Maybe we need a new fence?

[oldpink]

I must be a miracle then.

If that's the euphemism you prefer, then stick with it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The problem is that Mexico is on a fast track to becoming a failed state or a narco state. Economic opportunity is almost nonexistent and physical security for its citizens is pathetic. The problem, as I see it, is a failure of the Mexican government to provide for the basic needs and security of its citizens. If the roles were reversed, and I and my family were residents of Mexico, living next door to the wealthiest nation in the world, we would be relocating to the U.S. And no one would stop me. There are too many ways in semi legally (like overstaying a visa) and too much support in the community to identify and deport effectively.

The economic and humanitarian cost to try to secure the southern boarder is too high. Even if economically and technically feasible, a secure boarder would fail after a Somalia type collapse of the Mexican government. Keep in mind, Mexico isn't Cabo. Potable water isn't a "given" in many parts of their country. Angry, scared, desperate people are difficult to control or even influence. And the failure of Mexico becomes more likely every day.

A part of the solution lies in making narcotics trafficking a low profit endeavor. There are many ways to accomplish this. Some could take place on our side of the river, but much needs to be done on the southern shore of the rio grande.

The narco war lords who wield so much influence need to be dismantled. There are many ways to accomplish this. A fence isn't one of them. If you stationed a sharp shooter at the location in the video, they would still bring their product across. In subs, tunnels, airplanes, rockets, or just waiting until the shooter ran out of ammo, they would still come across.

When Mexico fails, a few climbers with backpacks will be a fond rememberance of easy times.

You are right regarding the condition of Mexico. That isn't our problem. It's theirs. If they choose to make it ours, there are ways to deal with that which do not involve capitulating to a de facto invasion.

If the roles are reversed...If you really feel that way, you are welcome to make any concession you may choose personally. Please do not presume to do so on my behalf.

As for the cartel warlords, hunt them down and kill them. Mexico.gov will scream up a lung even though they routinely interfere with our internal affairs including but not limited to enforcement of immigration law. Give them the speech that ends in 'or else'. If they refuse to listen, deliver them the 'or else' promptly.

If Mexico fails, secure it. Reconstruction was an ugly period of American history but it does offer useful lessons on how to address this problem. Incidentally, allowing a mass exodus is completely unnecessary at both a practical and philosophical level.

I am remarkably indifferent to the humanitarian cost. I am generally not that callous, but I am not about to willingly sacrifice myself and my family for invaders.

For those who advocate the absence of borders, let me remind you that this necessarily would lead to the world averaging out to the lowest common denominator. I am sorry to step on the anarchist fantasy, but foreign nationals are not entitled to what Americans have built, especially in the context of taking it on their terms.

 

[poptab]

Americans have built the largest government the world has ever seen.

The 'invaders' can have it. It will probably kill them too if that makes you happy.

 

[Dead Duck]

Americans have built the largest government the world has ever seen.

The 'invaders' can have it. It will probably kill them too if that makes you happy.

 

[poptab]

Lol

+1

We can't all be as light hearted as you duck.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I must be a miracle then.

More like a moron. A nation without borders isn't a "nation," it's a game preserve. Not only are we permitting foreign invaders to circumvent our immigration laws by entering the country unlawfully or staying in the country past the time they were to return to their own country, we give substantial numbers of them our tax money for their efforts. If government isn't to protect our citizens and our borders do you believe the citizenry at large should do so? If so, point to a single nation in the wide wide world where this is happening - or where it is even thought a good idea to do so.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The problem is that Mexico is on a fast track to becoming a failed state or a narco state. Economic opportunity is almost nonexistent and physical security for its citizens is pathetic. The problem, as I see it, is a failure of the Mexican government to provide for the basic needs and security of its citizens. If the roles were reversed, and I and my family were residents of Mexico, living next door to the wealthiest nation in the world, we would be relocating to the U.S. And no one would stop me. There are too many ways in semi legally (like overstaying a visa) and too much support in the community to identify and deport effectively.

The economic and humanitarian cost to try to secure the southern boarder is too high. Even if economically and technically feasible, a secure boarder would fail after a Somalia type collapse of the Mexican government. Keep in mind, Mexico isn't Cabo. Potable water isn't a "given" in many parts of their country. Angry, scared, desperate people are difficult to control or even influence. And the failure of Mexico becomes more likely every day.

A part of the solution lies in making narcotics trafficking a low profit endeavor. There are many ways to accomplish this. Some could take place on our side of the river, but much needs to be done on the southern shore of the rio grande.

The narco war lords who wield so much influence need to be dismantled. There are many ways to accomplish this. A fence isn't one of them. If you stationed a sharp shooter at the location in the video, they would still bring their product across. In subs, tunnels, airplanes, rockets, or just waiting until the shooter ran out of ammo, they would still come across.

