Would a wall stop illegal immigrants?

[BPSCG]

Building a fence is unlikely to do anything about that problem,

Anything? Do you really think a fence or a wall couldn't be built that would keep a lot of people out?

but building a fence would create problems not only with Mexico, but with other allies who would see us as becoming like old Berlin.

Please, Tricky, you can do better than this. Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't build it for fear of offending ignoramuses who don't understand the difference between a wall meant to keep people in chains and a wall built to keep people out? That's a very weak argument.

I don't think you have supported that position at all. Metaphors aside, arming your border is a hostile act. It says "we don't trust you".

And, in point of fact, we don't trust the Mexican government to do what it needs to do to stem the flow of immigrants, which is to institute nationwide reforms that would allow Mexico to become a prosperous country, where people would actually prefer to live rather than the US.

Well, many of us don't trust Mexico, but I'm not sure that shoving this in their face is likely to ease the problem. If anything, it seems like we would be creating a nursery for terrorists by making sure they know we hate them.

Okay, now you're not being serious. Terrorists, for FSM's sake? Please.

Yes, I know what its for, but I disagree that it is a workable solution to the problem because it doesn't address why they are flooding across the border.

That's true, but the reason why they are crossing the border is two-edged. They are not crossing the border only because there are good jobs in the US. If that were the case, New England would be flooded with illegal Canadians. They are also crossing the border because they can't find good jobs in Mexico.

We can't address the latter, and Mexico's government refuses to. We can only make it more difficult for illegals to get jobs in the US. One way to do that is to impose nasty penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegals. Another way is to make it more difficult for the illegals to get into the country in the first place. Neither is a solution in and of itself. But the problem will remain as long as the US is rich and Mexico is poor.

You're treating the symptoms rather than the disease. (Can I use a disease metaphor?)

Don't ask me, ask ID if he thinks Mexicans are a disease...

This is a very poor metaphor. Dogs are not sentient beings.

Yes they are.

But let's go with it anyway. If you're putting a big pile of dog food in your back yard, then you can't be surprised if a hungry dog tries to get in.

And is it wrong of me to yell at my neighbor to feed his own damned dog because I'm sick of doing it for him? And is it hostile of me to put up a fence to keep the dog out and force my neighbor to feed his own damned dog?

No. You need to shoot your kid. Thank you for illustrating how some anti-immigrant people think the hirers should get a slap on the side of the head, while the hungry immigrants get shot.

Okay, I don't know any reasonable person who thinks illegals should be shot, and I don't think it's productive to drag them into the discussion, since nobody here is advocating that.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Immigration from Mexico to the US is a safety valve which removes malcontents (created by Mexico's own internal problems),

I think I need to take exception to the above phrasing, unless you would like to narrow your definition of "malcontent".

From Merriam-Webster:

malcontent, noun--

1) a discontented person
2) one who bears a grudge from a sense of grievance or thwarted ambition
3) one who is active opposition to an established order or government.



If you were referring to 1), I have no problem. If you were referring to 2), I will grudgingly relent. If you are referring to 3), I will vehemently object. As far as I am aware, most illegal immigrants are simply here to seek opportunities not available to them in their home country. They are not here out of a sense of opposition or injustice.

 

[Ziggurat]

The whole thing is that it isn't the crossing of the border that the US objects to, (or else we'd be at loggerheads with Canada too) it is the staying that is a problem, if it is indeed a problem. Building a fence is unlikely to do anything about that problem,

No. Decrease the number of people crossing illegal, and you will decrease the number of people staying illegally as well (since the former is a pretty typical first step towards accomplishing the latter).

but building a fence would create problems not only with Mexico, but with other allies who would see us as becoming like old Berlin.

So in other words, we should refrain from building a wall because other people are so delusional they cannot understand the difference between building a wall to keep people out of your country and building a wall to keep people in? And which allies would these be, anyways? Mexico? Well, they've got their own southern border wall, so they hardly object on principle. Europe? Don't make me laugh. They're plenty quick to build fences of their own to stop illegal immigration. It is not our responsibility to catter to the hypocracy and delusions of others.

I don't think you have supported that position at all. Metaphors aside, arming your border is a hostile act.

Arming it with offensive capability is. Arming it with purely defensive capability is not. Invading your neighbor, on the other hand, IS a hostile act. And that's exactly what Mexico has been doing.

It says "we don't trust you".

God damn straight we don't trust them. They've rather PROVEN that they're not trustworthy when it comes to controlling illegal immigration.

