Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, February 8, 2019

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

Erin White

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

 KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

A tribute to the engineer

D

espite 
the 
havoc 
that 

continues to be wreaked on 

our natural world, there is no 

doubt that we are making substantial 

strides to improve the quality of our 

environment. At this point, one of the 

most prominent issues is how we can 

implement green practices into our 

daily lives — a problem I would turn to 

engineers to solve.

In this mercenary society, it’s 

not good enough to be green. It’s 

not enough to say that the problems 

we see with the fluctuations of our 

environment will be fixed as long as 

we employ methods that limit the 

consequences, which have essentially 

consisted of using renewable energy, 

reducing waste and rationing our 

goods and materials. We have to think 

about how we can sustain a lifestyle 

that reduces these negative effects 

that we impose on the environment. In 

other words, we know our innovations 

and efforts are driven to serve an 

urgent purpose in our society, but we 

have to make sure they are feasible 

in the sense they can be continually 

implemented in concurrence with our 

economic and social values.

In terms of the people we should 

look toward for progressing — and, 

ultimately, accomplishing— this goal, I 

would wholeheartedly put my trust in 

the hands of engineers. As an aspiring 

engineer whose intellectual abilities 

and character have been enriched 

by 
the 
University 
of 
Michigan 

Engineering community, I am proud 

to say we are becoming more than 

what misconceptions and stereotypes 

assume about our characters and our 

priorities. This University’s efforts to 

make our roles in our communities 

more meaningful has transformed the 

idea of what it means to be an engineer. 

As a witness of these milestones, I am 

confident this movement promoted 

in many institutions will translate 

to the rebirth of a society that will 

unequivocally consider all of its 

sectors, including the environment, in 

terms of how it functions and how it 

progresses.

The curriculum for engineers at 

this University is not only preparing us 

to be intellectually capable of working 

on 
our 
society’s 
infrastructure, 

communication and transportation 

issues, but is also prioritizing our 

knowledge of how to be cohesive 

members of the workforce in the 

process. Even as a freshman who has 

only been studying at the University 

for two semesters, I have taken classes 

embedded with the importance of 

how what we learn applies to the 

real world. We have wasted no time 

taking prerequisites, first-year writing 

requirements, or other classes that 

may or may not relate to our majors. 

We will all have taken the engineering 

core classes, which I view not as a 

pesky requirement but as an essential 

foundation for the information we will 

need to apply to our work once we are 

pursuing our specialized majors. All 

the while, we are taught to understand 

how the various disciplines within 

engineering — as well as other 

sectors, such as business or public 

health — are affected as a result of 

implementing specific concepts we 

have learned. In addition to acquiring 

essential knowledge, the curriculum 

demands I am aware of the effects of 

the decisions I make, a gesture that is 

preparing me to make decisions in life 

that will satisfy the goals I have while 

not preventing others from achieving 

their agendas.

In 
addition 
to 
intellectual 

breadth, 
the 
University 
is 
also 

continuing 
to 
promote 
social 

versatility, psychological flourishing 

and a sense of community among its 

engineering students. In an article 

written by Kate McAlpine for The 

Michigan Engineering News Center, 

she highlights the plans Anthony 

Waas, department chair of Aerospace 

Engineering, has to raise awareness 

for the entire University’s Diversity, 

Equity and Inclusion campaign:

“While we try to invite a diverse 

range of speakers to give lectures on 

aerospace topics, we haven’t brought 

in speakers who can speak of their 

research on diversity. To address 

this, our department will invite 

speakers to give public seminars 

about the changing landscape in 

society and how we can mirror it in 

our department.”

In 
essence, 
Waas’ 
efforts 

to diversify the ideas heard by 

aerospace engineering students will 

enable these students to recognize 

the validity of leaders in the field who 

come from different backgrounds. 

The 
campaign 
will 
also 
help 

students develop communication 

skills in which they will be able to 

simultaneously convey and respect 

ideas with one another. This is only 

one of the ways that the University is 

expanding the realm of collaboration 

for engineers in all of its disciplines. 

Furthermore, while often forgotten, 

the strides made in the field of 

engineering 
today 
demonstrate 

themselves as an inclusive effort by 

nature.

