No, it’s not the one in Israel. It’s the one in Texas. At least according to our Southern neighbors.
I’m not sure what I think about this wall, but this really irritates me:
THEIR citizens are, in massive numbers, breaking the law, but WE’RE the ones who are intolerable, offensive, racist, disgraceful. You’d think the Latin American governments would be a bit ashamed at how many of their citizens are fleeing their countries – and, again, breaking the law. Incredible.
Thoughts?
The people who hire them are breaking the law, yet I see no massive push to toss them in prison. This is all about racism and class hatred, not the e-vul immigrants coming here and “stealing jobs” that Americans don’t want anyway.
Well, you know, the vast majority of Americans got to the areas in which they now live by “breaking the law.” How many treaties with Native Americans were passed into law, and summarily broken when it was discovered the Natives had some pretty cool shit on the land we “let” them keep?
Secondly, the wall is an insult-- to the intelligence of Mexicans, that is. Does some moron really think that will keep them out? Where there’s a will, there’s a way, after all.
Thirdly, I think there is a healthy dose of racism stirred into this mess. There are a lot of Canadians living here illegally, and I don’t see a massive push to build a wall or strengthen our borders on that side.
No, the vast majority of Americans got the areas in which they now live by being born in the area.
It’s true that previous generations of Americans have broken many agreements, and done many things that were much worse (coughslaverycough). But I don’t think that means the current generation of Americans should be barred from enforcing the laws.
Or do Americans get to cite the massacres at the Alamo, Chiapas, and Tlatelolco as reasons Mexico shouldn’t object when Americans massacre Mexicans? (Egad, I hope not.)
I don’t think the purpose of the wall is to keep them out all by itself. It’s to make it more difficult to get across, and thus make it easier for a limited number of Border Patrol troops to guard the US’s enormous Southern border. It takes longer to dig under or climb over a wall than it does to just walk across that plot of land. So presumably, it will give Border Patrol agents a better chance to catch people trying to cross that plot of land.
Obviously, some people are racist, and some people are against illegal immigration on that basis. But there are a number of reasons that I don’t think this comparison stands up.
First, illegal immigrants from Canada are deported, just like illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Second, the number of Canadian illegal immigrants is significantly smaller. According to this Canadian study [warning – .pdf file, so it requires Adobe Acrobat reader], there were 47,000 Canadian citizens living in America without authorization in 2000; there were 4.8 million Mexicans. In fact, the study estimates that there were 14 countries with more unauthorized visitors in the US than Canada.
Third, according to the same study, the ways in which the Mexican and Canadian citizens entered the country differed substantially. Specifically, the vast majority of Mexicans entered illegally and without authorization (986,294 vs. 2,095). On the other hand, the majority of Canadians are given lawful entry (and thus are inspected prior to entry, and are capable of being monitored during their stay) and then overstay their entry permits (1,786 vs. 1,446).
I can’t say I’m terribly enthused about building a wall along our Southern border – I guess if the states want to do that, that’s their business, but I’m against the federal government doing it – but I don’t think it’s primarily motivated by racism.
American attitudes to immigration are kinda schizophrenic, to be honest. That the American economy as a whole benefits greatly from illegal immigration is indisputable, yet the Government is perpetually concocting increasingly hardline schemes to stop it. Why? Is it just to appease anti-immigration public opinion? If so, maybe those same tax dollars going towards the 700 mile long monument to xenophobia may be better spent giving Joe Minuteman a few quick lessons in basic economics and social studies.
The most basic case for loose immigration controls runs thusly: There are a great many jobs in America which do not pay well enough to attract the attention of all but the most desperate unemployed American workers. Consequently, there is a huge market for people who will actually consent to watching some WASP’s brattish kids for $800.00 a month or picking strawberry’s for three bucks an hour. The demand is there. Consequently, a great many illegal immigrants who seek nothing more than to better themselves through their own labour will attempt to enter America to fill this demand.
“But”, you may ask “Why can’t the desperate housewives and strawberry farmer’s just increase the wages they’re willing to pay for the jobs they want done? That would surely attract American workers and reduce the need for illegal immigrants”. Well, I suppose they could, but it wouldn’t be good for the economy.
Currently, the wages paid to illegal immigrants for things like babysitting and gardening and suchlike are low enough that the affluent middle class can easily afford them. Force these people to hire American workers at minimum wage and all these potential suburbanite employers will find themselves unable to afford the help. They’ll have to look after their own kids (in which case they’ll be less likely to work, earn their own money, and pump that back into the economy) and tend their own gardens *(thereby forcing them to divert money into gardening which may otherwise have gone on the things they really want).
The strawberry manufactures will have to up the price of their strawberries to pay for the wage hike, which means they’ll sell less, which means their profit margins will fall, which means the very first thing they’ll do after hiring all these American workers will be to fire fire a good percentage of them, thus lowering the overall size of the workforce.
