- Question
- Has Trump kept his promises?
- Position‹2 of 2
- Trump has not kept his promises
- Argument1 of 4›
Mexico did not pay for the wall
Trump has struggled to secure funding for his border wall. hat money he has obtained has come from American taxpayers.
The argument
Trump has built almost 400 miles of the border wall with Mexico. Over the course of his administration, $15 billion have been set aside to build this wall, with funds diverted from the Department of Defence and appropriated congressional funds. Trump’s outrageous claims that Mexico would pay for the wall have remained unfounded. Even his claims that Mexico would ‘indirectly’ pay for the wall through the revised trade deal with Mexico. Nonetheless, there is little evidence to suggest how this new trade deal will fund the wall. Despite this, and with no evidence to back it up, Trump continues to claim on the campaign trail, that Mexico is paying for his border wall.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Mexico has paid for increasing amounts of security surrounding the wall. Furthermore, the Mexican government has vowed to support Central American development in order to help stem the flow of migrants. They have pledged $30 billion towards improving the economies and infrastructure of these nations. Some say this could be seen as a virtual wall to stop people crossing the border.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The construction figures are not in dispute, but they concern how much was built and out of whose appropriations. The promise at issue was about who would ultimately bear the cost, and this premise establishes only the source of the initial funding. [Rejecting P2] "Unsupported by evidence" is the right verdict on the indirect-payment claim, but the argument would be stronger for engaging the mechanism proposed. As the counter-argument notes, Mexico did increase border enforcement and committed funds to Central American development; the reply is that spending on one's own programmes is not reimbursing another state's construction costs, and the argument leaves that reply implicit. [Rejecting P3] Repeating a claim on the campaign trail shows persistence, not falsity, and adds nothing the previous premise has not already established. This premise is rhetorical rather than evidential.