So, the fact that there aren’t large numbers of migrants coming in from Canada makes terrorists & smugglers less likely to come through its long, totally unfortified border with the USA? non sequitur.
NOT at all. It is really easy to spot somebody in an open field when they are relatively isolated. If there are a couple of hundred other folks around them, it becomes impossible to spot terrorists and impossible to catch any significant portion of illegals, much less suspected terrorists… THAT is the BIG difference. I would agree that back when we had 40,000 illegals/yr, it would make NO sense to spend 1 billion dollars to stop them. Hell, we could just as well bribe them to stay on the other side with that kind of money.THAT is NOT the case now, and the security factor has made it worth it after 9/11.
It’s not a border security problem, it’s an economic problem. Much as I hate to admit it, Bush is right on this one, although I don’t believe his motives have anything to do w/ altruism.
Walls didn’t work in Britain, China, France or Germany and they’re not going to work in Israel or here.
The cost of building a wall doesn’t stop when the wall is complete, it just begins and it has ramifications that most of us haven’t even considered.
Building walls is the solution of small minds who are either incapable, or afraid, to deal w/ the real problems.
America has be touting and flaunting her wealth and power for over half a century and there are now a billion and a half people in the world who live their entire lives in abject poverty. We must deal w/ providing hope for a better life for these people, or we will eventually pay the price for our materialism while more than a quarter of the world’s population starves.
Building walls only confirms that we are the haves and they are the have nots, an attitude that people like Mao, Ho Che Minh and now Bin Laden exploit very effectively.
To use a well worn phrase, it’s time to think outside the box, or we will find ourselves prisoners in the box.
I thought it was a crap idea that would never work, but now THAT it’s been EXPLAINED to me IN arguments CONTAINING seemingly random CAPITALISATION, I’m all for it!
I mean, what is the assertion here? That it would be totally ineffective, but somehow better than nothing? I’m not even convinced of that - if there were no costs involved in constructing and maintaining it, if there would be no sense of false security generated by it, then maybe it would be better than nothing, but that isn’t the case.
The facts are that the border fences have proved to be effective and the opponents even have the GALL to complain about the ineffective fences being so ineffective that they “force” the poor illegals to cross into worse terrain. Now that is a real non sequitur. If they were so ineffective, why are they crossing where the terrain is to their disadvantage? Just go over the fence instead! Now if the opponents of the fence can figure that argument out I would love to hear it.
I said that the fence will slow down, and act as a barrier to most of the illegals. Nothing is absolutely fool proof, as much of the discussion has proved. I have been on both sides of the Berlin Wall and the borders in Eastern Europe and I can tell you that the fences were indeed very effective. Did they stop ALL of the people from coming across to the West? No, but they did what they were designed to do which is to deter 99.8% of the people who wished to leave. That is an accomplishment of sorts. The motivation for people coming across to the West was FAR greater than that of any of the illegals coming across our borders. They do not run the risk of being shot and killed, nor long prison terms if caught.
It is a stupid argument to say that if the fence is not 100% effective in stopping all illegals, then it should not be built. I know of no decision of any kind that is made on such a basis. From deciding on whether to have an operation for a disease, to whether or not to wear seat belts one can always argue the fact that anything will not be 100% so why do it. Also one can argue that since there are airplane crashes, air travel is unsafe and one should not fly. I don’t think that many of the naysayers on this board run their lives in that fashion, and I don’t see why our country should decide policy on such a basis either.
Don’t kid yourself, this proposed fence would do nothing to stop terrorism. Even if the fence was 100% secure, people will still be crossing at ports of entry. I can’t believe that terrorist organizations do not have the ability to make a convincing enough counterfeit passport. So if we have 5000 people today crossing illegally to find work and 1 terrorst crosing today, that fence would stop most of the 5000 looking for work but for the terrorist the fence would simply force a change in strategy.
[QUOTE=A.R. Cane]
It’s not a border security problem, it’s an economic problem. Much as I hate to admit it, Bush is right on this one, although I don’t believe his motives have anything to do w/ altruism.
Walls didn’t work in Britain, China, France or Germany and they’re not going to work in Israel or here.
The facts of history and common sense are that walls do indeed work quite well which is why we build so many of them around prisons, our homes and property and the like. Hadrian’s Wall did indeed keep out the Scots from invading Britain. Rome fell from within, not from without, and that would be the real cautionary tale. The Great Wall of China worked for a time but was foiled by incompetence and complacency. In France the Maginot Line worked so well that the Germans never penetrated it in WWII. Unfortunately, they did not make it long enough and modern weaponry made such fixed forts a liability rather than an asset. The Berlin Wall worked very well from my personal observation. Very few people got across it and you can count the number on your digits. Compared to what it was before the Wall, it was a major improvement for the rulers there.
Hopefully, we will get some resolution to the NAFTA problem so that so many people from south of the border do not wish to leave home, and the fence will eventually go away when it is no longer appropriate. Also, the problem of terrorism will eventually be solved and the fence will no longer be needed. Nothing in this world is forever except change. We have to adapt to the changing circumstances and times as required. We had a 10 million Armed Forces in WWII. I don’t think anybody would complain about that, nor do I think that anybody would complain that we reduced its size dramatically once the war was over. There was no argument that on principle we should either have or not have 10 million people under arms. You do what is needed for the times and place in a rational manner. So far I have not seen much rational thinking on this subject. At least I get to have some entertainment to see how far some are willing to go.
