I was just reading that Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, is criticizing the United States for authorizing the building of a fence along our border, even comparing it to the Berlin Wall. Ummm... Mr. Fox... the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in so they wouldn't be exposed to the "corrupting influences of the capitalistic west," and to keep people out for pretty much the same reason. People were rarely allowed to cross, and getting permission from the government was extremely difficult. In contrast, our border with Mexico has plenty of crossing points, through which people can cross both ways easily - all they have to do is check in. We're not building this wall in an Orwellian effort to keep people in or out, merely to steer them toward the gates so we can keep track of who's coming and going - its purpose is nothing like that of the Berlin Wall.
Look at it from our perspective. Imagine that your house had no walls, and strangers kept walking through. You'd expect that they'd at least stop and ask to come in, but they seem to have no respect, so they just keep sneaking in uninvited, and when confronted, pretend that they're the ones who are wronged! Wouldn't you want to build some walls to protect your home and family? Well, our nation is our home, and our citizens are our family, and your people have been walking (and climbing, and tunneling...) right into our home uninvited for long enough now. There are millions of you here, uninvited, already, and there is, after all, this terrorist problem; so we've simply decided to build some walls and insist that you knock on the door and identify yourself when you come to visit. Assuming our house isn't already full of guests, and we're in the mood for some company, We'll probably welcome you with open arms. Thank you very much.
Your friendly neighbor to the north...
Daniel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You make some interesting points, Bro. Dan'l, but I disagree wit chew. The problem, in m'opinion, lies with the country of Mexico. They're the reason so many citizens of that country are leaving and coming norte: few jobs, corruption at all levels of government, and an opportunity to earn more here illegally in a year than folks could make in several down there. A wall is just a waste of money, it won't stop the flow. If the USA was serious about steming the tide of illegal aliens, it would make hiring them a serious offense and assign fines which reflected that spirit, fines that hurt an employer so much that hiring any one illegal would be out of the question. Until that happens there won't be any change concerning illegal immigration, regardless of what type of barrier's erected. Jus' m'opinion, Bro. Dave
Hi, Dave,
Thanks for the post! I agree wit chew, too, amigo, on several points - but I'm still not convinced a wall is a bad idea. Of course I agree that it's not the solution - but still think it's part of the solution. The problem does indeed lie with the government of Mexico, and also with our government. The economics of it, as you point out, are what's driving this, and it will indeed take some major changes to achieve a really viable solution, if that's even possible. Government officials in Mexico would have to start caring more about their people than they do about their 'deals,' and get down to the business of providing them with some real economic opportunities and hope for a future - and ultimately it's the responsibility of the Mexican people to make that happen. And government officials in the United States would have to step up to their moral responsibility and pass legislation (and enforce it!) that effectively prevents employers from hiring illegal aliens, other legislation that enables us to tell who is here legally and who is not, and other legislation that provides a practical way for a reasonable number of Mexicans and other people to come here legally to work. Congress would have to pass a lot of legislation to achieve all this, and many agencies and bureaucracies would have to develop and implement new goals, strategies, and methods. Significant changes in the INS, the judicial system, and all law enforcement agencies would be necessary - and it's up to us to make that happen.
In the (probably very long) meantime, it seems to me that one of the first things we have to do is to control the borders and provide a way for employers to know with certainty who is here legally and who is not, who is a citizen and who is not. This requires some sort of check-in process, which requires people to enter the country through a border crossing equipped for such purpose - which evidently requires a fence or wall of some sort to steer people to the gates, as they're certainly not using them as things stand. It is not a solution to the problem, just one of many things I think we need to do to address it.
So, I'm not firmly convinced of much of anything, certainly not that building fences and walls is a really good idea, but I still tentatively think it is - and while I agree that it's not the solution, as you say, I'm curious why you don't see it as part of the solution. I get the impression you think it's a bad idea, rather than just a pointless effort - can you explain a little more?
