Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
Do you really think that your 'sovereignty' is being threatened out there in Tennessee? I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.
Let me tell you why the 'fence' idea is not only stupid for being a total waste of money but would actually do more harm than good in social and environmental but more importantly, economic terms.
You (or who ever it was) hit the nail on the head when you said the fence is basically just 'window dressing'. It really does not serve any useful purpose other than to look like a 'Potemkin village'. The only measurable effect it has is to shift people from one area to another. But the simple truth is, the fence is in fact effective. But the effect is not the intended one.
It would seem logical to think that if we built the fence ALL the way across the border then there would be no place for people to cross illegally, right?
Totally wrong. Ever heard of the tunnels they've found in San Diego and Mexicali. They'll start finding those elsewhere. Also, consider that almost half of the border is formed by the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo in Mexico) so what should we do, build the fence in the middle of a river? Briliant! I'm sure we can leave that up to the Army Corps of Engineers. They did such a bang up job with New Orleans, they can't miss.
Now consider the REALLY important aspect of this issue. Economics. Throughout the border region, which consists of 4 US states and 6 Mexican ones, there are a total of fourteen sister cities which share the border. They go from San Diego/Tijuana all the way to Brownsville/Matamoros. These cities, not to mention all the small towns in the region, have a population in the tens of millions many of whom depend on cross-border buisness (of the legal variety mind you) for their livlihood. Tens of thousands of these folks live on one side and work on the other (legally and for a decent salary), and it's not a case of ONLY Mexicans doing so. Many Americans willingly work in Mexico and for a short time, I was one of them.
Building a fence (or adding all the 'tech' crap they want to) is going to make the daily 'comute' all the more complicated. It will also increase the tension and negative feelings across the border.
But lets look at the numbers and you can draw your own conclusions about how the fence will effect things:
As of 2006, there were a total of 67 existing or proposed border crossing, most of them in Texas.
These border crossings saw 52 million passenger vehicles cross the border carrying 105 million people.
They also saw 25 million pedestrians cross the border.
2.8 million cargo trucks crossed the border. Laredo being the most common crossing point.
5,800 trains crossed on the dozen or so rail lines that cross the border.
The total trade (in dollars) that went IN to Mexico totaled $116 billion US.
The total trade (in dollars) that came IN to the US totaled $155 billion.
US-Mexico Trade Data by District Port
RITA | BTS | Transtats
Not only are there places where one can cross the border by land, but there are dozens of ports and airports that serve the border region. Little known fact: Houston is Mexico's largest port. Seriously.
Now, do you think that this economic activity is going to be POSITIVELY impacted by building a fence? I don't.
The economy of the border region is one of the fastest growing in the US or Mexico, while the average level of income is lower than anywhere else in the US and only slightly higher than in other regions of Mexico. For example, McAllen, Texas is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US, but has the lowest per capita income in the US. Building a physical barrier is only going to hurt the regions economy and given the state of the US economy these days, I think we need all the help we can get.
Stopping economic growth is NOT the way to fix a recession. |
If I am understanding you correctly, your arguments seem to be as follows:
(1) America's national sovereignty cannot be threatened in states that do not border Mexico;
(2) A physical fence would do "social" and "environmental" harm;
(3) "[M]ore importantly," such a fence would have a negative economic impact upon the US; and "we need all the help we can get"; and
(4) Such a fence would prove an inconvenience to those who work--even legally--on the opposite side of the border.
To which, it seems reasonable to respond as follows:
(1) If Mexican (or Guatemalan, or any other non-American) citizens are empowered, through our own government's indifference or impotence, to enter the US illegally, at will, it is a sure indication that our government has no control over our national borders; and enforceable national borders are an indespensable (in fact, central) component of national sovereignty. And I can think of no value so dear--no,
none--that the loss of our national soversignty would be a worthwhile sacrifice for its realization.
(2) The "social" harm, presumably, refers to the wounded sensibilities of those who see no good reason why they should be prevented from pursuing their material betterment, even at the expense of their flagrantly violating American law. And it is very difficult for me to feel a sense of deep empathy toward those who believe they have a natural right to reside in any country they choose, irrespective of any laws the host country may have governing the matter.
As to the "environmental" harm, that is posited (vaguely) here, that is usually a red herring, thrown out for the purpose of confusing the issue and--with any luck--persuading a judge so inclined to halt the construction of the fence. It is, therefore, not what I would regard as a serious argument.
(3) The American economy is indeed important; but to say that economic concerns trump all other concerns is hugely reductionist, in my view. And in this context, it tacitly implies that the American economy just cannot survive unscathed without the aid of low-skill, low-wage workers of a foreign pedigree. And I simply do not share that view.
(4) The HOV lanes in large cities (and even outside those cities) are surely an inconvenience--and a real irritant to many of us. Still, that does not argue effectively for their elimination. Surely the same is true with the inconvenience that might be posed by a border fence.
Oh, and as to the problem of tunneling by illegals, I have long proposed a twofold solution: (1) The fence should be a
double fence; and (2) the ground should be layered with several inches of concrete, extending from the outer fence (i.e. the one nearer Mexico) all the way past the inner fence, by about 100 yards or so; and thus covering the entire border area.