But he USED capital LETTERS, so it has to count for something… 
I get a laugh out of this one. The border on those countries at the time was not only a border, but the front line in the Cold War with massive armies on either side. I don’t think we need to send the Airborne in to secure us against an attack from Mexico’s Army. Though I did see a report of a conference in Mexico for the reconquest of the areas of the southwest US sponsored by the Mexican government. So maybe it is not so funny.
It is if you have even a shaky grasp of reality. Militarily/economically/powerwise America >>>>>>>>> Mexico.
Oh, I’m sure you can find some crazies who’d like to try; so what ? Should we fear conquest by Liechtenstein as well ?
Thank you for demonstrating that your own claim about the viability of fences is so much balderdash. Do you often laugh when you prove your own specious arguments false?
The Israelis seem to think a fence works:
Security Fence
A Washington Times editorial on the EU fence and some other comments about fences being used in other places.
Fence hypocrisy
A fence itself will not keep people out. It has to be used in combination with other preventative measures to be effective. A found a well balanced article here:
LA Times
This argument makes no sense to me. Should we keep bringing in more and more people to support the earlier generation as they retire until we have the population of India? Who then supports them when they get old? Wouldn’t it make more sense to set an upper limit on how many people you want in a country and then make policies such as extending the retirement age, so that the burden on younger people is decreased?
Uh, pretty much the whole world is a nation of immigrants. We all started from someplace and ended up somewhere else thoughout history. Why is it so important that everyone must have a chance to move there? Is it wrong for those already there to set limits on who else can now come?
Most of the problems that most countries face are home grown ones. This works both ways. A farmer in Mexico may have a hard time competing with his american counterpart, but a worker in a US factory may have a hard time competing with that guy on the southside of the border in wages.
Does this make illegal immigration okay in your books? So, if I’m late for work and decide to double the speed limit to get there I can use economic hardship as a reason for breaking the law?
Or, what you may have done by using lower paid workers in order to remain competative is to stifle innovation. Why find a better way of doing things when you can hire a bunch of low paid workers to do it the old way?
You seem to be quite insistent that claims of fences working are balderdash. Am I correct in assuming that you are of the opposite opinion, that they do not work?
If not, what is your position on the efficacy of fences?
If you are of the opinion that they do not work, do you have any support for that position?
You don’t grasp the point. We aren’t breeding very fast, and have distorted age demographics thanks to the Baby Boom; bringing in more people helps maintain the balence between old and young, and won’t cause a massive population boom because we’re not breeding very fast.
Their own children or more immigrants.
If the old were immortal and eternally young, that would work. They aren’t and it won’t.
Prove it.
Speeding endangers people; speed laws are primarily about safety. Immigration laws are primarily about politics and racism, not safety. Nor is some guy trying to feed his family killing people by harvesting fruit.
Not to mention, keeping your family from starving has a far higher moral value than most laws; if it’s the only way to help his or her family, a worker has not only the moral right but the moral duty to break a law as arbitrary as immigration law.
Your population is rising continuously. Is that a good thing? Or would it make sense to keep the population static? Maybe immigration should be used to keep it at a static rate. Illegal immigration removes your ability to control things.
People live longer than they used to. In many industries people can work until they are older. Why shouldn’t they if they can?
Most of the poorest countries of the world cultural similarities: They tend to be collectivist in nature, tribal, and the power distance ratios tend to be large. Countries that are more successful tend to have smaller family units and are more individualistic. This is a general trend. There are exceptions. France has high power distance ratios, and Japan is very collectivist. The culture of a country is internal, not forced upon them from the outside.
Read the below book for more info:
‘Culture and Organications’ Geert Hofstede ISBN 0-07-029307-4
You have no proof that by my speeding I am endangering anyone. Just some statistics that says I am more liable to do so.
Immigration laws are completely about politics. It is about a government deciding who should be allowed to come into your country. How could it be anything other than about politics?
Well, I’m driving to work to keep my family from starving. Satisfied?
BTW, how many people are actually starving to death in Mexico? Is it more or less than anywhere else? Just wondering.
I am not insistent on any point other than that randyjet has failed to prove his assertion and that his attempts to dismiss other responses while failing to provide evidence of his claims displays a certain odd disconnect.
The Iron Curtain fence did tend to work–at the extreme expense of a heavily guarded border with minefields and shoot-to-kill orders for the the many soldiers employed to guard it. I suspect that simply throwing an expensive fence across the entire border of Arizona and New Mexico without a similar investment in manpower (at the least) will have little effect and his constant dismissal of objections posted by others does nothing to persuade me that he has a clue as to its actual effectiveness.
Hypocresy?
I don´t have time to adress all other points, but that is misleading; as bad as the fences on other countries are they don´t extend beyond their borders as the Israeli security fence does, effectively grabing palestine land; there´s no comparation between that and other cases presented on the Washington Post you linked where ,by some innocent mistake I´m sure, the author failed to mention that little, insignificant detail realted to the legallity of that fence.
You can bet that if the EU fence went as much as 20 kilometers into Russian territory you could hear a loud outcry.