I love ya, man, and I love that you disagree with me about this... it's a great opportunity to reexamine my thinking and learn something new here, and have my perspective broadened. I've known you for quite a while now, and have a great deal of respect for your thoughts - you've impressed me quite a few times with your perspective and insight, and I imagine you'll continue to do so. I treasure that.
:~)aniel
This is gonna be a lively debate. Good, because while you and I agree on many issues, and I respect and value your opinions, this idea of erecting a wall between our country and our neighbor, Mexico, is an area of disagreement for us that's never been explored and I relish an opportunity to hear your expanded views on this subject.
You ask about why I don't see this wall as a solution, or part of a solution to stemming illegal immigration, here's why: walls don't work. History is replete with examples of walls not living up to their intentions, regardless of whether the wall was erected to keep people out or prevent people from leaving. Eventually all walls fall because they're deemed to be relics of an unenlightened time, and if this wall goes up it, too, will eventually be regarded similarily.
I see this wall issue as pure politics, a method of division rather than inclusion, which features fear mongering as it's starting point. In my opinion, the message this wall sends to the rest of the world is that the USA is afraid of it's neighbors and I don't think that's path worth persuing. If you recall one of my earlier posts to this blog, I'm in favor of getting rid of the borders between the USA and it's neighbors, Mexico and Canada. I'd be a chore that'd take a lifetime or two to accomplish, but it'd be in the right direction as far as human evolution goes. Human nature gravitates to community, and erecting a wall between countries doesn't, IMO, promote society's natural growth. Of course, I'm aware of harboring a hope for mankind that's idealistic in the extreme is difficult to fathom for many, but that's my nature and I like being difficult, er, different. Bro. Dave
Howdy, Dave,
It's great to explore this, thanks. I think you're right about walls not working in the long run, and also about them being evidence of our unenlightened condition. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need walls, for either our houses or our nations. Well, maybe for our houses, for protection against the elements, but in a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about thieves and other nefarious characters. In a perfect world we wouldn't need nations to separate us, governments to rule us (under the pretense of serving us), money to compensate us for our labor and products (and to purchase the labor and products of others), prisons to incarcerate those of us who wrong each other, or armies to defend us. Everyone would just work hard and do what was right, no one would take unfair advantage of anyone else, and we'd all just get along famously.
While I think that it's important to strive for perfection, and to keep the lines of communication open and work for peace, our species hasn't evolved enough yet to throw away these trappings of our enslavement to our own ignorance and fear. Though I dream of the day, I am not yet ready to remove the locks from the doors on my home yet and simply trust that no one will rob me, because I know that's an unrealistic expectation - there are still many people who don't believe in the prinicples of honor and fair play you and I subscribe to.
There is, as you point out, a lot of fear-mongering going on, and I think it's important for us to recognize it and expose it for what it is, a fascist tactic to scare us into compliance with draconian politics; but it's also true that there are real threats to our well-being, and it's important to recognize those as well, and take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves.
I agree that walls such as the one(s) we're discussing are not a solution in themselves, and in fact are evidence of our failure to build a society where we won't need such barriers; but until we can build such a world culture, I still see them as a necessary evil. Until I'm sure that everyone in my neighborhood, or just passing through, is honest, I'm going to continue to lock the door when I leave my home, even though I think it's sad that I feel I have to. I think leaving the door unlocked, and trusting that no one will take advantage of me, is unrealistic and could result in my getting robbed. Actually that's happened, even when I DID lock my door! I came home one time to find a window broken, my color TV, stereo, and a number of other items missing and the house trashed. I might have perceived warnings that I received prior to that, about the frequency of burglaries in the neighborhood, as being fear-mongering - but they weren't, they were well-meant warnings about a real threat.