I believe this inclusive state 

of mind can apply directly to the 

strife we face in improving the 

quality of our environment. The 

heart of this mentality is that we are 

psychologically aware and capable of 

making decisions with consideration 

of how they will affect others. Thus, 

we will have to compromise what’s 

best for the environment and best 

for the economy and best for society 

as we seek to find balance between 

all. At the root of change in any 

aspect of our lives is social change, 

a type of change that encompasses 

a massive pyschological adjustment 

by everyone in a society. With 

monumental change comes massive 

responsibility and massive effort, 

and I believe it is the grit, resilience 

and persistence engineers harness 

that will allow us to create the scale 

of change required to achieve a 

sustainable balance between all 

sectors of our society.

FROM THE DAILY

 On the government shutdown
B

etween the dates of Dec. 22, 2018, and Jan. 25, 2019, the United States 
government was partially shut down after President Donald Trump 
refused to sign any funding bills that did not include the $5.7 billion 

he wanted for his wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. This 35-day shutdown 
was the longest in American history, and resulted in more than 420,000 
federal workers being furloughed, an estimated 0.13 percent of economic 
quarterly growth lost per week and wasn’t ended until Trump ultimately 
agreed to sign a stopgap bill, funding the government through Feb. 15. 

Trump, 
however, 
still 

doesn’t have his wall, which 
he desperately wants. Despite 
many 
people 
— 
including 

some who voted for Trump — 
blaming him for the shutdown, 
Trump 
has 
threatened 
to 

either 
declare 
a 
national 

emergency or shut down the 
government once again if not 
given his desired wall funds.

While 
the 
Democratic 

Party should advocate for 
its political principles, it is 
important to remember that 
the well-being of the American 
people is the most important 
issue 
the 
party 
should 

focus on. Thus, avoiding a 
government shutdown should 
be a goal high on the agenda, 
as 
so 
many 
Americans’ 

livelihoods 
depend 
on 
an 

open 
and 
well-functioning 

federal government. Trump’s 
hardheadedness means that 
it is likely that he ultimately 
rejects 
anything 
the 

Democrats put forward.

However, 
the 
Democrats 

completely giving up on the 
negotiation 
process 
would 

not be ideal either. Both 
a 
shutdown 
and 
national 

emergency 
would 
cause 

chaos, and the adults in the 
room should at least try to 
do what they can to avoid 
either scenario. The sitting 
administration has taken such 
malevolent policy positions 
that 
means 
attempting 
to 

find middle ground would, 
in effect, turn the Democrats 
into 
co-conspirators 
in 
a 

marginally less objectionable 
crime. The optics of extending 
a hand across the aisle may 
prove politically advantageous 
for them going forward. While 
it seems unlikely that Trump 
would accept anything the 
Democrats sign off on, the 
party can still take the high 
road. To be clear, since it is 
the Republicans — not the 
Democrats — insisting their 
demands be met, Democrats 
are 
under 
no 
practical 

obligation to come to the 
table, though they certainly 
have the right to pursue such 
a tactic.

Going 
forward, 
Trump 

has placed himself in an 
extremely tight position in 
regards to the wall, leaving 
him little room for success 
or recovery. After Democrats 
and Republicans were able to 
compromise on a bill which 
allocated $1.3 billion to border 
security back in December, 
Trump 
initially 
said 
he 

would agree to sign it — but 
ultimately ended up reneging. 
It is also worth noting that 
in March 2018, Democrats 
were ready and willing to 
give the administration the 
full $25 billion it wants for 
the construction of a border 
wall in exchange for a path 
to 
citizenship 
for 
DACA 

recipients, but this was also 
turned down.

While polls show that 59 

percent of Americans oppose 
the wall, Trump, out of fear 
of losing his core base of 
supporters, has been driven 
away 
from 
compromise 

and towards more extreme 
options. 
With 
Congress 

seemingly content to go on 
without funding for a wall in 
place, Trump’s two options 
appear to be another shutdown 
or declaring a state of national 
emergency — unfortunately 
for him, neither are very 
popular nor promising.

First, of course, Trump 

could do what he has already 
done 
and 
shut 
down 
the 

government. 
However, 
it’s 

unclear what exactly that 
would accomplish. This could 
prove politically perilous, as 
Trump bore most of the brunt 
for the last shutdown and the 
multitude of negative effects 
should not be compounded 
by taking such a disastrous 
course 
of 
action 
again. 

