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