The GOP divide on immigration is most inexplicable on the question of whether a wall along the southern border should be partly "virtual," as favored by President Bush, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, or a physical "bricks and mortar" wall as favored by Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and most GOP primary voters.
The conventional wisdom is that a physical barrier is less friendly to immigrants and symbolically insulting to Mexico. My own instinct, however, is that unless we establish open borders that allow anyone to cross over at will, a physical wall is much better on humanitarian grounds and no worse on symbolic grounds than a "virtual" wall.
Here are the best arguments for a physical rather than a virtual wall:
1) In the 1990s physical barriers were erected across almost the entire California border and near other metropolitan border towns. As the Washington Post reported in 2006, "Instead of dashing across in urban areas, illegal immigrants turned to paths through the deserts of eastern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. They began employing 'coyotes,' smugglers who demanded thousands of dollars, to lead them and often traveled under hot sun with little water. More than 2,500 have died attempting such crossings in the past decade."
A wall spanning the whole border would eliminate the incentive to travel across dangerous patches of desert to find a crossing spot without a physical barrier, hopefully reducing deaths to pre-1990s levels. It might also stop all but the most fit would be immigrants from trying to cross illegally, further reducing deaths.
2) It is no disrespect to border patrol agents to observe that a minority will inevitably succumb to corruption while others will make bad decisions about the use of force. That's why given the choice I'd rather a wall thwart illegal entry than a person. A wall cannot be corrupted with bribes by coyotes or drug smugglers, nor can a wall rough up a detainee, mistakenly think that someone is carrying a gun or steal someone's cash.
3) Although I once fretted about the symbolic effect of walling off our nation I ultimately concluded that a physical barrier is no less friendly an obstacle than the sensors, motion detectors and men responding with SUVs and guns that "virtual fence" proponents advocate.
Nor does a full border wall seem any more insulting than the partial wall erected today everyplace where a sizable population of Mexicans exists to see it.
4) If you don't trust the Bush Administration to hire and manage subcontractors - and you shouldn't -- consider that it's much easier to measure progress on a physical fence, and you don't run into problems like "Ground radar and cameras that were to identify illegal border crossers so that armed patrols could be dispatched to capture them have had trouble distinguishing people and vehicles from cows and bushes."
For all these reasons, my admittedly counterintuitive conclusion is that a physical border wall is better for illegal immigrants than a virtual wall, insofar as it is likely to reduce border deaths, border patrol corruption and excessive use of force without wastefully enriching Bush Administration subcontractors.
Joe Biden said that what he would do as President is sit down with the President and have a heart to heart talk about the economic distribution in Mexico. Joe Biden says unless Mexico changes and becomes a society with a fair distribution of its wealth, the problem of migration of peoples from Mexico to the US will not stop but will continue. This is the first step that needs to happen to stop the bleeding.
The second step is to deal with the people in this country after we pressure Mexico to change the society that it has with a few people fantastically wealthy and 99% of it's population in poverty.
This made sense to me.
America may one day look back at these days of cheap Mexican labour with nostalgia.
Germany has alot of agricultural jobs (especially producing white asparagus, back breaking labour), that Germans dont want to do.
So, the Polish come in every year for the long, hard process of producing white asparagus, among other crops.
If the Germans can do this equitably, I dont know why the Americans can't do the same with Mexico.
Now we rely on everyone breaking the law, and of course, it is always the poor worker who is taken advantage of in this ridiculous system.
There are real problems, that need real solutions that need to be addressed. We might be able to negotiate a win/win policy for both countries.
Big business interests seem to like things the way they are.
Keep it simple.
A few offshore floating airports ringing the coasts, and an interior monorail system for domestic travel.
It just makes sense that the Greatest Country in the World should be served, like pheasant, under glass.
claim rights they never fought for and then call the people who did, VERY bad names in a foreign tongue and then brag about how they are taking over.
Also, I kinda think making animal species go extinct by interrupting their migration patterns is sorta undesirable too.
The long-term corrective action involves comprehensive immigration reform, realistic legal immigration quotas and action by Mexico to slow the "baby machine" and to break up the oligarchies to improve the lot of the masses. There's a whole lotta wealth in Mexico. Heck, the world's richest man lives there. It needs to be shared more equitably.
What .. misbegotten .. nation do these people think that the United States of America has actually become?
.
Well, neither do I.
A wall, physical or virtual, is a waste of time. There is no barrier humans have not figured out- we have gone to the moon even.
I detest illegal immigration, but I won't support a wall. I want the companies hiring the illegals to face real and fast punishment. No point in deporting anyone (unless they've committed a real crime). If they can't find a meaningful job, they'll go elsewhere.
part of that whole scene is there's basically
a southern region of our country, and probably
a northern region of theirs, that basically
amounts to Amerexico. And, if you witness the
whole deal with 'suddenly citizens' and
Alberto(say no more), you have this deal
where, more or less, two countries are running
together, sort of. Yet. Yet. There's still
this annoying thing stopping the runaway
real estate speculator billionaires from
working thier 'magic'. It's called 'the US/
Mexico border'. Now, if you look on the map,
it's just this little line. But, 'la linea'
divides Los Etados Unidos Del Norte from
Los Etados Unidos Del Mexico. Hmmm....
The question is asked, 'do we want a North
American Union'? Well, asked quietly, out
of the way where people won't get to vote on
it, and stuff, but it does speak directly
to the future of the United States. There
certainly do seem to be parties dedicated
to softening things up, there, and one way
to do that is to make cause to make common
cause, such as a common problem that can
ONLY be solved through 'security'. Well,
the Mob sells 'security', too, well,
'protection', and like you mentioned, a
concrete wall is pretty hard to corrupt.
Well, you could dig under it, drill holes
in it, fly over it, but it's a much more
visible demarcation than a little dotted
line on a map. It's also hard to sneak
across. But, walls DO work, in some instances,
and they do serve the purpose of defining one
country as separate from another. If
the choices are letting foreign parties
run amok in our country, or actually having
a good border, let's go with a good border.