Critiquing the boarder wall for ( Br John . )

I'm just curious...

Of anyone and everyone holding an opinion one way or the other about immigration (which usually doesn't turn out to cost as much as some "studies" suggest - one always has to consider who funded the study and to what conclusion their investment leans toward), how many have actually opened a volume of political philosophy (say, John Rawls, for example, but a 500 year old edition of Michel de Montaigne would work just as well -- or Adam Smith, or John Locke, or ...) ? Or, is the opinion based on CNN or just common-stock, popularist notions about the supremacy of America and who should or shouldn't get to live there.

I lived there for 14 years and found it abysmal. Came back to Europe where we have other un-managable problems, including immigration. But here, it is a social problem with a forward-seeking perspective. America cannot go back to the pre-Wilson isolationist mindset. That is a century-old, backward-wishing (Earth has about 5 times the population as it did then) nightmare worse than the "American Dream" has become. I was actually born in Illinois but didn't have too much of a problem getting out. I do find it interesting though that in order to renounce US citizenship (I burnt my American passport, not having a flag handy...), there is a cost of about $ 2 500 just to submit the forms.

Maybe that wall is really designed to keep you all in, rather than the others out ? A little reminiscent of the Soviet bloc, don't you think ?

Another interesting question (which I don't have an answer to, I just feel the question worth posing) would be : just because one is born in the United States, what gives that person more of a right to its benefits (sic) than someone not born in the United States who may need those benefits even more ? What are we talking about when we are talking about "rights" anyway ? Human beings are born with a lot of evolutionary and cultural heritage which most people do not give very much thought to. Before deciding on what someone else deserves, it is a good idea to decide what one actually deserves oneself. By the way, no surgeon in the galaxy can go in and take out your "rights" - they are not a part of you.

Locke wrote of inalienable rights (an accord of things which human beings ought to protect for and by one another for us to have a civilised (or reasonably so anyway) society. These were "Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Property" (not "Happiness"). By this, it was meant that each human being born on Earth ought to have the right to a set of conditions that does not jeapordise the vital experience itself. In simpler terms, we ought not kill one another (neither by guns nor by starvation). One ought to have the liberty to engage in meaningful endeavours unimpeded by the notion of merit (social class, caste or any other arbitrary filtre). Naturally, my liberty is bounded by at what point it starts interfering with the liberty of someone else. This is where we start getting into the messy muck of accepted inequalities.

The pursuit of Property was not a call to the ambition of acquiring a lot of possessions. What Locke meant by that was merely that by the labour of one's hands, one ought have a share in the ownership - or at least the benefit - of the production. It was Thomas Jefferson who changed it to "the pursuit of Happiness", and though Jefferson was a clever fellow, he got that one quite wrong. Happiness cannot be pursued, it can only occur in momentary, conditional instances.

So, what's the wall all about ? Keeping people from the inalienable "rights" of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Property (usually illegal immigrants DO indeed work with their hands -- sometimes a lot harder and longer than US citizens) ? That seems pretty ignoble. Or is it to keep US citizens "in" -- if only psychologically mesmerised to believe they live in a realised Utopia where everyone would want to live (prosperity notwithstanding) ?

Just a few thoughts to ponder...

Just another quick question :

Why all the talk about "illegal immigrants" instead of calling these people "refugees" ? Why would they go to the United States where they are treated as criminals almost in as much of a stead as what they are fleeing from ?

Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is a bit misleading ? Maybe ... ?

Alexandre Orion wrote: Just another quick question :

Why all the talk about "illegal immigrants" instead of calling these people "refugees" ? Why would they go to the United States where they are treated as criminals almost in as much of a stead as what they are fleeing from ?

Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is a bit misleading ? Maybe ... ?

I'm using a precise legal term. I pointed out that most border crossing illegal immigrants today are minors from Central America simply trying to stay alive. They are mostly starving (refugees). There are plenty of illegal immigrants who are certainly not refugees though. This is not a debate about immigration policy and law.

Assuming the goal is to keep people from illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the US, a wall either is or is not the best way to do it.

After a LOT of research into this topic for a college paper, I’m of the opinion this project has more merit than the Physical Wall proposed by Trump:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/government-delays-border-barrier-construction-arizona-64978546

The way its defined here is a refugee is one seeking political asylum (legitimately). Its not an assessment of wealth, health or hardship at their point of departure but danger from their own country, ie forced displacement.

