US should have a referendum on that wall

The United States has just emerged from the longest 
government shutdown in its history – with 800,000 federal employees sitting idle – and may be headed for another one beginning on February 15 if politicians cannot agree on key issues.
Public debate over this tactic has rightly focused on whether taxpayers should pay the price for political bickering in which they have no direct say between elections. Many are reading into December’s costly debacle a fundamental clash between constitutional advocacy and ethical principle.
Donald Trump, the Republican president, wants to fulfil his campaign promise to build a wall all along the Mexican border in the apparent belief it will keep out illegal immigrants. The Democratic opposition in Congress believes the $5.7-billion price is too high for security that instead could be achieved through strengthened, more sophisticated monitoring and patrolling. Both sides likened the partial government shutdown that resulted to taking the populace hostage. 
Trump agreed to a stopgap bill to reopen all government agencies for three weeks in the expectation a compromise can be reached on his wall. There is a possibility that another shutdown could be averted if Trump opts to declare a national emergency, but that gambit would certainly face a court challenge in the absence of any genuine emergency.
The handling of the crisis is readily portrayed in the popular media as a species of sport, with analysts focusing on Trump’s post-shutdown slump in popularity and praising his most visible rival, Democratic Congress leader Nancy Pelosi, as having beaten him “at his own game”. In one recent survey, 70 per cent of Americans opposed shutdowns over the border wall and 66 per cent said Trump should agree to an operating budget even if it contained no funding for the wall. While Republicans took the brunt of criticism for the shutdown, the Democrats were not unscathed.
Gamesmanship and constitutional issues aside, shutdowns affect innocent Americans without good reason. It is clear that most Americans want a settlement that doesn’t disrupt their daily lives, as the December crisis did by throwing public transport into chaos. We wonder how many citizens who voted for Trump and believe he’s right about the border wall ended up stuck at airports because of his truculence. Everyone shared in the punishment.
One way to settle such political disputes would be to hold a referendum on the single issue at hand. It should be a straightforward process in a country where direct elections choose the president every four years. Americans should simply be asked whether they want a wall all the way along the Mexican border. Without the clutter of other national concerns, a clear answer on that one issue could emerge in a democratic, fair and speedy manner.
The existing arrangement is unfair and untenable. Shutting down 
government agencies has become a political tool, a game of bluff indeed to see who blinks first. Unfortunately, while the politicians and legal experts probe the limits of constitutionality, it’s the ordinary people observing the game who suffer.
Trump is also experimenting with the rules of his office and with the checks-and-balances system of the House and judiciary. In his petty war for an ill-advised wall, he is uncovering fresh ideas for hampering the opposition that other political players can exploit next time. The American public, with no role in the game between elections, is likely to keep suffering.