Say Anything Blog

I don’t know if a virtual barrier is any less secure.  As you alluded to it’s all a matter of being serious about enforcement.  I doubt the Demoncrats will support enforcement of our immigration laws.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Even if the government (true to form) doesn’t follow through, we can still build a large portion of the fence on private land behind the government corridor.  I asked the INS liason explicitly, and they said it would be possible.

Last I heard, there was a group doing just that in AZ.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Make a great tourist attraction

Rob is right that local law enforcement being empowered to deal with illegal immigrants is the key to gaining control of this problem. What are the odds of it happening regardless of who is in office? The federal government does not let go of or share any of its power easily.

Make a great tourist attraction

Kept the Mongol hoards out, well mostly, ok not at all.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Fair and balanced

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Boob:

A) Big flipping deal.

B) If you want to posts links like that get a reader blog and post them.  Don’t randomly insert off-topic links into comment threads.

Whistler,

Kept the Mongol hoards out, well mostly, ok not at all.

The wall was built by the Ming dynasty back in the 14th century, and it actually worked wonderfully for two centuries until a traitorous general was bribed into opening the gates for the Mongols.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Gang, Arizona, New Mexico, and Tejas are building the fence, Cali has been working at it under the political radar for years.

The Northern Tier States are where we really have to worry. Canada has a substantial fundamentalist Muslim population, and it is being radicalized.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Hotel. damn right buddy. Toronto has the most terror cells in North America.
also - who cares if the fence is built. it was just a token to appease the conservative base that hate Mexicans.

You really should get your own usename. sparkle is so much better than you.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Locks on doors are discriminatory; they should be banned, too.

WOOF:

Make a great tourist attraction

Only if it’s “neighbor friendly” fence.

To thread a number of comments together.  It is a fact that the 9/11 hijackers crossed over from Canada, and is well known that terror cells have operated out of Canada for over a decade.  Any security plan that addresses national security must include security for both the north and the south borders.

I happen to favor virtual fences.  When I have raised this in the past, I noticed a degree of circular reasoning.  One of the strongest negative responses I’ve seen is that “it depends on enforcement”.  So too, of course, does a single chain-linked fence. 

Without enforcement, neither idea would be effective.  With enforcement, I claim that the virtual fence would be far more effective, especially in combination with physical barriers. 

In fact, this sounds like what the official was saying:

“We might do away with it, or look at (integrating it into) SBI Net,” he said, “A virtual fence rather than a real one.”

The problem is or has been with enforcement, not whether an easily surmounted physical barrier is in the way or not.  Carlos Mencia had something rather witty to say about this (of course I paraphrase, he’s funnier):

“So these beaners trek north through jungles, over mountains, across deserts, then ... holy sh@t!  ‘They put up a fence!  Man, we’re f@cked!  I wish those gringos had told me they were going to put up a fence!  Go back guys!  It’s hopeless!  No way we can get over that.’”

Sparkie, those of us who’d like to protect our country are not Mexican Haters.  Would YOU like to be blown to bits in an airplane?

We don’t need a virtual fence or a chain-link fence, we need the great wall of China!  Or do some of you like footing the bill for illegal immigrants?  (They are breaking the law.) Right here where I live, the illegals are constantly being caught shop-lifting, the police are having to deal with the gangs they form, and as I said before, as soon as they cross the border they are handed WIC, Medicaid, etc.  I’d personally like to spend my hard-earned money on something I’d like, but it’s being taken away from me in the form of higher prices at Wal-Mart, higher taxes to pay for the extra police force needed, and for their medical care.

Groovy.
I agree. We need a real form of protection. Bush doesn’t care though and he’s just making token moves to appease stupid people.
We all know the fence won’t do crap.
My biggest complaint is we want to forgive people who have broken the law. I think that undermines our ability to enforce any law, no matter what it is. We can’t just forgive 12,000,000 criminals.
Moral reformers are people who question laws from within a society to create change. Unfortunately these people are not from our society do I don’t see their law breaking as being any type of moral reform or challenge to our laws.

