over budget. And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that this is only the price tag for building the thing; how much is the Great Wall of America going to cost in maintenance? If economic reality does not pierce the Trump administration, then U.S. consumers and taxpayers best prepare for highway robbery.
Ryan McCarthy ’18 is a History Undergraduate Departmental Representative. He is also minoring in Economics.
Connor Wahrman ’17
If there’s one thing the Trump administration and ISIL might agree on, it’s the inevitability of confrontation between Islam and the West. Even if suspending immigration and asylum from certain Muslim-majority nations prevented the “export” of terrorism, it would at the same time lead to the radicalization of individuals already within the U.S., potentially resulting in a greater security threat. Any violent act this measure provokes would serve as a convenient justification for Trump to further curtail civil liberties, for example by smearing Muslim American civil society organizations as “Muslim Brotherhood/jihadi sympathizers.” Additionally, including Iran in the executive order puts strain on the already controversial 2015 nuclear deal, directly threatening U.S. security and interests abroad. As no country on the list is even associated with deadly acts of terror in the U.S., the Trump administration’s motivations remain suspicious.
Connor Wahrman ’17 is the editor-in-chief of the Brandeis International Journal.
Prof. Daniel Bergstresser (IBS)
Some of Trump’s stated objectives — for example, working to secure our borders and to keep our country safe — appear reasonable and appropriate to me. His administration’s approach, almost across the board, appears to me to be poorly thought out and contrary to our true security and economic interests. I am detecting from Trump and from his administration an irrational hostility that radiates in a variety of directions: toward Muslims, toward Mexicans, toward the international community and even toward reason and logic itself. I cannot see any way in which having a president who is at war with reason will go well for us.
Prof. Daniel Bergstresser (IBS) is an Associate Professor of Finance in the Brandeis International Business School.
Prof. Brian Fried (POL)

Given Brandeis’ history, it’s worth recalling that the University was founded in part to serve those who had been excluded — refugees from Europe were early members of Brandeis’ community — and that the Hebrew Bible repeatedly advocates for protecting a “ger” (foreigner/stranger) and any who are vulnerable. Similarly, the U.S.’s laws on political asylum created in the aftermath of World War II and the Shoah were an effort to address the country’s failure to serve its historical role as a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution. Contrary to some claims, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population, immigration is beneficial to the U.S. economy and the number of unauthorized immigrants has remained unchanged for many years. While there is a limit to what any nation can do, the U.S.’s ability to provide opportunities both for its citizens and those seeking shelter is what truly makes it great. I have become increasingly dismayed by recent events and hope that U.S. policy does not abandon one of our nation’s core values. I am unsure of what steps would be appropriate should that come to pass, but we must prepare to work together as a community to protect those whose lives are placed at risk.

Prof. Brian Fried (POL) is a Florence Levy Kay Fellow in Comparative Politics of the Developing World. He also teaches in Latin American and Latino Studies.