Mexico Threatens to Take the USA Before the UN

Originally posted by Genghis I don't think I'm dodging the question.  In my personal affairs I would be kind and courteous to someone even if they were an illegal immigrant, but I don't want my government to do the same.  The laws which govern individuals and entities like nations are different.

Edited by arch.buff - 20-Oct-2006 at 21:44

Because, I think that in this instance you are putting respect toward people who don't deserve it ahead of the security of the United States, and the latter is the paramount goal.

I don't think I'm dodging the question.  In my personal affairs I would be kind and courteous to someone even if they were an illegal immigrant, but I don't want my government to do the same.  The laws which govern individuals and entities like nations are different.

I stand by my statement that governments are only obligated to show respect to their own citizens.

Originally posted by Genghis   Originally posted by pinguin The U.S. has only two wrongs? That's quite a few, I guess. I have counted at least one hundred invasions or at least interferences in Latin American countries since 1840. And that's just a fraction of what has been going on worldwide.   Yes, the U.S. has many wrongs, with almost any people in the surface of planet Earth. The problem is the world knows it, but the U.S. itself seem to have forgotten and forgiving its own faults already.   You're merely avoiding my question in the interest of sniping at US policy.  Is your justification now that America deserves a taste of its own medicine?

It is impossible to relate the Berlin wall to the present situation.

Edited by Peter III - 18-Oct-2006 at 23:20

That's quite a few, I guess. I have counted at least one hundred invasions or at least interferences in Latin American countries since 1840. And that's just a fraction of what has been going on worldwide.

Pinguin if your going that far back into history remember that up till the turn of the century mexican warlords frequently used the border to commit crimes in both america and mexico.

A wall can substitute for many more guards that would need to be hired.  With a surveilled wall, one would need to spend several minutes scaling it, giving guards time to respond.  Without a wall or every inch of border having a patrol on it all day, one needs only to dash across when the border guards aren't there.

Genghis how expensive is this wall going to be? Even if it was just a stone barricade it would cost millions of dollars to build, maintain and repair. Let alone if you wanted a high tech border with cameras. Using my plan of having one or two watchmen for every mile of border working an eight hour shift, the investment wouldn't be that high. They don't need to be highly trained people just have eyes and the ability to call in border patrol officials.

See the border between Mexico and America is roughly 2000 miles. Lets assume that we have 5 people watching every mile (not at the same time, but to account for different shifts, off days, whatever) then you are looking at a work force of 10,000 people (the number of police officers in NYC is 35,000 for reference). Then lets assume you pay them say $10.00 an hour not much in general but to an untrained person its pretty good pay. Then thats costing the american taxpayers 200.8 million dollars a year. Meanwhile as this site suggests (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/15368932.htm) it could take 2.5 billion dollars or more to construct a border fence. Which means my plan could go on for 10 years before the costs would equal what this fence would cost.

Basically my plan would be to pay the minuteman organization for what they do in their spare time, which as I can tell is the most effective way to catch illegal immigrants. Also it would put some legitimizing force behind them as many mexicans consider the minutemen to be racist vigilantes.

edit: Sorry fuzzy math. But to put more reference into the arguement I calculated that Congress will cost the american taxpayers 90.2 million dollars this year. Also if you think 200 million dollars a year is too high a price for national security the war in Iraq has cost america more than 378 billion dollars so far.


Edited by JanusRook - 18-Oct-2006 at 18:10

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by hugoestr Guards are key here. Customs, border patrol, DEA. We need more people guarding the border. And if we have guards, there is no need to have a wall :) A wall can substitute for many more guards that would need to be hired. With a surveilled wall, one would need to spend several minutes scaling it, giving guards time to respond. Without a wall or every inch of border having a patrol on it all day, one needs only to dash across when the border guards aren't there. Walls are very effective at preventing movement of people, just ask the East Germans.

    

Genghis,

We are talking about the desert here. It is pretty hard to hide. And if we had a unit of guard every so often, as Janus proposed, let's say, one every mile with a vehicle, it will take no time to catch up with anyone crossing the border.

Now let's see what is proposed. The wall will be there with the current level of guards. This means that people can easily cross when the guards are not there.

You know well that it is manpower that can protect a border, not a wall. Ask the Chinese how successful their was And you know well that the Berlin wall was a lot smaller than our border, which is why it was effective.

Really, Genghis, why do you insist on the wall, when it is cheaper and more effective to get guards? Why do you insist on carrying on an inefficient insult?

Come on, empathize and recongize that you, me, and illegal aliens are all humans, and we all like to be treated with respect. You made this point very clear in your previous post

Originally posted by Aelfgifu  And you're saying that of course US never ever tried to control anything about anybody elses business ever, right? (Korea, anyone? Vietnam, all post war colonial powers, Irak, Iran, Afganistan, Somalia, every single South-American country, these ring a bell maybe?)

Originally posted by DukeC The world has changed drastically in the last five years but you seem to take for granted the U.S. will maintain its' same border policies. It has no legal responsibilty to allow illegal immigration across its' borders and because of security concerns is hardening them all along its' periphery.

    

DukeC,

Please read my posts again. You will see notice that I say that I am in favor or practical border enforcement. I have said this many times. Of course the U.S. doesn't have to allow illegal immigrants to cross the border. The reality is that the wall is not a real solution.

I expected a change in border policies myself after 9-11. Unfortunately, the change didn't happen at all. The border is more or less the same way it was 6 years ago.

And I am afraid that the wall is more of the same. It is elected Republicans claiming to do something when they don't want to change the situation at all, as they normally do.

The border needs enough people guarding it. We can build a Chinese Great Wall, but without people watching the border, it will be of no use.

Guards are key here. Customs, border patrol, DEA. We need more people guarding the border. And if we have guards, there is no need to have a wall :)


We are basically on the same side here: you want a secure country; I want a secure country. You see the borders as a potential security threat; I can see that too.

It is just a matter of means. Will we waste money building a wall that won't stop the flow of immigrants, or do we fully fund the agencies that can actually secure our borders?

Just on pragmatic reasons you can see that guards are the most important element in securing the border. And if it happens to be also the most respectful one, isn't that even better!