I wish that people would think about the problem of actually catching the numbers of illegals crossing. Since we don’t shoot them, that means that a BP agent must individually grab or detain them. This results in about a 25% or less capture rate of the observed illegals crossing. A fence will significantly cut down the numbers of illegals and make it less manpower intensive. It will also free up more agents for ferreting out the more determined and dangerous illegals and drug smugglers and terrorists.
With biometrics coming into use, the forged passports and visas are more unlikely to be successful. As I said, nothing will be 100% effective, but we can shift the odds in our favor. It is obvious that having 10,000 BP agents going up against 1 million illegals does not yeild good odds for stopping terrorists. Having the BP go up against 2-3,000 illegals who do break through gives us a real advantage. We have more people to deploy to stop the major threats. YOu can have all the force multipliers in the world, but it still takes people to make things work. The same is true of a fence and border security.
You do realize that most of the US/Canada border is “in an open field”, don’t you? Well, forest, anyway. Most of the border area is completely unoccupied. All a terrorist or illegal immigrant would have to do is hike-- a long hike, yes, but not impossible to do.
Secondly, if terrorism is really your concern, you ought to be more worried about the Canadian border. Their lax asylum policy makes it more likely a threat would come from there.
Never happen. There is no way to “solve” terrorism. There will always be people who hate us and since they can’t beat us in a conventional war, they’ll use bombs and civilian lives to get their points across.
Yeah, they just went around it.
Let’s make the massive assumption that you’re right, and the fence will stop the illegals from crossing from Mexico. What about the other 40% of illegal aliens who never cross the Mexican border. You know, the ones from Canada, and the visa-overstayers?
Secondly, I do not believe for a moment that the fence will stop anyone determined to cross. The second it’s completeled, there will be tunnels built under it, holes cut into it, and ladders propped against it. All they will have to do is time the patrols, which would give them a space in which to work. Wait until the patrol is gone, cut a hole in the fence, and herd a crowd of people through it.
Give them a little credit for intelligence, here.
Food for thought;
Should there even be a BP then? Fence or no fence, they’ll just wait till the BP leaves and then run for it, over the fence or through the tunnels.
400,000 illegals a year.
13 years since the first attack on the WTC.
5.2 Million guys slip through and not one bomb in a mall? Not one shipment of bottled water that’s been laced with cyanide?
-Joe
I really don’t understand the fence idea. No matter how tough the fence is, people are going to find a way to get over/under/through it unless there are armed guards posted at regular intervals to stop them. But if we need the guards anyway, why not forget the fence and just put up regular guard stations? It would be much cheaper, wouldn’t disrupt wildlife, and it would be no more or less effective. I think certain people just like the image of a giant wall between “us” and “them.”
Once again most folks try and ignore the facts that fencing of proper design does indeed work. It worked very well in Europe in keeping the eastern Europeans in their communist states. They had even more incentive to get out and it was a lot more dangerous than anything that is proposed. There were indeed escapes and breeching of the border fences there, but it worked 99.9% of the time. We now have NO such thing on our border and we have our laws flouted at will. The BP gets maybe 20% of the illegals who try and cross. Most intelligent folks would consider going from 20% to 99% a major improvement. Sorry so many flunked basic logic.
The resources would be freed up to do patrols on the more sophisticated illegals instead of having the BP go on chases across the desert. THAT takes a lot of manpower to do that. Sorry that most can’t see that. We have ground penetrating radar that can detect tunnelling among other items. WE don’t have the resources with NO fence to do an efficient job of that among many other items that are being forced into less productive areas.
I am hardly concerned about those who overstay visas since we know who they are and they have been screened. That is a small problem. It is also a thing that freeing up more agents from doing desert chases can address as well. WE can then also have more resources that can be devoted to the northern border.
Randy, when you start using Easter Germany as a model for walls you should really stop a minute and think what you are advocating to become; for starters a walled up country should seriously think about changing it´s motto of “Land of the Free home of the Brave” to something else.
I’m with the OP on this one. Not for the terrorist issue (I don’t think there is one here) but for all the issues the OP has otherwise brought up.
The BP apparently doesn’t work either, should we drop them or beef them up? The same could be said about a fence, should there be any at all if they can be circumvented? At least with a fence you know where they could cross (at the fence line, duh!) , with no fence the whole area becomes one big ambiguous line in the sand. With a fence the border patrol wouldn’t have to run zig-zag patterns looking for illegals, they could monitor the actual fence itself and then adress any possible breachs. Lots less work.
If y’all wanna build a fence along the Canadian border, just go right ahead. I will try to resist the urge to pat you on the head and giggle over the silliness of it all. I do have one question though - for the portion of the border that runs through the Great Lakes, will the fence be a floating structure? What about the dangers of terrorists with submarines going under the fence? Oh, and what about when it snows in the mountains in BC and the fence is completely covered? Skiing terrorists could go right over it, couldn’t they? Wait. That’s four questions. Sorry. But I really think you should build this fence, cuz I’d find it very entertaining. And really, what is the point of US immigration policy if not to entertain me? Oops. Five questions. I’ll stop now. Really.
Randi You do realize that the Berlin Wall “worked”, because people were shot when they tried to cross it, right? You do realize that part of the reason the wall came down, was because it was a tangible symbol of the “evil empire” and all that was wrong with it?
The way to reduce the amount of illegals, is to help their countries do better. tha IMHO would be a lot cheaper than building and maintaining walls.
YMMV…of course.
“Fence” is such an ugly word! Call it a “Friendship Wall”! 
What about “Freedom Fence”?
Land of the heavily surveilled and home of those cowering behind doors duct-taped with plastic sheeting?
-Joe