The EconomistOctober 5th 2019 United States 252
T
he presidentfrequentlyboaststhat
his Mexican border wall will be beau-
tiful. “Border Wars: Inside Trump’s As-
sault on Immigration”, a new book by
two journalists from the New York Times,
suggests it will be menacing, too. The
authors claim that Mr Trump asked his
advisers about including a moat, infest-
ed with snakes or alligators. Aides have
reportedly looked into the cost of such a
deterrent.MrTrumpdenieshaving said
anyofthis.Buttoworkouttheexpense
toAmericantaxpayers(orMexican ones,
sincetheyaremeanttobepaying), The
Economisttottedupthestructuraland
zoologicalrequirementsoftheplan.
Thepresidentmaynotcatchenough
watersnakestopatroltheborder.But he
couldcallonalligatorfarmsinLouisiana
andFlorida.In 2015 theSouthernRegion-
alAquacultureCentreestimatedthat the
industryrears350,000animalsa year for
leatherandmeat.Thatismorethan
enoughgatorstopatrola moat1,000
miles(1,600km)long.(Theborder’s
remaining1,000milesarealready
blockedbythewatersoftheRioGrande.)
A fatsubsidyforFloridianreptilefarm-
erstosupplyCustomsandBorderProtec-
tion(cbp) couldalsowinvotesinthe
swingstatenextyear.Perhaps$150m a
yearwouldbeenoughtobreedand feed
300,000fullygrowngators(theywould
needtobemuchbiggerthanthethree-
foottiddlerskilledforhandbags).
Buildingthemoatwouldbetougher.Fewfirmsmakeneo-medieval water
features. Matt Boring of Texas Ponds,
which builds “ecologically balanced
ecosystem ponds” for clients in and
around Austin, quotes $3m to dig a pond
five feet (1.5m) deep and an acre in area.
The moat would need constant topping
up to counter the effects of evaporation
in the Sonoran Desert. If Mr Trump want-
ed his moat to be 60 feet (20 metres)
wide, he would need to dig and line about
8,000 acres’ worth of trench. That would
cost about $24bn.
Of course, the Sierra Madre’s peaks are
unsuited to flat canals, and Arizona’s
heat might slowly broil the crocs. But the
president could surely order a series of
pumps to keep the system flowing. After
hiring cbpofficers to feed the gators, and
building a second fence to keep them in,
perhaps he could deliver the project for
less than $30bn.
That might seem reasonable for a
man who has already accrued about
$10bn of public money to build his wall.
However, the new book also claims that
Mr Trump wants to adorn the barrier
with electrified, flesh-piercing spikes,
and asked aides whether officers can
shoot migrants in the legs to slow them
down. Treating that number of gunshot
wounds and settling the lawsuits would
cost even more. It is almost as if the
president is more interested in showing
how ferocious he is on immigration than
in providing efficient border security.Build the swamp
Border deterrenceTotting up the costs of the White House’s schemesI’m here from the governmenthighest court. His previous attempt, over
admissions to the University of Texas, was
narrowly decided by the Supreme Court in
2016, before President Donald Trump ap-
pointed two new conservative justices,
Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
The most interesting thing that has
come out of court documents is detail on
the programme of affirmative action for
wealthy students maintained by Harvard
and other universities of its stature. A re-
cent working paper by three economists,
one of whom was an expert witness for the
plaintiffs, shows that 43% of white stu-
dents attending received some sort of pref-
erential treatment in admissions (because
they were legacies, recruited athletes, on
the “dean’s interest list” or the children of
faculty). They estimate that most of these
would not have got in otherwise.
The boost for these applicants is as high
as the one given to blacks. Asian-Ameri-
cans, who receive the fewest admissions
preferences, are squeezed as a result. A
white student who is in the middle of the
pack academically, but has legacy status,
has a higher chance of getting in than a typ-
ical Asian applicant in the top tenth.
Race-conscious admissions pro-
grammes are constitutionally valid only if
they are the least obtrusive means to attain
diversity. Allison Burroughs, the judge in
the case, acknowledged that removing the
preferences would increase the number of
non-white students. But she concluded
they could still remain because “Harvard
would be far less competitive in Ivy League
intercollegiate sports, which would ad-
versely impact Harvard and the student ex-
perience” and that top-notch faculty may
not join without a promised leg-up for
their progeny. (Never mind that sailing
competitions are not the central focus of
university life; and a few academics may
still want to work at the place.) Judge Bur-
roughs displayed a remarkable level of de-
ference to the university’s argument. The
Supreme Court, should the case make it
there, probably will not. 7Points for preppies
United States, Harvard University
Admissionratebyacademicdecile(10=best),%
Graduatingclassesof 2014 to 2019Source:“LegacyandAthletePreferences
atHarvard”,byP. Arcidiacono,J. Kinsler
and T. Ransom, NBER Working Paper (2019)*Athletes,legacies,
dean’sinterestlistand
children of facultyBlack Hispanic White Asian
Regularapplicants10511000255075ALDCs*10512550751000