Environmental
I'm concerned about environmental issues that would occur because of a 2,000 mile wall across the North American continent. I'm not talking about decaying walls or stuff like that. I'm talking about animal migration and such. We've often put in large obstructions out in nature -- superhighways, dams, etc. -- without taking into account the affect they have on animals that live there or pass through there and it has often been bad.
False Security
We are all aware that there is an open border. We are all aware that there are illegal crossings of that open border. And we're scared. So we hire people to watch that border. If, on the other hand, we could simply put up a wall, well, then, we'd by happy, safe, and secure. Except you know that wouldn't be the case. We are constantly seeing stories of tunnels dug under walls, of new breaches, of other ways that such safety measures are circumvented. So the problem in my mind is that we'd be satisfied with "Whew! We've got a wall" and we'd neglect to be as vigilant because of it.
Cost/Benefit Ratio
A wall of that magnitude is a huge cost. Obviously that's true since the huge cost is the sticking point in the current government shutdown. So what will offset that huge cost? Included in "count the cost" is the question of what it will take to make it work. If you're willing to admit the danger of a false sense of security, it will require that we maintain the current cost of border security, making the wall an extra cost rather than a replacement cost. So this will get really expensive. How do we prevent tunneling or other breaches? More cost. How do we maintain such a structure? More cost. How much will it cost to remove the Statue of Liberty? Oh, didn't think about that one? That's next on my list.
What It Stands For
A wall says something. An open yard between you and your next door neighbor says, "Welcome!" A picket fence says, "We'll be friends, but you stay on your side." A wall says, "I don't want anything to do with you. Stay away!" A wall declares fear on one hand and rejection on the other. It begs for isolationism from one side and enclosure from the other side. While we work toward better trade relations with our southern neighbors, we say, "Stay away!" The Statue of Liberty says
Give me your tired, your poor,A wall says, "Not in my backyard." And it looks like that's exactly what more and more Americans are saying. This dynamic of border defenses and debates about illegal immigration seems to make us lose track of the issues and head toward nuclear options ... like a wall. Is that really what we want to say?
Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
I am not an "open borders" person. I think there needs to be controls to immigration. I think that making immigration legal but impassable is just as "anti-immigration" as the extremists actually opposed to all immigration are today. I think that America became great on the backs of floods of immigrants, so making America great again by excluding what made her great in the first place makes no sense. I think that there are other methods of border protection -- drones, surveillance, sensors, etc. -- that would assist in the task without all the negatives. I get that I'm not the "normal conservative" on this. But, then, I don't seem to fall into the "normal conservative" category on other things as well. And I'm pretty sure that the Left and the Right doesn't much care what I think, so I'll just sit over here with my opinion and watch things unfold.
________
(As a postscript, there is something that I've been considering. Look at the northern border. It is as open as any border can be. I read about a visitor that accidentally crossed the border illegally because it was so open. Why is that border not an issue? Why is the southern border such a huge issue? Is it possible that the problem is not an open border, but what drives people to cross it illegally? Is it possible that we -- the world community -- should be looking more into that than pushing for American Isolationism? Just musing here.)
9 comments:
The wall is important. The north border doesn't need a way because we don't have thousands of illegals coming from that direction..
Walls work around the world. IT isn't false security, it is additional security, and an important part of security at that. Not only do we get citizens of the southern countries invading (with huge numbers of criminals) but we also get massive amounts of Muslims invading from that direction. They are just as dangerous as the criminals because they come here for one purpose and that is to eventually take over. That isn't paranoia--it's history. Look at Europe.
While I think there is a case to be made for a barrier of some sort, I agree that simplifying this debate down to “build a wall” is a mistake. This is a multifaceted problem that’s needs a multifaceted solution. But DC has been avoiding solutions for years.
I believe that the real solution for the problem is to deal with the conditions that cause people to want to leave their countries of origin. Reading about the exodus from Venezuela is heartbreaking, the silence from the political side of the aisle that is embracing socialism is deafening, and the human cost is tragic.
The best possible solution is strong, stable, market economies in Central America, which will allow trade back and forth to the benefit of all.
As far as the northern border goes, I think having one country, with a reasonably stable government and economy goes a long way toward helping. I think that the climate, geography, and topography help quite a bit.
What’s interesting is that the Canadian government strictly monitors the boundary waters area to prevent boats from crossing the border at will.
