Are We Making Progress on the Border Barrier?

K.C. Alfred/San Diego Union-Tribune via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Washington Post claims that congressional negotiators are nearing a compromise deal on the wall:

Two people familiar with the talks said the understanding among Republicans is that the deal would offer around $2 billion for border barriers. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private deliberations.

Democrats disputed that figure. “Negotiations are ongoing and both sides are exchanging offers. Throughout the talks, Democrats have insisted that a border security compromise not be overly reliant on physical barriers. We will not agree to $2 billion in funding for barriers,” said Evan Hollander, a spokesman for House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.).

Hmmm. The Democratic position seems to have changed from “not one penny for a wall” to “no overreliance on physical barriers.” Progress!

The rough consensus seems to be that a wall barrier on the southern border costs about $20 million per mile, so $2 billion would buy us another 100 miles or so. That would be 1/13th of the 1,300 miles that are currently unfenced, or about 8 percent. That seems like it might count as “not overly reliant.” Or, looked at another way, if the compromise included a large total sum of money—say $10 billion or so—then the barrier money would account for only 20 percent of the total. That might also count as “not overly reliant.”

Of course, it also sounds like we might have to come up with a new name for “barrier.” How about “material instantiation of multi-component international border restriction,” or MIMCIBR? It kind of rolls right off the tongue, doesn’t it?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate