Building a Wall: Will This Hinder Drug Trafficking, or Human Lives?
During former President Donald Trump’s reign in office, he proposed many new policies in regard to building a wall along the US-Mexico border. This wall was argued to be with the good intention to decrease drug trafficking into the United States, and to hinder drug mules, as well as the cartel from using the border to transport drugs. However, was this the true intention? The wall would likely be unsuccessful in reducing drug flows into the U.S., and would come with substantial financial costs as well as unintended consequences. Many drug flows are already through legal points of entry, a better focus would be to increase security at those ports. This wall however, does make it much more difficult for immigrants and people from other countries to migrate to the U.S. The journey from ones country to ours is dangerous and risky, and many lose their lives making it. A wall along the border will increase the struggles of migrants trying to come make better lives for themselves and their families, and likely increase the deaths as well.
Questions:
-Is there a smoother way to flow into talking about the immigration?
-Should I mention trump’s bias towards keeping immigrants out of the country, and is there an unbiased way to do so?
-any other advice or suggestions with where to take this?
1). Comment on the title. How does it offer a way forward on the issue? Does it hint at or echo the paper’s thesis? Make suggestions.
I think this title is engaging and leads smoothly into the issue Brief. Maybe it could be touched up to flow a bit better.
2). Does this piece’s title and introduction respond to an exigence? Does it make the issue pressing or connect to other pressing needs and issues? Make suggestions.
This introduction definitely does respond to an exigence, but I think an exigence also exists as a result of the recent transfer of power, and It would be good for you to mention that. Mention how the border is still very much up in the air with Biden, not just Trump.
3). Comment on the thesis. Does it set up a clear argumentative claim? Is it advancing a specific policy or practice? Can you imagine how the rest of the argument will unfold?
I think what you have for the thesis so far is extremely strong because it lists the issues with the border. I would add another sentence describing a specific alternative/solution.
1). Title: Your title is attention-grabbing and you utilize the colon title well. I do think “will this” is a bit informal and awkward. Maybe change it to something like “Building a wall: a method to hinder drug trafficking, or harm human lives?”
2). Exigence: You issue brief has elements of exigence, including references to the previous administration as well as the rhetoric Trump employed. Drug trafficking and immigration are two incredibly topical issues!
3). Thesis: Is your thesis just that the wall is “bad”? You briefly touch on increasing security at legal checkpoints in the middle of your introduction. I believe this would be a much better thesis as it presents a real policy solution to the problem, and you can simultaneously criticize the failures of the wall.
**I would also advise that you change “reign in office” to “presidency.” Although you might not appreciate the efforts of his administration, reign isn’t quite appropriate as it relates to monarchy and seems a bit hyperbolic.
Thank you I appreciate your tips! In regards to the “reign in office” I knew it sounded bad I honestly just had a moment and couldn’t think of another way to put it.
1). Comment on the title. How does it offer a way forward on the issue? Does it hint at or echo the paper’s thesis? Make suggestions.
I really enjoy you title as well. It is a bit wordy but honestly I like the message you are sending with it, I think its good.
2). Does this piece’s title and introduction respond to an exigence? Does it make the issue pressing or connect to other pressing needs and issues? Make suggestions.
Your intro definitely speaks to exigence, the wall and immigration will always be relevant discussion topics. You discuss how the wall would be faulty, and cost lives at the expense of little to no change in the drugs that come into the US.
3). Comment on the thesis. Does it set up a clear argumentative claim? Is it advancing a specific policy or practice? Can you imagine how the rest of the argument will unfold?
Your thesis would be very good if we were just discussing your stance on the wall, but I think you need to add exactly how we could turn away from the wall. Provide a policy idea or a proposed mandate in order to avoid building the wall. You could honestly keep it the way it is, jut add your idea somewhere in there.