I loved it when I was living on Orcas Island and always left my house unlocked, the front door often wide open. It was such an isolated place, and such a small, close community, that I never worried about theft or invasion, and indeed it never happened there. Like you, I long for a world where that's the norm, but I guess I'm just not quite as idealistic as you. I prefer, of course, to think of myself as being idealistic in my hopes and dreams, striving to move in that direction but still realistic enough to survive in a world that hasn't grown up yet. I've recently heard that even on Orcas Island there has been a rash of break-ins and ill deeds, and that people there have started locking up and taking more precautions - the carefree days of trust and openness are fading even in that paradise, as people realize there are real threats even in their small world. It depresses me quite a bit that this is happening, but my being depressed about it won't stop it - better security will, as sad as that is. That's sort of where I find myself with this border fence thing, I see it as a regrettable necessity. If you or anyone has a better idea (that's realistic and practical) I'd love to hear it, because the idea of building walls really does go against the grain, so to speak.
So, my brother, I agree with your self-assessment that you're harboring a hope that's idealistic in the extreme - but for me that hope is not difficult at all to fathom. I'm harboring the same hopes, actually: that we might one day have no nations, no borders, no governments, no money, no walls... no need for all these artificial constructs intended to solve our problems and maintain order. Global enlightenment would be nice - until then, though, I'm going to try to balance my idealism with reality, and while continuing to hope and work for harmony, I'm still going to try to remember to lock my door when I go out.
In summary, I admire the heck out of your idealism, and share the same hopes for mankind. I also agree with you that the proposed wall(s) aren't going to do anything to address the real underlying problems, and will be seen by many as evidence that we are separatists, elitists, or something like that. There is certainly a down side to the wall idea. And you've made me think a lot about the broader perspective, and how this wall thing fits into the bigger picture. No matter how I look at it, it's not a very pretty bigger picture. I don't like the idea of building walls, but on the other hand I don't like the idea of millions of people coming here illegally, and the implications that has for our security and our economy. I guess my previous remark about it being a necessary evil about sums it up, but you've made me seriously question that conclusion, and I'm not as sure as I was that it's such a simple issue. Though you haven't yet convinced me that building a wall is a bad idea, I'll definitely be giving this more thought.
Gratitude and Respect to you, my friend...
:~)aniel
So, it's lookin' like one's not idealistic enough to imagine a world without fear becoming a guiding light then the only alternative is to grudgingly give in to building wall, and in doing so perpetuate the reasons for it's being, yet again - is that where we are now, compadre?
What's gained by building a wall until another idea persents itself, not much, I'd say. The only result of a wall will be to placate fearful voters that the government's doing all it can to stem the tide of illegal aliens and also deal effectively with potential terrorists who might try infiltrating accross unsecured borders, oops, border. A wall, won't be successful, IMO, it'll only delay implementing another option when it's found the issue hasn't gone away.
Bro. :Dave
Howdy, Dave,
Hmmm. Not quite, I think - I am idealistic enough to imagine such a world, and hope for it, so lack of imagination isn't my problem; and to grudgingly build a wall certainly isn't the only alternative, nor even the preferred one, of those available, just one of a number of coordinated measures I'd support in the effort to remedy this. I don't understand how building a wall could perpetuate the reasons for its being there, I'm failing to see the cause and effect there - could you clarify that? So no, I don't think "that's where we are now."
I also don't advocate bulding a wall "until another idea can present itself." That would be like sticking a finger in the dike to stop the flood. I'm in favor of a comprehensive approach that includes measures to address the root causes of the problem. What's gained by adding a wall to the mix is better control over who comes and goes, which I think, in the current political context of our having separate nations and not one integrated country encompassing all of the Americas, is a prerequisite to taking any of the other steps necessary to address the underlying problems.