Secondly, 
Trump 
could 

declare a national emergency. 
However, 
that 
would 
be 

unpopular 
among 
Senate 

Republicans, a group who has 
previously, for the most part, 
stood behind him. In addition 
to being unpopular, declaring 
a national emergency could 
also be unconstitutional.

While the Supreme Court 

has a history of favoring 
executive power, Trump isn’t 
exactly 
strengthening 
his 

case for a national emergency 
by 
threatening 
to 
declare 

one if Congress doesn’t do 
his 
bidding. 
Emergencies 

are supposed to be declared 
when congressional approval 
would be too slow to handle an 
emerging crisis, so patiently 
waiting 
before 
declaring 

one runs contrary to the 
assertion that the matter at 
hand is an “emergency” at all. 
Since the recent government 
shutdown proved to be an 
exercise in futility, Trump 
ultimately does seem to be 
leaning towards the national 
emergency route. 

As mentioned earlier, it 

seems unlikely that Trump 
would accept any deal the 
Democrats 
would 
propose. 

However, seeing as though 
he seems to be in a rather 
desperate position, it might 
make sense to re-propose a 
path to citizenship for DACA 
recipients in exchange for 
the $5.7 billion. If Democrats 
were, at one point, ready to fork 
over $25 billion for a DACA 
path to citizenship, then this 
deal would effectively save 
$19.3 billion that would have 
gone toward a project that 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi decried 
as “immoral” just last month.

We look toward Feb. 15 and 

hope for the best. Arriving 
at an equitable solution to 
this looming problem is an 
absolute necessity and the 
soul of our nation depends on 
it. We urge that our elected 
officials do their jobs and 
uphold their oath to do what’s 
best for their country and 
their constituencies.

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU

Kianna Marquez can be reached at 

kmarquez@umich.edu

 MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN

Will the border wall run through Berlin?

O

n the morning of Aug. 
13, 1961, the residents of 
Berlin awoke to discover 

that the Communist government 
of East Germany had ordered the 
construction of a wall to divide 
the eastern and western halves 
of the city. Designed to prevent 
civilian defections from Soviet 
Bloc East Germany to democratic 
West Germany, the wall stood for 
nearly three decades until the fall 
of communism in Europe in 1989. 
To the capitalist democracies of 
the West, the Berlin Wall was a 
concrete symbol of the existential 
struggle between Western freedom 
and Soviet tyranny. While the exact 
number is difficult to determine, 
one BBC study claims 262 East 
German civilians died at the wall 
while attempting to defect to West 
Germany. It’s no wonder the wall’s 
November 1989 dismantling was 
met with triumphant celebration by 
East and West Germans alike. Two 
million East Berliners poured into 
West Berlin during the weekend-
long 
celebration 
that 
followed 

reunification. One British journalist 
described the festivities as “the 
greatest street party in the history 
of the world.” A wave of optimism 
washed over Germany’s capital; 
Europe, they knew, was about to 
experience a new birth of freedom.

The section of the wall that 

divided East and West Berlin, a 
notorious symbol of communist 
oppression that it was, spanned only 
27 miles. The U.S.-Mexico border is 
nearly 2,000 miles. With the border 
greater than the distance between 
Ann Arbor and Seattle, much of 
it rolls through the empty sands 
of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan 
Deserts. Near El Paso, Texas, that 
long line meets the lazy Rio Grande, 
a meandering river that forms the 
rest of the border until it empties into 
the Gulf of Mexico. Since 1998, 7,216 
migrants have died trying to cross 
this border — more than 27 times the 
number of people killed between the 
two Berlins. 

America’s 
southern 
border, 

of course, is no Berlin Wall. The 
Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart, 
as the East German government 
called it, was designed to prevent 
East Germans from escaping their 
totalitarian prison. Tragedies at the 
Rio Grande or in the Sonoran Desert, 
however upsetting, are the result of 
America protecting the integrity of 
its borders, which any country has 
the right to do. But a consideration 

of migrant push factors renders the 
geopolitics not entirely different. 
While 
some 
East 
Germans 

fled westward due to political 
considerations, many fled in pursuit 
of economic opportunity and better 
living conditions. Undocumented 
immigrants from Central America, 
of course, seek entry into the U.S. 
for the same reasons. Let me be 
clear: Laredo 2019 is no Berlin 
1979. But they clearly bear some 
political similarities — and in terms 
of a humanitarian crisis, the human 
cost of America’s chronic border 
headache far surpasses Berlin’s.

