[QUOTE=randyjet]
I can care less about your emotional state which judging from the lack of arguments is about all that you have going for you. I hardly think that observing that fences have different purposes is all that hard to fathom, except for some. A gun in a cops hand is good, one in a crooks hand is bad. The gun is neutral, as is a fence, but it is the purpose of it that matters as well as its effectiveness.
My real point in bring up the new eastern European fence is that they have personal hard experience in using fences to surpress them and their rights. Yet they feel that such a new fence is NOT an infringment of their new found liberty, but a means to secure it. I think that they are right.
[/QUOTE]
No, I didn´t give you an argument, I gave you something to think about.
You came here praising the wall around Eastern Germany as an example of what works, you know why it worked?, could it be the wall and barbed wire?, or the mined, booby-trapped “death strip”? or that it was the most militarized border at the time, or maybe the guards that shooted to kill anyone attempting to cross?. That´s what you defend as a solution to stop illegal immigration and imaginary terrorists???
Yes, imaginary terrorist because so far there hasn´t been a single case of terrorism on the USA commited by people that entered illegaly, now has it?; I´ll tell you why, because as a professional evil doer, if you have two brain cells to rub together you do things legally, why risking getting caught in the middle of the dessert when you can get thorugh legal channels without raising any suspicion?
And by golly!, that´s what happened in every case; coincidence, I don´t think so.
Second argument, the USA needs immigration at far greater rates than it legally accepts. If tomorrow all borders would be shut close with friggin´ laser barriers you´ll have the legislature rushing an expansion of immigration quotas faster than you can say “inflation”. Pretty soon a very large “native” generation would go into retirement and there´ll be need for a young, active working population to keep things going for the aging population.
Third argument, the USA is a nation of immigrants, those whacky moon rockets?, a german was behind that, the same with the bomb that won WWII where by the way, the highest condecorated soldier wasn´t exactly John Smith; these days you´d be hard pressed to read a science article about a new discovery where a good part of the research team (or they parents) weren´t born under the Star Spangled Banner.
Fourth argument, if you want to stop waves of people from escaping from poverty to the promise of a better life you should at least, stop the activities that harm the economies of countries in development, namely the huge subsides in farming activities that send world marked prices to the floor, prices on which a large part of the poor countries base their subsistance. (and to be fair Europe should do the same)
Fifth, how come that all those people coming into the USA find employments?, I mean, what´s the unemployment rate nowadays, 5%?, doesn´t sound like a swamped market too me. Evidently there isn´t a low demand for workers or you´ll be seeing much higher unemployment rates. So people come in, they find a job that nobody was doing and start working.
That is so because employers crave for low paid hands to keep their explenses low and profits high, you don´t like that?, adress the employers not the people to whome they employ. By the way you just raised the street price of many products.
By now, to be honest I don´t want to keep giving arguments why I think a wall is a simplistic, innefective immigration policy; I´d rather go back to the workbench and do something more productive.