Does this make you feel any better about the idea, can you see it as a necessary step toward gaining control over who comes and goes, in the context of a broader effort to stop the flood of people coming in? Or do you still see it as counterproductive? And if so, how would you propose that we keep track of who's here? Or do you think that we should not even try to keep track of who's here? I just realized that I've been making an assumption that may not be valid: that you realize that having millions of people living here with no allegiance to our nation, no inclincation to obey its laws and conform to its customs, being taken advantage of by employers who offer substandard wages and lousy working conditions, which drags down the average wages and the economy, costing billions of our taxpayer dollars in community services, education, law enforcement and other costs, and that among these millions are hundreds or thousands who are really here with very bad intentions, is bad for us. Do you agree with these conclusions? If not, then I can understand your aversion to building a wall, but if you're in agreement on these basic facts (at least I see them as facts) then I'm still puzzled why you find a wall so objectionable, except in the purely ideological sense that it could be seen as an impediment to total freedom. As for that, every law we have, just and unjust, is an impediment to total freedom, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any laws. I'm all for anarchy, but think we should wait until we're responsible and wise enough to handle it, otherwise there would be chaos and much violence. So I see the wall as one tool of many to help us keep track of who's here, and who's coming and going, which I see as essential to solving the bigger problems. If not a wall, how would we get everyone to go through the border crossings legally so we can keep track of them? And if we don't get them to go through the border crossings, how else could we hope to keep track of them? If we don't keep track of them, how can we even hope to address the underlying problems at all?
Looking forward to your reply, amigo...
:~)
Man, I like you organizational mind...I don't have one.:)
On the other hand, IMO, a wall per se isn't gonna do what you think it will, namely, keep people out of this country or make the ones coming here more accountable. The way I see it, a wall is just gonna make folks interested in coming up here adjust to the lay of the land and find alternative routes. If they build this proposed wall, I'd be very surprised to find it kept people from coming. No, I like penalizing the employer better. In my opinion that would have a much greater effect than builiding a wall, of course any punitive fine would have to be very, very, expenisive to have the disired result, but that'd be a step in the right direction (as opposed to a wall) in my opinion. Sure, a few housewives, not to meniton many agri-business owners and lots of restaurant mgrs. would have to do some time and pay some fines, but in the end fining and penalizing employers would bring about the desired result of stoping illegal immigration. If someone as an employer had to weigh the consequences of losing say, ten percent of their business profit after taxes I'm betting they'd think twice about breaking the law by hiring illeagl immigrants. You want accountability about who's here, then make it financially unrewarding to employ illegal workers - problem solved: no jobs, no illegal immigrants, no low wages, no participation in govenrment programs, nada. I don't think anyone would come if the opportunity for money didn't exist.
I stil like my idea of doing away with borders, though.:)
Bro Vet :Dave
wow! Cool... I think we're getting somewhere here, it's beginning to look like at least part of our difference of opinion may lie merely in whether or not walls/fences would be effective. Let me ask you this: if the walls/fences could be constucted and manned in such a way as to be effective, would you then agree that the idea is a good one?
We both agree that walls are inconsistent with open societies, and that open societies are desirable, something we should work toward. Both of us would like to see a comprehensive plan to fix the problems, which plan would include penalties for employers of illegal aliens and many other steps to address the underlying causes.
I see control of the borders as a prerequisite to these steps - not just to discourage illegal entry, but also to get people to go through the border crossings so they could be checked in and out, and data on their number and identity could be collected and analyzed, on which we could base sound decisions about methods and strategies, resource allocation and so on. I think keeping track of who's coming and going, and how many, is essential to these processes. Do you? You didn't answer my question of how, in lieu of a wall to force people to use the border crossings, you propose this data would be collected, and ingress and egress controlled, so I wonder if you think controlling and tracking entries and exits is not particularly important, and that the situation will correct itself if we remove the job factor?
If honest people coming here to work was the only consideration, I would be swayed by your argument, and though I still might not agree that a wall is a really bad idea (though I agree in principle that 'walls are bad,' I don't feel as strongly about this as you do), I'd be much more likely to take a wait and see attitude, and if enforcement of laws prohibiting their hiring really worked I'd agree that a wall is a silly and ultimately ineffective measure.