I was addressing the notion that fences can, in fact, work. Whether the fence is illegally installed should be irrelevant to that argument. Back to the point, obviously if you put a fence up and don’t patrol it, either electronically or physically, it wouldn’t take longer than the time to cut a hole in it with your wire snips to defeat it. But, if you do patrol it then it can be quite effective.
Now for the hard part. Do you think that the Border Patrol will be more effective WITH a fence or without, given the same numbers of agents? Einstein never did an experiment in his life except in school maybe. He did what he called thought experiments. This question does not require the genius of Einstein, but simple common sense. Most people know the answer to that since the fencing supplies at Home Depot are a big and popular item. How you answer that question will determine your view on constructing the border fence.
The popularity of residential fences has absolutely nothing to do with whether a fence around the border is a good idea. People put them up in their yards for entirely different reasons.
Here’s a question for you: if your house was entirely surrounded by a fence, would you then leave all of your doors and windows unlocked?
My fence doesn’t keep that damn cat from next door out of my yard. I put it up to keep my dogs in the yard, and it didn’t even work for that-- one of them dug a hole and slid beneath it.
Obviously you didn’t take note of our Iron Curtain role-models, some land mines and snipers would’ve soon increased the effectiveness of your fence.
I wonder if implementing “shoot-to-kill” orders would actually save lives, by reducing the number of people trying to go across the deserts in unhealthy conditions.
(Leaving aside questions of resource allocation: spending money on fence-making and -guarding that could otherwise be used on health and law enforcement.)
Despite your lame attempt at sarcasm, your thought experiment is not merely one of “common sense” (which is most fortuitously defined as “the sum total of one’s prejudices”).
Clearly, the presence of “a” fence will prevent more crossings than the lack of a fence, regardless of border patrols. However, if you wish to expound on this fence as the panacaea for all the ills of illegal immigration, you need to figure in the total cost.
First, there is the expense of erecting it across 1,900 miles of river, mountain, and desert. Then there is the expense of constantly repairing it (unless you wish to embark on the greater expense of guard towers across the entire length, to begin with). There are the decisions to make regarding whether this fence will be run down the center of the Rio Grande (an expensive engineering challenge) or whether we will simply run it down the land bordering the river, cutting U.S. citizens off from legal access to the river for various activities. There are decisions to be made regarding the impact on wildlife. And there are decisions to be made regarding whether the actual expense (with ongoing maintenance and constant repair) would be cheaper than or more expensive than the perceived cost to the country of illegal immigration. And, of course, once it is up and has begun to swallow more money in constant repair, there is going to be more pressure to “defend” it with deadly force. It would be well to include those sorts of calculations in the expense when one is pretending to use “common sense” to blithely say “Put up a fence.”
I actually have no strong feeling on the topic. If someone wishes to propose a well-thought out plan to erect a fence, I will consider it. I do object to your simply using a lot of unsupported hand-waving to insist that your vision must be correct when a review of your arguments demonstrates little more than that you have fixated upon an unconsidered idea (that does not rise to the level of a “plan”) and the way in which you have expressed your simplistic idea with insulting dismissials and evasions of the actual objections raised, along with a pretty poor grasp of actual history.
I have the same problem with my Belgian Shepherd mix, Natalie Ann. She has climbed a seven foot cyclone fence and digs out from the six foot welded wire fence too. So we have to keep her in the house when we leave since she WILL get out if we are gone.
The point being that you adapt your fencing to what the fence is supposed to accomplish. If I wished to spend lot of money, I guess I could keep my house unlocked if I didn’t have a dog. We don’t bother locking it with a 100# dog in the place while we are gone. I am more worried about her getting out than somebody getting in. Any crooks had better pray that she does NOT get out.
How royal of you to consider such a plan. The thing is that one will be built no matter your opinion since both Houses of Congress have made provisions for one to be built.
I wish that such measures were not needed since it may well cut off the river from legitimate uses which I do enjoy. The fence will not be built in the river despite your idea. The large lakes along the border will not require such fencing either since it can be patrolled in any case by boats and observation posts and I would not appreciate being cut off from using those lakes.
AS for the cost, as I said in an ealier post, back in 86 when the first real amnesty went through the illegals numbered about 40,000/yr. Clearly spending several billions of dollars to put up such a fence to stop that number of illegals made no sense and which is why it was not done. Now it is much different with up to one million illegals/yr or Sen. Kennedy’s figure of 400,000/yr. Having been on the border for years, I think that is a very low figure. Such numbers do make that expenditure worth it, and not to mention the fact of 9/11 which also makes it imperative to seal the border to illegal entries.
I also know that my grasp of history is far better than yours. Again you just state something with nothing to back it up. So there! WE can argue like grade school kids!
Just a quick question. How many Mexican states rebelled against the Santa Ana dictatorship at the same time as Texas did? Another one, what did the battle flag at the Alamo have on it? It had a year on it and what was its significance?
Assuming the drug runners haven’t already punched a hole in it with an Army surplus tank.