Glenn, as I said, I'm outside the "norm" on this, I don't see it as a biblically important concern, it's just my opinion, and I won't be arguing it with anyone. I am not an "open-borders" person. I simply don't trust the people of this country (or any, just to be fair) to remain vigilant or even fair with or without a wall. (I do note that I've never seen an explanation of what will be done for the migrating animals whose existence will be threatened by blocking off the bottom half of the North American continent.)
I'm with Craig. I'd like to see other measures. It's like the drug war. We can try to put an end to suppliers, but it won't work until the demand goes away. We can try to put an end to people trying to come in, but it won't work until we find a way to stop them from desperately wanting to.
Another problem with the wall is people seem to not think about how long it will take to build. Even if he got his funding today, I doubt that any real plans have been made (I say that because even the president hasn't settled on even what material is to be used). Do, you're probably looking at at least 5 years of planning/investigating environmental impact/determining maintenance requirements. The government never moves quickly. Then, there's the time it will take to actually build the thing. When was a wall of this magnitude even attempted? Think about how long it takes to put in a new freeway section. In California, there was a lengthy stretch of new highway added connecting 2 others. That took almost 8 years, and that's only counting when they started the labor, not the planning. And that was nowhere near 2000 miles, nor was it traversing areas that were completely inaccessible by construction equipment, and it was laying down. A wall is much harder to build than a road. And that's not including sabotage or unforseen difficulties. You're probably looking at 30 to 40 years minimum before this thing is complete, and I guarantee 5.7 billion won't be near enough. We could probably get more accomplished investing that money into helping the Mexican economy, and it would be faster. Debating about building a wall isn't getting us any closer to solving the real problem. At best, it would be a bandage. And now, in the meantime, thousands of Americans are in trouble because they aren't able to get paid. So who are we benefitting by prolonging this ineffectual project?
Careful, David. You're in danger of standing on "the wrong side of history" with that kind of talk. :)
Here are some of the problems I see with your position:
Environmental
I wouldn't necessarily say I don't care, but I'm not as concerned for the migratory patterns of animals as I am national security and a reduction of the deaths and financial costs of illegal immigration. Those deaths, by the way...for the sake of "progressive" "Christians" checking in...include those of illegals as well as American citizens from the actions of people who shouldn't be here.
Also...and I don't recall which Republican actually said it...but there isn't a total disregard for such concerns by those in government who support the building of a barrier. Some tend to think that environmental negatives are never a concern among the right-wing. Nonsense.
Finally, nature finds a way. Just as with determined criminals and illegals, they will find ways over, under and/or around.
False Security
I keep hearing this argument, but I don't know who actually feels that a barrier is the be all/end all of border security. Most...and by "most", I mean all but a scant few...regard a physical barrier as but one item on the list of things needed to secure the border. CBP feels it is a necessary one in specific places, in addition to other things, such as detection devices (sensors, drones, etc.) and more agents.
Israel is a great example of how to do these things. They currently have new tech to detect the presence of tunnels, and it has already exposed one that was fully developed for some time. Everything they've been doing successfully can be implemented here.
Cost/Benefit Ratio
These are mitigated by savings from having fewer illegals and criminals entering the country. Those costs are massive and can go a long way toward mitigating the cost of building a barrier. What's more, there is so much spent by the federal government for which it has no Constitutional mandate that to divert funding from unnecessary and/or redundant things is no more than a matter of political will, which is greatly impacted by demands of the public...so get on the phone. Do we really need to spend tax dollars to understand why lesbians are fat? I don't think so. But protecting the nation is a prime directive of the federal government, so it would be money spent properly for a change.
Oh no, not again.
Marshal, first, due to a computer glitch and without any intent on my part, I accidentally deleted your second comment. You can send it again; it was purely a mistake.
Moving on, as I said, I'm outside the "norm" on this, I don't see it as a biblically important concern, it's just my opinion, and I won't be arguing it with anyone. I read recently that roughly 48% of Americans want the wall and 46% don't. So I'm among the "don't". I've read all the arguments for; I'm just not convinced.
David, really? You quote a potted plant? :)
No problem about the inadvertent deletion. Now I just have to remember what I said.
I didn't post to begin a debate, but to add context to the objections...some of which I believe are based on incomplete info.
I'll get to the the deleted stuff later.
Post a Comment