However... they're not really the ones we're most concerned about... what's to prevent terrorists from coming over en masse, or bands of brigands, or others to whom a job isn't the motivation for coming? They're not going to care about whether or not a job is waiting for them anyway, as they'll have a support network when they get here, or money in the bank, or other arrangements made - so eliminating jobs won't slow those groups down one bit, and they're the worst of the ones we don't want coming in! If you wouldn't want a wall built as part of the effort to control the border, how would you propose that we control the border and deal with this part of the problem and prevent (more) terrorists from moving in and setting up shop? Or would you just not control the border at all and let anyone come traipsing in any time they want?
The discourse continues!
:~)
I'm still not enthused about building a wall, but I like your idea of accountability regarding border crossings. If we're interested in stemming the flow of illegals, then it seems to me the easiest way would be to issue some sort of work permit at the border and penalize employers who hire people without it. Perhaps with some sort of bar-code that could be scanned 'in the field' and produce a picture of the alien, that might cut down on counterfeiting, maybe a card with a thumbprint on record to check against would also work, who knows?
Terrorism is also an issue, as you mentioned, but a wall between the USA and Mexico only addresses half the problem when access is considered...what about Canada?
I still feel limiting access to jobs would help solve the problem of illegal immigration, but I don't think it'd do much to stop terrorists from entering the country illegally - the guys who flew the planes into the Trade Center were here (at least initially) legally, although I recall some over-stayed their student visas.
Terrorism might be another topic to consider on this blog, I'm pretty sure we disagree about that problem, too.:)
Right off the bat, I can say that I think terrorism is a temporary example of dissatisfaction with the status quo as it applies to USA involvment in foreign business affairs. If we think in terms of the what the Weathermen did in the 60s to demonstrate their angst, and remember that they faded into the woodwork after their concerns lost steam, then regarding world terrorism becomes easier to understand and live with, sort of like Israel does. In other words, we'll just have to learn to ride this out in the long term and not get too worked up about the chickens coming home to roost, terrorism-wise. Eventualy, we'll live as one, but until we do there's gonna be some trying times. I just hope we don't enact too many laws restricting freedom in the meantime, that'd be a high price to pay for a Potemkin's Village of security against an over-hyped and still small number of dissidents interested in doing harm. Personally, I like the suggestion of an Israeli counter-terrorism expert who said that terrorists ought to be regarded as criminals instead of 'armies', and be tracked down and punished instead of warred against...let's keep it in perspective, and at the same time limit terror's appeal to the disenfranchised, right?
I'm aware terrorists wreck havoc all over the world right now, but criminalizing their behavior takes some steam out their message of this being a religious war and puts them in a different light as far as recruiting new zelots. Frankly, I'm sick of the 'War On's'...war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, they've all got a bad track record when it comes to making lasting change, no lie.
Okay, your turn.:)
I think we've reached agreement!
Discussing the strategies and tactics we'd need to use to create a effectively secure border would be a pointless and virtually endless endeavor, so let's forego that. I recognize that securing the border will be (if we're actually going to do it and do it well) a very complex and expensive task, and I doubt very much we'll be able to achieve anything close to perfect security, but perhaps we can do a bunch of things that will make it really really hard to get into the country without going through a border crossing, while making it easier to do that (go through the crossing). As you've so accurately pointed out, walls are not the answer, and I strongly agree that if that was the only thing we were going to do to address the causes of the problem, if we were to approach it with a narrow-minded and self-righteous attitude that fails to recognize that we're partly responsible for this situation, and the vast majority of the people coming across the border are well-intentioned and only trying to better their lives, if we start doing things without a genuine willingness to find the underlying causes and address them in a compassionate and sensible way, there's no point in even talking about building a wall.
How to go about establishing some kind of identification system, of course, is a knotty problem, too, full of all sorts of contentious issues. As with the questions we have to ask about building a wall, there are a multitude of problems that would have to be ironed out before we could implement a national ID system, or other provisions that would help identify those who had permission to work here. I'm not even going to try to go there, and am most grateful I'm not one of the people who has to figure that out. Sheesh!
The Canadian border. Yes. That DOES need to be addressed, too, and I think it's actually going to be harder to secure and monitor that one than our border with Mexico - but it offers a pretty easy alternative route for terrorists and others who wish us ill, especially if we tighten up on the southern border, so I think it's something we need to figure out, part of that comprehensive package of actions we need to take.