Well, many of us don't trust Mexico,

And who are the people stupid enough to still trust them on illegal immigration?

but I'm not sure that shoving this in their face is likely to ease the problem. If anything, it seems like we would be creating a nursery for terrorists by making sure they know we hate them.

If this is all it takes to create terrorists, why the hell aren't there any Gaullic suicide bombers?

Land mines are a way of dealing with the flood across the border too, but it doesn't address the root issues.

Guess what: we CAN'T really address the root issue, because the root issue is internal Mexican problems (unless you're suggesting we invade). All we CAN do is address the symptoms, and since those symptoms are hurting us, that's exactly what we should do.

If you're putting a big pile of dog food in your back yard, then you can't be surprised if a hungry dog tries to get in.

You're right. But we're not surprised, which makes this point irrelevant. We're just upset that the dog's owner isn't feeding their dog enough that it doesn't need to break into our yard to eat.

If you shoot my dog after luring him over, I'll be damned unhappy.

Then don't starve your dog.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you were referring to 1), I have no problem. If you were referring to 2), I will grudgingly relent. If you are referring to 3), I will vehemently object.

No, I did not have definition 3 in mind.

 

[Tricky]

Anything? Do you really think a fence or a wall couldn't be built that would keep a lot of people out?

It will keep some out, temporarily, until they find a way to defeat it. Hence the opening post. The Great Wall of China won't keep people out who want to cross.

Please, Tricky, you can do better than this. Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't build it for fear of offending ignoramuses who don't understand the difference between a wall meant to keep people in chains and a wall built to keep people out? That's a very weak argument.

It is one reason, admittedly a minor one. But the "in versus out" thing is a red herring. Walls are to obstruct passage. You could say that the wall was to keep people in Mexico.

And, in point of fact, we don't trust the Mexican government to do what it needs to do to stem the flow of immigrants, which is to institute nationwide reforms that would allow Mexico to become a prosperous country, where people would actually prefer to live rather than the US.

I agree that the Mexican Government is part of the problem. I still don't want them as an enemy.

Okay, now you're not being serious. Terrorists, for FSM's sake? Please.

LOL. What? Is that so impossible? Poverty is a great driver for terrorism.

That's true, but the reason why they are crossing the border is two-edged. They are not crossing the border only because there are good jobs in the US. If that were the case, New England would be flooded with illegal Canadians. They are also crossing the border because they can't find good jobs in Mexico.

If New England was offering Canadians a vastly better life than they could get in Canada, I'm guessing they would be flooding over. But I don't deny that it is the difference between life in Mexico versus life in the US that is the motive force behind Mexican illegal immigration. So how do you go about addressing that difference? You can make life there better or you can make life here worse. The thing that would make life here worse would be to dry up the jobs for illiegal immigrants, yet there seems to be relatively little attention devoted to this.

We can't address the latter, and Mexico's government refuses to. We can only make it more difficult for illegals to get jobs in the US. One way to do that is to impose nasty penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegals. Another way is to make it more difficult for the illegals to get into the country in the first place. Neither is a solution in and of itself. But the problem will remain as long as the US is rich and Mexico is poor.

If it is a problem. From all I can tell, the US economy is doing rather well. Unemployment is low too. Obviously, these things go up and down, but I don't see illegal immigration as a major factor in economic cycles.

Yes they are.

You are correct. I misused the word. May I substitute "intelligent" or "endowed with the powers of human reasoning"? But I think you know what I meant.

And is it wrong of me to yell at my neighbor to feed his own damned dog because I'm sick of doing it for him? And is it hostile of me to put up a fence to keep the dog out and force my neighbor to feed his own damned dog?

You can ask, but as long as you keep putting out piles of food, then yelling at your neighbor isn't going to do any good.

Okay, I don't know any reasonable person who thinks illegals should be shot, and I don't think it's productive to drag them into the discussion, since nobody here is advocating that.

I'm just going with your metaphor, and you said:

...the only action left to me is to shoot your dog.

Hey, I told you it was a lousy metaphor.

 

[shecky]

Back to the original question. Does anyone think a wall will actually do any good in stopping illegal immigrants? What exactly is the problem that needs fixing? Wouldn't it be better to liberalize immigration policy to allow easier crossing? This would alleviate the need to cross anywhere but official crossing points, allow existing border security forces to keep an eye on elements truly wishing ill on the US, create a freer society where goods and people are able to move as they please, and allow more flexibility in the labor market, encouraging people to return when they feel like it, rather than extend their stays for fear of being unable to return again.

