Oh, what shall we do with a broken border?

So is anyone going to propose and answer to this? The fence works in San Diego, so should we extend it along the entire border? Are we committed enough to a project like that to foot the bill? How about some type of guest worker program involving ID cards and criminal record checks? What about going after the employers of illegals?

That was, ostensibly, the aim of the post, to get this particular local opinion piece out there, and see what others thought.

What do you mean "the fence works in San Diego"? No illegal immigration issues whatsoever, then?

The gist of the article was that the fence is all for show and that it doesn't actually stop anyone at all. And that to extend an ineffective fence along a 1,950 mile long border is ludicrous.

I am okay with ID ideas, but I am skeptical of putting the enforcement burden on business owners (at the risk of their businesses).

So, overall, I am at a loss.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

A good start would be to try to reverse the economic effects of NAFTA.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

I just heard that GMC shut down several plants, including one in Mexico. The other plants were in Canada and China. I am against outsourcing and I am therefore against NAFTA. We need to slap tariffs on all outsourced sites of origins (sweat shops).

So, bascially, GMC is American in nothing but name? Not contributing to our economy whatsoever?

Outsourcing is freeloading, as I see it. You get to maintain all the benefits of being an "American" company, yet dodge taxes, pay foreign people a miniscule wage, etc.

Corporations have had it too free and easy for far too long. I don't see why we allow it.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

I admit that I have no idea if the above numbers are accurate; but for sake of discussion, I will assume that they are. So this is the way it hashes out:

A total of $74 million divided by 12.5 miles works out to $5.92 million per mile--for most of us, a lot of money; but for the US government, not so much.

Multiplied by 1,950 miles, however, the grand total comes to $11.544 billion--some pretty serious money, for anyone this side of Bill Gates (or at least Michael Dell); but still not a prohibitive amount for the US government. So the real question becomes: Is it worth the investment?

Assuming, for the moment, that it could work--and, unlike the case of the San Diego wall that just sent illegals fleeing to Arizona, there would be no place left to go--it strikes me as impossible to put a price upon our national sovereignty. And absent an effective barrier to illegal entry into this country (I would emphasize that legal immigration can be a very good thing), we can have no national sovereignty, in any meaningful sense of the word.

So yes, I believe our spending 11 1/2 billion dollars (or even a bit more, if there are the usual cost overruns--and, of course, normal inflation) would be well worth it, in order to preserve the integrity of our borders--and, attendantly, the integrity of the American nation.

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.

__________________
"Yes. That's correct. Making a statement that's 100% true can't be bigoted."

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.

I'm too lazy to go in depth why your post is rubbish, but you're also forgetting visa skippers.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

The gist of the article (and, I am undecided whether I share the opinion), was that simply building a fence is ineffective, and is primarily for show. An $11 billion showpiece isn't wise.

Also, the article demonstrated that this isn't like stopping deer. These are creative, desperate, resourceful people, who can use ladders, car roofs etc., to simply breach the fence easily.

I agree with the article's basic assertion that a fence is not a "fire and forget" type of solution. To have thousands of miles of fence across open desert, with no actual people to maintain/monitor it renders the whole thing pointless.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.