I think the hysteria surrounding illegal immigration is stupid, and the laws need a radical overhaul. Hence, I think the erecting of a giant blockade along the US-Mexico border is unnecessary, stupid, and, yes, offensive. Especially in light of the benefits that the U.S. reaps from immigration. It’s like the Government is using the illegals as a political punching bag in public when we all know that they’re thanking their lucky stars for them in privare, like when the time comes to add up all the receipts.
That’s the basic question for me - will it actually work?
There is, however, an increasing amount of evidence that a profusion of illegal immigrants can take a drastic toll on the coding skills of the native population. :smack:
No, not barred. I undertand perfectly well that we need law and order to function as a society. It’s just that illegal immigration is not a new issue, by any means. Not only did we unlawfully seize land from the Natives, but we also always imported cheap laborers from other nations-- the Chinese in California are a perfect example, and they came by sea. (With the same hand-wringing commentary as today’s illegal immigrants inspire, I might add.)
It just strikes me that an enormous emount of resources and time is being expended on this issue when there are much worse social problems.
It’s telling that we’re not so concerned about the idea that people are stealthily entering our country-- we’re upset that they’re living here. To me, the idea that terrorists could slip across the boarder basically at will is much more worrisome than illegal families settling in our nation.
Accordingly, it strikes me that equal attention should be paid to both north and south borders. That it’s not speaks volumes to me. We’re not worried about security. We’re worried about a lot of brown people moving into our neighborhood.
Well, a fence would do the same thing, wouldn’t it? Why a wall? Walls have certain, unavoidable, connotations to them, and I don’t think that it’s in spite of them that this idea has some momentum.
Eh, maybe. It might slow them down a little, but I don’t think it would be as effective as you think.
Unless the wall is built into the ground, digging under it wouldn’t be very laborious, and a lot of people can squeeze through the same hole. How long would it exist before Border Patrol agents found it? Secondly, if the wall is not perfectly continuous, its just a matter of driving to the edge. To those who have made up their minds to leave behind their lives and settle in a new country, this isn’t that big an obstacle.
Yeah, but they “blend in” better, meaning they have a better chance of staying. They probably don’t have any language barriers, and they “look American.” Probably, no one every would question them, if they had a decent fake ID. I know of some people who look at every Hispanic person they see and wonder if they’re here illegaly.
I would be interested to know the number of visas given to Canadians versus the number given to Canadians (and the number of applications from each.)
You are gonna need a pile of cites for this, I grew up in a migrant labor heavy town with alot of strawberries and other fruits/veggies. They all work on production, X amount per box they pick. If they put some effort into it $10-$12 an hour is not unknown and around $8 is pretty common.
You are missing a key element, time. Most of those farmer have a very small window, sometimes as little as a week or two to get a crop picked and off to a distributor. If they don’t pick on time, they lose everything because their stuff is no longer saleable. As is many farmers offer more than other farms to try and get their stuff picked earlier, and don’t think for a second that the workers don’t know who pays the best. The farmers you probably hear crying the loudest are usually the ones offering the least money, growing the poorest quality product, and trying to squeeze every penny out of their minimal outlay in labor and materials.
I agree with this, to a point.
Again, I agree that security is a large concern. But I disagree that people are more concerned about illegals living here than coming here. I think since 9/11, the conservative argument has been primarily about security, and incidentally about economic effects. (Bush’s proposed amnesty program is one example of a conservative program that seems to show almost no concern for the people that are already here).
And trust me when I tell you that there are plenty of conservative articles out there complaining about the fact that no one is prosecuting the people that are hiring the illegals. Frankly, I think that would be a much more effective way to combat illegal immigration.
Three comments about this.
First, as I said, the concern is primarily toward our Souther border because the vast majority of the problem is along our Southern border. It would be a waste of resources to devote equal attention both the north and south, when more than 1000% more people are coming across the Southern border. This is due in large part to the fact that the countries to our South are more poverty-stricken, as well as the fact that there are a lot more countries and people to our South.
Second, Canada’s immigration policies are more technologically advanced and thorough than many Latin American countries. Thus, we trust Canada to be more thorough than (for example) Guatamala in determining who may and may not enter their borders, and then sneaking across our own borders.
Third, the Southerners and conservatives I know don’t care if the people in their neighborhoods are brown, black, or pink. They care about security, the economy, and crime. Race is a red herring. (Obviously, this isn’t true for everyone, but it is for the vast majority of people.)
I think it would be a fence (most likely chain-link, for cost reasons). I believe it’s being called a wall because of the connotations. Its connotation is a nice point of opposition for the folks who oppose the wall (who think it sounds ominous), as well as a nice selling point for the folks in favor of the wall (who think it sounds more secure).
I don’t think it would be absolutely effective. I do think it would be more effective than the current situation. I honestly have no idea how much more effective.
Absolutely true. But the point is just to give the agents more time to spot the folks crossing, as well as to bottle-neck them into specific areas (i.e., around the holes in the fence). And they can always fill in whatever holes they find.