 

[Ziggurat]

LOL. What? Is that so impossible? Poverty is a great driver for terrorism.

No, it really isn't. If it were, Africa and not the middle east would be the primary source of international terrorism, but it's not. And bin Laden didn't get into the jihad business because he couldn't pay the bills.

 

[tsg]

Who do you think is going to build it?

 

[Tricky]

No. Decrease the number of people crossing illegal, and you will decrease the number of people staying illegally as well (since the former is a pretty typical first step towards accomplishing the latter).

Probably so. Some. My contention is that it would create more problems than it would solve. I stand by that.

So in other words, we should refrain from building a wall because other people are so delusional they cannot understand the difference between building a wall to keep people out of your country and building a wall to keep people in?

Red herring. See my response to BP. But calling other people names doesn't really work to our advantage either.

And which allies would these be, anyways? Mexico? Well, they've got their own southern border wall, so they hardly object on principle.

So you say, but I still can't find a link.

Europe? Don't make me laugh. They're plenty quick to build fences of their own to stop illegal immigration. It is not our responsibility to catter to the hypocracy and delusions of others.

They're quick? You've given one reference, and it's a city, not a border between countries. Even so, I recognize that the world is full of hypocrites. That is still not a good reason to alienate people. Tu quoque is not good diplomacy.

Arming it with offensive capability is. Arming it with purely defensive capability is not. Invading your neighbor, on the other hand, IS a hostile act. And that's exactly what Mexico has been doing.

Well, we certainly are welcoming the invaders by giving them jobs, aren't we?

God damn straight we don't trust them. They've rather PROVEN that they're not trustworthy when it comes to controlling illegal immigration.

And neither are we. We talk about how we hate illegal immigration, yet we do nothing on our end to stop the reasons for it. Talk about hypocrites.

And who are the people stupid enough to still trust them on illegal immigration?

Sheesh, Ziggy, calm down. All this cussin' and name callin' might lead one to believe that you are relying on emotional appeal to support your points.

If this is all it takes to create terrorists, why the hell aren't there any Gaullic suicide bombers?

All terrorists are not suicide bombers, you know. Is it true that there has never been a Gaullic terrorist attack?

Guess what: we CAN'T really address the root issue, because the root issue is internal Mexican problems (unless you're suggesting we invade). All we CAN do is address the symptoms, and since those symptoms are hurting us, that's exactly what we should do.

As you can see above, I disagree that the symptoms are hurting us that much. But we can do a little about internal Mexican problems by letting some of them work here and send money back to Mexico. What I am arguing though, is that treating the symptoms by building a fence is worse than the symptoms themselves. And don't even get me started on what it does to the local ecosystem.

You're right. But we're not surprised, which makes this point irrelevant. We're just upset that the dog's owner isn't feeding their dog enough that it doesn't need to break into our yard to eat. Then don't starve your dog.

They can't (for whatever reasons) feed their dog. You can and you are doing so (or somebody in your household is). It ain't the dog's fault for trying to get to the food that somebody in your household is laying out for them. (I sure hope we've used up this metaphor.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're correct, but I don't see the same level of passion directed at illegal immigrant hirers, in spite of the fact that they are the light that is drawing the moths. (Can I use a moth metaphor?) If you ask me, there is a lot of bigotry and xenophobia being used by some of the politicians trying to exploit this issue.

Yes, I was taking that line in Southern CA, early 90's, with some friends of mine who hired a "damp" friend to take care of her kids. I trod carefully, as I didn't want to hurt our friendship. It's the real Inconvenient Truth. Remember Bobby Inman and his destroyed Secretary Of State (or was it Defense) process that blew up over an illegal?

Yeah, don't get me started about drugs.

Aye, for another thread, if ever.

Whats up, Darth? You're not usually this touchy.

Not unless I am PWD, but I am as much mad at myself for replying to ID as anything else. Guess it came out.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

They're quick? You've given one reference, and it's a city, not a border between countries.

Wrong: it IS a border between countries, namely Spain and Morocco. That city is part of Spain. That's why they need the fence: without it, the city would be overrun with people trying to get assylum status in Europe.

Even so, I recognize that the world is full of hypocrites. That is still not a good reason to alienate people.

This makes no sense. We're not doing any of this in order to piss people off. But them getting pissed off isn't sufficient reason not to do it either, which is my point.

Well, we certainly are welcoming the invaders by giving them jobs, aren't we?

That is indeed a major part of the problem, and yes, we need to do something about that as well.

As you can see above, I disagree that the symptoms are hurting us that much. But we can do a little about internal Mexican problems by letting some of them work here and send money back to Mexico.

