There is no member of Congress representing the southwest border areas that currently supports Trump’s request for nearly one and a half billion dollars to begin construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. The congressional members whose districts are most likely to be affected — both Republican and Democratic — have voiced concerns that seem obvious to many: this is an ill-considered plan and likely to be a reckless use of taxpayer dollars.

To date, most of what the public has heard about the president’s plans for the border wall has come out through his tweets, which began on the campaign trail. On Nov. 22, 2015, he tweeted, “13 Syrian refugees were caught trying to get into the U.S. through the Southern Border. How many made it? WE NEED THE WALL!”

ADVERTISEMENT

On Aug. 27, 2016, he wrote, “Heroin overdoses are taking over our children and others in the MIDWEST. Coming in from our southern border. We need strong border & WALL!” On Jan. 29, he tweeted, “Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world — a horrible mess!”

Trump’s communications on this matter point to a variety of different “policy problems,” for example, suggesting we need a wall to prevent refugees from entering the country through improper channels (or at least 13 of them), to combat heroin overdoses, and to stop some kind of “horrible mess” that he sees transpiring around the world.

Not surprisingly, lawmakers such as Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) have been asking for a more comprehensive analysis and approach to addressing border security concerns. A respectable policy analysis would first ask: What factors shape the activities or behaviors that cause the problem or condition we are trying to address? Factors that lead Syrian refugees to seek protection at our borders are likely very different than those that lead Midwesterners to overdose from heroin or immigrants to cross our border illegally. How is building a wall going to be the most effective way to address each of these?

And are there potential unintended consequences? Will Syrian refugees linger in squalid camps where they will be more vulnerable to radicalization? Will heroin reach the United States instead through our ports? Will undocumented immigrants find new routes around the southern border to enter? What will be the effects on the U.S. economy of stymieing border traffic and exchange?

Importantly, the development of a viable plan must consider arguments about what values are relevant to the problem and alternative actions that might more effectively achieve the agreed-upon goals. It is the responsibility of our congressional leaders and staff, federal agencies, and other interested parties to investigate and propose those policy alternatives and to provide sufficient detail about them so that their impacts can be predicted in relation to their goals. And, of course, the public needs to know whether the magnitude of the predicted impacts will justify the costs to taxpayers.

Existing estimates of the cost of the wall’s construction — not factoring in maintenance or any negative externalities, such as the costs of reduced trade or labor mobility — range from $12 billion to $25 billion. These costs are very far from trivial. Still, the president implicitly argues that these costs are not relevant under the principle of “America First” because they would (eventually) be paid by Mexico.

It is clear that Mexico has no plans to generously bequeath the wall to the United States, and any actions that the United States takes to induce Mexico to pay — such as levying a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico — will involve costs to U.S. citizens. Analysts and politicians alike know to be skeptical of claims about a free lunch.

Importantly, we appeal for the type of careful policy analysis that we have described here for all policy proposals coming out of the Trump administration to preserve a role for evidence and informed decision making in government policy making and action. Executive orders, such as those we have seen to date, will need appropriations from Congress to execute, along with personnel and other resources to implement, and will have to abide by existing laws.

We have already seen the chaos that can result when executive orders, such as Trump’s travel ban, called “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry,” are discharged without sufficient information, analysis, and planning. In effect, we call for the administration to swallow some of its own medicine and send its policies through some extreme vetting.

Carolyn J. Heinrich, Ph.D., is the Patricia and Rodes Hart Professor of Public Policy at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education.

David L. Weimer, Ph.D., is the Edwin E. Witte Professor of Political Economy at the University of Wisconsin’s La Follete School of Public Affairs.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.