You make several other telling points, too, about terrorists, and I don't think we disagree on this topic at all. Most of the ones who flew the planes were here legally, so it's foolish to assume securing our border alone would keep us safe. Many drastic changes in the way our immigration system works (that should really be "DOESN'T work"...) must be made. Your observation that terrorism is a temporary thing that stems from anger at our foreign policy is right on the mark, too, and as with any other problem, we really need to look at the root causes and address them. We need to forsake and abandon our selfish, nationalist, dominionist foreign policies and realize we're part of a planetary community, quit putting profit before compassion, materialism above humanism, and so on. Nothing we can do, short of this turnabout in our attitude, will defuse the hatred, and all the walls and systems in the world won't protect us from the masses of angry humanity. These are the real changes we need to make, if we want to get rid of terrorists... we have to quit creating them with our arrogant, heavy-handed, hypocritical actions! We need to make changes in our fundamental approach to global issues, to become the compassionate 'good guys' we claim to be, and once were. In the meantime, I also agree that we should not feed so much energy into the terrorism thing; seeing them and treating them as criminals as the Israelis do, rather than some kind of revolutionaries, puts the whole issue in a much more realistic perspective, and as you said also tends to nullify their claim of religious justification. I recognize the neocons' scare tactics for what they are, too, and I'm sick of them. I agree with you that they've continued to hype this all out of proportion in order to garner support for their militaristic and fascist policies, and think that, as with the problem of illegal immigration, or any problem, for that matter, we need to address the underlying causes of the problem instead of falling into our typical adversarial mindset (I wrote about that adversarial mindset thing earlier in the blog) and starting another stupid war. There will always be malcontents who resort to violence to get their way, but if we straighten up and fly right in the world community, if we become part of the world community instead of above it, they will be an isolated few, much more easily seen and treated as criminals than as people with a cause.
And yeah, having "Wars On..." (everything) is really stupid. Really. We have to start waging peace. Really. Yeah, yeah, there's a time for war, I'll admit that, but my God, it doesn't have to be every day!
I don't think we have any remaining points of significant disagreement about this whole wall thing. I think I've gotten you to (grudgingly) admit it might be at least somewhat useful as one little part of a plan to address the causes of the problem, and you've gotten me to question my former certainty about it, and admit that it's not a very desirable strategy, nor would it be an insurmountable obstacle to those few who want to get here and do us harm - so I now question its effectiveness and justification more than I did before. You've forced me to take a deeper look at it, and though I still think it's a good idea, I'm not as sure as I was, and would gladly consider other ways of getting people to use the crossings. I'd say that was a really excellent airing and discussion opinions, Dave, and I thank you for it! If you have any further points of disagreement that I've missed, or haven't been resolved, any more clarifications or input, please feel free to continue this. If not, and you agree that we've reached a good accomodation on this (as opposed to total agreement on all the finer points), then I'll thank you from the heart and wish you an excellent day!
:~)aniel
Hiya Dan'l - This whole thread about the 'what if's' of a fence between the USA and Mexico may be moot now after the mid-term elections according to an item on the Drudge Report I read today. The Dems are sayin' they'll take a look at the proposal and make a decision later, but at least one idea they're thinking about involves a 'virtual' wall, probably something involving electronic snooping. I'm for that all the way - it looks like we're doing something, and as we all know, appearances are everything when it comes to politics.:) Btw, your guy, Edwards, has a book coming out soon. Looks like he may run in '08, yay!
Bro. Vet :Dave
Yippee!
Yeah, a virtual or 'electronic' wall would be fine, too, if they can make it effective - whatever works. Yes, I'm hopin' Edwards runs, I still think he's got an excellent chance at it and would be a moderate leader who could bring together various factions. Would love to see Obama as the vice, too. Now THAT would be an attractive ticket!
:~)
Post a Comment