And does that do anything to address the root causes? Or does that too merely act as a bandaid on the symptoms?

It ain't the dog's fault for trying to get to the food that somebody in your household is laying out for them.

It doesn't MATTER if it's their fault, that doesn't mean I can't still keep them out of my yard.

 

[BPSCG]

Tricky, I think the biggest difference between your position and mine here is that you seem to think if we deal with one side of the problem - enticing jobs in the US - the problem will go away. Whereas I think we need to do not only that; we need also to deal with the two other sides - the ability of Mexicans to easily get into the US, and the refusal of the elites who run Mexico to do anything to improve its economy. Mexico's economy is not going to get better any time soon, and even if we were to all agree today that employers should be required to verify citizenship - and we,as a nation, are far from agreeeing on that - it would take years to implement such a system. And meanwhile, the borders would remain open, and by the time the employment enforcement provisions were in place, there would be another 12 million here.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, I think the biggest difference between your position and mine here is that you seem to think if we deal with one side of the problem - enticing jobs in the US - the problem will go away. Whereas I think we need to do not only that; we need also to deal with the two other sides - the ability of Mexicans to easily get into the US, and the refusal of the elites who run Mexico to do anything to improve its economy. Mexico's economy is not going to get better any time soon, and even if we were to all agree today that employers should be required to verify citizenship - and we,as a nation, are far from agreeeing on that - it would take years to implement such a system. And meanwhile, the borders would remain open, and by the time the employment enforcement provisions were in place, there would be another 12 million here.

Well, actually the biggest difference between our positions is that I don't agree that illegal immigration is that big of a problem. But if it is a big problem, then I think the best way to attack it is by dealing with the legal US citizens who are enticing them here. They have so much more to lose than the immigrants looking for a better life.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Okay, I know that the Great Wall of China is not the same thing as the proposed fence along the Mexico/US border. Still, when you think that a company can simply tear down a part of something as big as the Great Wall, it makes you wonder about the futility of trying to keep a mere fence intact.

A bad question, Tricky, if you actually want to look at a cost-benefit for a proposed wall. Your phrasing assumes your answer:

Will a wall stop immigration?

Will a police force stop murder/speeding/theft?

Will seatbelts stop accidental death in car accidents?

Will brakes stop road accidents?


None of those questions actually matter; none of them are made in order to start a debate, but appear -- admittedly, this may well not be the intention, but they *appear* -- to merely provide a set-up for a bunch of positional statements, probably made by bumper-sticker slogans.

Your later posts are much more on-point and useful. As always, my opinion only, YMMV.

 

[Tricky]

A bad question, Tricky, if you actually want to look at a cost-benefit for a proposed wall. Your phrasing assumes your answer.

LOL. Well, other than the thread title, the OP doesn't contain a question, other than the sort of snarky one at the end which was intended to be humorous.

Do you think maybe they could find some way to make it a tourist attraction, like the Great Wall?

It was indeed a flat out statement intended to stimulate discussion. I always find that topics do better if you start out with a strident statement.

 

[BPSCG]

It was indeed a flat out statement intended to stimulate discussion. I always find that topics do better if you start out with a strident statement.

Heh. And they call me an *******.

(Actually, they call me a troll when I do that... )

 

[nightwind]

Sure a double fence with sensors like they have in prisons work well. If you stuck in stiff fines for the folks who hire illegals, it would work even better and might not even be needed.

 

[Earthborn]

Depends how high and wide the wall is, doesn't it? I submit that a 3,000-foot high wall would be pretty effective; a 3,000 millimeter one would not.

Really? I challenge you to climb over a 3000 millimeter wall. I think you might find it quite challenging.

 

[Gurdur]

It would be of course factual to point out the differences in history between Mexico and the USA.

Or to point out the maths: unless the USA does something incredibly stupid, while Mexico gets incredibly smart, living standards would always be higher in the USA than in Mexico for the very simple reason that the USA has far more natural resources per capita of population than does Mexico.

But bugger all the facts. Let's just stay with the fun and point out that all those EVIL EVIL EVIL Mexicans are only going home, seeing as to how much land the USA managed to steal off Mexico in years gone by.

What goes round, comes round. Call it karma, baby.

 

[tsg]

Really? I challenge you to climb over a 3000 millimeter wall. I think you might find it quite challenging.

To a person with a lot of motivation, and a 4m ladder, hardly an impediment.

And let's not forget that over is not the only method to get to the other side of a wall. You can also go under, through, or around.