I don’t believe the fence will have no effect.  If that were true, why are there any fences in the world?  Why does every nice house in LA have a fence topped with razor wire?

It’s because fences add a marginal difficulty to getting in--they work. 

And no, desiring a border fence isn’t equivalent to hating Mexicans.  The simple fact is that illegal immigrants are often mistreated, and putting immigration on a legal footing protects those who come here from that. 

(not to mention the issues of crime, terrorism, welfare, and so on)

I personally prefer a real fence to a virtual one for a very simple reason; surveillance only works if someone moves when something is detected.  A fence works all the time whether someone is there or not.

I don’t believe the fence will have no effect.

Its alot of money to spend on something that probably won’t have no effect… But hey, Bush loves to spend money eh?

Sparkie, you’re wrong as usual.  The fence would have and already has had an effect---A negative one on our international relationships.

Now I grant you that shouldn’t be the only consideration.  But in a world economy, it needs to be one of the considerations.  Ignoring the effect of perceptions on your business partners is just a poor way to run a business or a country.

Robert Perry, in your examples, somebody lives in the house nearby the fence.  I can guarantee you that fences in the countryside of any sort never stopped me—while growing up in a rural area— from going where I wanted to go.

So, a fence=no fence?  That just doesn’t track.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Moreover, even if the fence only stopped 10% of the illegals, it would pay for itself many times over, just from the economic perspective.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Carrick, your apparent disregard for private property rights aside, walls and fences work.  As others have noted, the Great Wall of China did keep the Mongols out.  The Berlin Wall (and other Warsaw Pact barriers) did keep the people from leaving.  The Maginot Line held--Hitler went around it, but not through it, until Paris surrendered.  Closer to home, fences/walls built on the U.S./Mexico have greatly reduced illegal immigration in those areas.

And like Robert108 notes, a minor reduction in illegal immigration would pay very quickly for a $10 billion wall.  Incarceration for ~ 200,000 illegal immigrant criminals is about $80 billion annually.  Education for three million or so children of illegal immigrants is about thirty billion dollars annually.  Wage reduction due to illegal immigration is a big contributor to half a trillion dollars we pay in welfare each year.

Reduce the flow by a mere 10%, and such a wall would pay for itself in months.

Robert: Excellent post, to which I would add two things:

Don’t forget Hadrian’s Wall.  Pretty effective, as well.

You forgot to mention all the money sent back to Mexico by illegals every year.  I have heard estimates from $20-50 billion.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Not to mention barbed wire fences, which inform country folk that they might be entering an area with an unfriendly bull. 

I personally don’t mind the money transfers--whether here legally or not, they did earn the money, right?  If they choose to demonstrate to liberals that a man can support himself and his extended family in Mexico on a Wal-Mart or lettuce picker wage, more power to them.  :^)

R Perry & R108:  right on!  Any little bit the fence could do would save us tax payers a load of money.  Who cares what the world thinks of us?  For Pete’s sake, they all hate us anyway; if there’s a disaster in their countries, we’re the 1st to send aid, yet they all still hate us, so screw them - they protect their’s in ways we don’t approve of, but does that stop them???

Sparkie, you’re wrong as usual.  The fence would have and already has had an effect---A negative one on our international relationships.

The Mexican government will bitch and groan, and won’t do much more; ...like a barking dog that doesn’t bite..

Robert: I didn’t make a judgment about the morality of the payouts, although once the illegal act has taken place, everything after that is also illegal.  Sending the money out of the country is not beneficial for us, and must be factored into the cost of illegal immigration.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Groovy: It is a typical leftie tactic to claim that if something can’t be done perfectly, it shouldn’t be done at all.  It is much more intelligent to do a cost/benefit analysis.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert Perry:

Carrick, your apparent disregard for private property rights aside, walls and fences work.