Presumably, the agents will know where the edges are, too. So they’ll have a better idea of where people will be trying to cross.
I know people like that, too. But in my experience, they are the exception by a long, long ways. And almost all of them are over the age of 60.
That’s an interesting question, but I’m afraid I don’t know the answer. Anyone?
You know, the Berlin Wall was a great move of International friendship and assured both sides of their mutal respect and good intentions. The warm relations between East and West Germany are exactly the kind of friendship we should persue with our neighbors to the south.
Well, if it has the same result, the U.S. won’t have to annex Mexico. The two will just merge.
The wall that Israel recently built illegally through the middle of Palestinian territory is not a wall. It’s a “security barrier”, or at least that’s what you have to call it if you’re writing in the New York Times. Why don’t we solve our little public relations problem by similar means? That’s no wall going up between the United States and Mexico. It’s a “job security barrier”.
On a more serious note, anyone who says
is either very idiotic or hasn’t been to Latin America recently. I would hazard a guess that Latin american public opinion is slightly more incensed by:
The United States destroying the democratic government of Guatemala and installing a murderous dictatorship.
The United States destroying the government of Chile and installing a murderous dictatorship.
The United States attempting to destroy the democratic government of Venezuela and install a dictatorship.
The United States backing the brutal right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia.
Pat Robertson demanding that the lawfully elected president of a Latin American
country be murdered.
America’s destructive drug policy.
America’s hypocritical stance on free trade, and using the WTO and World Bank to bully Latin American countries.
Perhaps a deal can be worked out whereby the United States government will be ashamed of those seven items in exchange for the Latin American governments being ashamed of their citizens crossing a border. (Though how an abstract entity can be ashamed is escaping me at the moment.)
This might have relevence if the wall was being built to keep people** in.** It’s rather unremarkable to build barriers to keep people out.
Heck, at least give the US credit for not going the whole razor-wire-and-watchtowers route
Just wait until this fails ( and it will, even if US companies have to dig large tunnels or “accidentally” knock over a major section with a bulldozer ). I wouldn’t be surprised if the southern border ends up a concrete wall with land mines and automated body heat targeted machine guns.
Absurd.
I don’t know whether the wall will work or not. I tend to think that it may slow things down a bit, but people will still find a way to get in. Still, I don’t understand why anyone has a problem with the US wanting to control its border with Mexico. No one has a right to enter the US illegally.
I’m all for cracking down on employers who hire illegals, but how exactly do you do that? And, more importantly, how exactly do you do it without screams of DISCRIMINATION from the left? If the punishment is severe enough, employers just won’t hire anyone with brown skin for fear of being prosecuted.
I think the wall WILL work for its real purpose, which has nothing to do with keeping out illegal immigrants and everything to do with pandering to redneck voters.
I should add that I don’t expect the wall to be built at all… I think it’s an attempted wedge issue for the next election cycle, and there’ll be a lot of shouting about it, and then it’ll just go away, kind of like the flah burning amendment back in the 90s.
:rolleyes: Have you actually ever BEEN to the South West? Do you realize the scale of construction you’d need even to build this stupid ass fence…let alone your fevered fantasy??
This fence is yet another stupid idea to bandaid the problem instead of fixing the underlieing causes. Its there to spend money and appear to be ‘doing something’ about things, and thus will fulfill its REAL purpose…getting votes for the slimy dog politicians that authorize it. Anyone who has actually BEEN to the border will immediately see that at best it might delay or even temporarily stop a small number of illegal types coming in. Which will have the same effect on stopping drugs coming in…which is to say little or none.
-XT
It certainly is disputable. See:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters91bf
“A 1996 study by an Iowa State agricultural economist concluded that “The removal of illegal workers from the seasonal agricultural workforce would increase the summer-fall supermarket prices of fresh fruits and vegetables by about 6 percent in the short run and 3 percent in the intermediate term.” During winter-spring seasons, the cost increase from relying on our native labor force and legal temporary workers would be only about half as much.”
The American economy does benefit from Bracero workers yes, but only about 40% of bracero workers are illegal.
Next- Ag workers aren’t paid that low as drachillix mentioned. And- in general- illegals aren’t paid less than other bracero workers. It is true that many employers don’t take any real precautions to prevent illegals on their workforce. But if they get raided, the employer can usually get out of fines or arrest by saying "I didn’t know he was illegal! :eek: ". IF an employer tried paying illegals half that of legals, then that’d be solid evidence he knew they were illegals, and he’d get into serious trouble for hiring them.
As to schizophrenic attitudes and hypocrisy- I point to Mexico itself- and it’s politicians. They always claim that the USA is being racist, and we should open the borders. But Mexico itself has a very rigorous anti-illegal-immegrant policy itself- being quite nasty to illegals from Mexico’s even poorer neighbors to the south. And there is also the fact that US citizens can’t buy or own real property in Mexico. Let’s try that here, eh? “No Mexican national can own real estate in the USA”. :rolleyes: The screams of RACISM would be loud and fast.