While it has always been a staple of 

President Donald Trump’s rhetoric, 
the border wall fiasco returned to 
the fore of national politics when the 
now resolved government shutdown 
began on Dec. 22. Demanding that 
Congress allocate $5.7 billion for the 
construction of a border wall, Trump 
refused to sign a budget plan without 
that 
critical 
provision. 
House 

Democrats, who control the lower 
chamber of Congress as of Jan. 3, 
wouldn’t budge. Without an agreed-
upon federal budget, the war over 
the wall ballooned into a month-long 
government shutdown, costing the 
American economy $11 billion and 
forcing 800,000 federal employees 
to work for a month without pay. 

The government shutdown was 

an unforced error by the president. 
Trump, for whom border bombast 
has served as a perennial go-to, has 
been promising a border wall since 
he launched his campaign in 2015. 
Little progress has been made on 
that front, and Trump lunged at the 
opportunity to show some concrete 
commitment — even if it required 
a government shutdown. After a 
month, the shutdown ended with a 
temporary three-week reopening 
of the government, with the hope 
being that Congress could reach a 
long-term budget resolution in that 
time. No such deal has been struck 
yet, meaning another government 
shutdown looms on the horizon. 
But it doesn’t need to happen. If 
the president were as shrewd a 
political navigator as he frequently 
claims, he’d retreat from, rather 
than reinforce, all the border wall 
talk. Not only is it a bad solution for 
border security, it’s a losing fight that 
will only continue to reflect poorly on 
Trump.

First and foremost, a wall on 

America’s southern border won’t 
end illegal immigration. Most 
undocumented 
immigrants, 
in 

fact, enter the U.S. legally and 
then overstay their work visas. It 
also won’t stop illegal drugs from 
“pouring into our country,” as 
Trump has repeatedly claimed. 
The majority of cartel narcotics 
from Mexico are brought to the U.S. 
through legal ports of entry.

Plain and simple, a border wall 

is not the anti-migrant, anti-drug 
panacea Trump claims it would be. 
But that fact, along with the reality 
that Democrats will never entertain 
its funding, seems to be lost on our 
commander-in-chief. For a man 
who cares so deeply about his 
popularity, it would seem that if 
pragmatic politics isn’t a primary 
concern, perhaps it is poll numbers 
that are informing his behavior. 
But an explanation can’t be found 
there, either. Less than a third of 
Americans would support a second 
government shutdown to acquire 
border wall funding, and a majority 
would blame Trump if another 
shutdown occurs. What’s more, 
nearly 70 percent of Americans 
believe the wall shouldn’t be an 
immediate priority, and half say it 
shouldn’t be a priority at all.

Any way you look at it, a border 

wall is practically unreasonable, 
politically 
unattainable 
and 

publicly 
unpopular. 
But 
even 

so, Trump’s relentless push for 
building a “big, beautiful” border 
wall 
has 
always 
been 
more 

symbolic than practical — and its 
consequences would be symbolic 
as well. As The Boston Globe’s 
Jeff Jacoby writes, Trump’s long-
sought barrier “would be ‘great’ 
only in its brutal ugliness and 
hideous symbolism. It would be an 
American version of the monstrous 
Berlin Wall.”

American 
pressure 
helped 

topple the Berlin Wall in the fall 
of 1989. When Ronald Reagan 
traveled to West Berlin in the 
summer of 1987, he delivered a 
speech in which he challenged the 
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev 
to destroy the infamous barrier 
dividing Berlin. “Mr. Gorbachev,” 
he pronounced, “Tear down this 
wall!” Two years later, the Berlin 
Wall was reduced to rubble. Now, 
three decades on, America must 
ask itself a question: Do we really 
want to pick up the wall’s pieces 
and rebuild it here?

Max Steinbaum can be reached at 

maxst@umich.edu