Don’t be an ass.

I knew the people whose land I was on.

Robert108:

So, a fence=no fence?  That just doesn’t track.

Or how about fence + no enforcement = not effective?

What’s to argue with?  It’s an obvious statement.

Groovy:

Who cares what the world thinks of us? 

How about the fact that we’re business partners with most of them? 

One thing that R108 and I agree with is you need to do a cost-benefit analysis.  Potential effect on trade is certainly something you have to consider, even if you eventually argue it’s a non effect.

How about the fact that we’re business partners with most of them?

Carrick, how do these “other countries” you’re sticking up for treat unwanted immigrants?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Carrick, even if you knew the farmers, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were OK with you crossing their fences.  Most I know (including my in-laws) get rather testy when people cross fences (often damaging them), bother livestock, and damage row crops.  That’s why they put the fence there in the first place, and why they put “gates” in the fence.

Never mind that your example clearly demonstrates how fences work.  I’ve crossed a few myself (both respectfully and not), and I always slow down, and as often as not I decide to cross somewhere else because I value my “Wranglers” over 30 seconds saved by crossing at point A.

Regarding international diplomacy, the same thing applies.  Do we really want to “negotiate” with those who view the elimination of our property rights as a starting point for discussion?  You’re more or less proposing such a scenario.

I personally don’t mind the money transfers--whether here legally or not, they did earn the money, right?

They stole the job to earn the money.  I don’t consider it their money.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Carrick, you and I have had this converasion several times, let me clarify.

I do not want a cyclone fence from Sears&Roebuck. I want a concertina feild, 10 meters wide and 5 meters high, with bunkered sallyports 3000-5000 meters apart. Command detonated claymores and directional napalm canisters and a full infantry company manning each 10,000 meter section.

Once that is emplaced, then we can move on to “virtual” border security.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Two:  Exactly!  A “border fence” definitely doesn’t mean a chainlink fence, but one that will do the job.  Duh.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Carrick: 

How about the fact that we’re business partners with most of them?

My vision of world peace is where we put aside petty religious and political differences and do business with each other.  Business competition is far better than war of any kind.  If they want our money and our business, they have to be civil to us.  If they want us to buy their stuff, ditto.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Carrick: How about effective fence+no enforcement; not as good as effective fence+enforcement?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

2HOTEL9:  You SO get it!  Why can’t everyone else?  Let’s have a new section on our income tax forms:  those who want open borders and don’t mind illegals having Medicaid get to check a little box and include their $100,000 check; $200,000 if you’re married (this money is in addition to their taxes.) And those of us who want our borders protected and closed like other countries have DON’T pay the bonus tax!

Groovy, please tell me you are a Glenn Beck listener, and watched Exposed tonight.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Robert,

Carrick, even if you knew the farmers, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were OK with you crossing their fences

We knew the farmers/ranchers/etc, and had their permission up front.  In many case, I grew up with and was a friend of their kids.  My family was often the ones who called them when their cattle broke through the fences, since our land bordered some of the range land, and since our commute into town ran parallel to one border of their land. 

And I know how to cross fence lines without damaging the wire, or pulling it loose from the fence posts.  The chief techniques are use a downed tree near the fence to hop over, or to slip under where a stream has undercut the fence.  Once you know the weak spots, it doesn’t even slow you down.

If course, my point is fences of any sort work to an extent, if they are backed up with enforcement.  Physical barriers plus extended surveillance just extends the range over which you can detect infiltrators.  Either case needs boots on the ground.

In some places along the border (towards the San Diego/Tiajuana side) where fences still exist, there is a myriad of tunnels that have been built by border crossers (some illegal immigrants, some drug smugglers).  The tunnels work because the area patrolled by the border guards is relatively a thin line.  If you extend the line to miles deep via surveillance cameras, tunneling won’t help you.