When Mexico fails, a few climbers with backpacks will be a fond rememberance of easy times.

Oh goodie! Another "legalize all drugs" idealist! That Mexico may be on the road to being a failed narco-state is THEIR problem. We don't need to make it ours. Actually a "better solution" to the drug problem is to seed the drug growing fields with nuclear waste. Sure it will kill the campesinos who don't manage to run away, but then there won't be fertile fields for large scale drug production for a very long time afterward. Probably cheaper than paying for all the illegal immigrants who move here and collect unemployment so they can send their off-the-books paychecks back home to Mexico. (insert purple as required)

 

[indiucky]

Look, when I see a post from someone who openly says that we shouldn't even have a border at all, I'm giving that someone the benefit of the doubt by asking if he's trolling, because the alternative is that he has nothing at all between the ears.

I saw this commercial at age 7 and thought "What a bunch of commie/hippie hokum.."

Maybe he saw it and thought...."Yeah...That's the ticket....

[video=youtube;m2KECJv9XrQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2KECJv9XrQ[/video]

Of course I saw the girl in the "me and my RC" commercial and thought she was the hottest thing in the world...

[video=youtube;GNJO2l0sTFo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNJO2l0sTFo[/video]

Been an RC man ever since...I mean look at her....

 

[OutdoorDad]

Oh goodie! Another "legalize all drugs" idealist! That Mexico may be on the road to being a failed narco-state is THEIR problem. We don't need to make it ours. Actually a "better solution" to the drug problem is to seed the drug growing fields with nuclear waste. Sure it will kill the campesinos who don't manage to run away, but then there won't be fertile fields for large scale drug production for a very long time afterward. Probably cheaper than paying for all the illegal immigrants who move here and collect unemployment so they can send their off-the-books paychecks back home to Mexico. (insert purple as required)

Oh goodie !
Another "didn't read the original post- but happy to criticize" contributor.

 

[RockofStrength]

.

 

[poptab]

More like a moron. A nation without borders isn't a "nation," it's a game preserve. Not only are we permitting foreign invaders to circumvent our immigration laws by entering the country unlawfully or staying in the country past the time they were to return to their own country, we give substantial numbers of them our tax money for their efforts. If government isn't to protect our citizens and our borders do you believe the citizenry at large should do so? If so, point to a single nation in the wide wide world where this is happening - or where it is even thought a good idea to do so.

Did you just call me a moron and then proceed to ask me questions?

That's classy.

 

[oldpink]

Did you just call me a moron and then proceed to ask me questions?

That's classy.

What would you call someone who just throws his front door open and says anyone can just have his run of the place?

 

[actaeon277]

 

[richardraw316]

I gots me an idea. How about we do that thing we did along time ago farther south. It was in panama i believe. We dug a big azz ditch. Lets do that to the reo grande. Build it wide and deep. Let the gulf work it way to the pacific through a very large and long channel. If we cant afford that then dig small channels that connect to the gulf and let the reo grande flood. It would be much more grande after that. If we do the channel idea i would dare them to dig a tunnel under it. Those who dont drown get sent back via catapult.
No purple was required here.

 

[eatsnopaste]

The Berlin wall was intended to prevent enslaved people from leaving, not to protect what is allegedly a sovereign nation from having foreign invaders invade at will. Huge difference there.

So a fence built with the intention of keeping someone OUT is ayyy diferent than a fence built to keep someone in...I see, it is the ideology of the builder that determines how the fence is going to work. The fence around my back yard keeps neighbor dogs who get loose from entering my yard as well as keeping my dogs in their own space...how can my cheap chain link fence do both?

 

[oldpink]

So a fence built with the intention of keeping someone OUT is ayyy diferent than a fence built to keep someone in...I see, it is the ideology of the builder that determines how the fence is going to work. The fence around my back yard keeps neighbor dogs who get loose from entering my yard as well as keeping my dogs in their own space...how can my cheap chain link fence do both?

If you can't figure out the difference between a border fence and the Berlin Wall, then there's no hope for you.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So a fence built with the intention of keeping someone OUT is ayyy diferent than a fence built to keep someone in...I see, it is the ideology of the builder that determines how the fence is going to work. The fence around my back yard keeps neighbor dogs who get loose from entering my yard as well as keeping my dogs in their own space...how can my cheap chain link fence do both?

When addressing the presumed criticism of an open-borders libertarian, that IS the relevant difference. It would be analogous to comparing the moral implications of fencing your yard to keep out undesirable stray dogs versus preventing the escape of your dog which you regularly douse with gasoline and ignite who really wants to get away from you.

As for the practical implications, no real difference aside from the motivation of the watchers and their willingness to act should someone overcome the wall, or be found making the attempt to do so.