Why illegal... here it's considered illegal to cross international borders without permission unless one us a refugee. Asylum seekers are processed to determine legitimacy as refugees. So illegitimate refugees seek to avoid the system by paying criminal enterprise known as people smugglers, which is the same activity as drug and slave trades, and also theoretically it's a security risk for terrorism etc.

Dealing with people already in country is another issue. There is no need to conflate them unless considering budgetary appropriations IMO. But why illegal if in country, other then breaking immigration law about entry or residence limits, someone is also breaking the law for tax avoidance I'd imagine, at a minimum? Another issue is the extent of illegal activity by someone out of system, and unknown risks freak those responsible for the system and its dependants out a bit.

So why limit refugees to political asylum, because that is what a nation is, a system of laws to build prosperity to its lawful citizens.. not the world's population.

I duuno if a wall will work, but the current system appears not to be either.

Br. John wrote:

Alexandre Orion wrote: Just another quick question :

Why all the talk about "illegal immigrants" instead of calling these people "refugees" ? Why would they go to the United States where they are treated as criminals almost in as much of a stead as what they are fleeing from ?

Perhaps the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is a bit misleading ? Maybe ... ?

I'm using a precise legal term. I pointed out that most border crossing illegal immigrants today are minors from Central America simply trying to stay alive. They are mostly starving (refugees). There are plenty of illegal immigrants who are certainly not refugees though. This is not a debate about immigration policy and law.

Assuming the goal is to keep people from illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the US, a wall either is or is not the best way to do it.

Yes, I appreciate the precision of the legal term, although I would hesitate to make much of a distinction between "refugee" and "illegal immigrant" since - even if they are not seeking refuge from political/legislative oppression in their home state - they are probably (in most cases) trying to generate income which they couldn't by staying home. In short - and not a precise legal term at all -, I would suggest that they would only take such a risk if they were seeking refuge from extreme poverty.

It is also very doubtful that people can legally and from their home states apply for visas and work-entry status. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm playing with semantics here - I'm not - but trying to employ semantics in its proper linguistic function.

The Berlin Wall didn't work out so very well and it was a much less elaborate structure. Not only would the measure be grossly ineffective (as Carlos has suggested), but indeed, a construction of such envergure would be an environmentally catastrophic enterprise.

I mean what's the threshold in your opinion (bracketing out the legal determination of refugee status) which one must meet to be considered a refugee rather than an opportunist?

Also at what point does a nation need to balance the interests of its constituents (read: money and convenience) versus humanitarian ideals? Is it justifiable to go to war over refugees?

Some general glaring issues with the wall:

TheDude wrote: Some general glaring issues with the wall:

Warning: Spoiler!

Not to mention a VAST majority of illegal immigrants come legally via airplane and just... overstay their visa. Can't build a wall tall enough to keep out airplanes.

I never really understand the wall idea. Seems to me it will be built so no one has to watch it. Just me but walls arnt for security... that’s what the people do. Just my 2 cents.

This is a debate about if building a wall along the entire border of Mexico and The United States is the best way to keep someone from illegally crossing the border and is it worth the cost and damage to the environment and ecology. We are not debating immigration policy. An illegal immigrant is anyone who is in a country illegally. Period. Someone who is granted asylum is here legally so they are not an illegal immigrant. We are not debating asylum policy. We are debating if Trump's Big Beautiful Wall is a good or bad idea. Please. Make topics for all the other related issues.

Coming in through an airport legally (and subsequently overstaying) is not as much a risk, because at least the Gov knows who you are and some basic information enough to have let the person in. It's a different problem. The question seems to be more about is the wall worth it, and will it work at undetected border crossings. Sailing a boat is easier to detect, but I think the idea of a wall is to make it harder enough that detection can more easily occur... rather then build it and hope it solves everything. Detection is not so much about stopping, but interception.... things like this are about information first, then application of law second. Its not some Orwellian ham fist. Though it could become that... if irrational minds create ideological division out of every little attempt at solving complex problems, or if people trust too much in propoganda. Lucky our society is increasing access to communications and IT.. so it's more a risk of irrational emotionalism misrepresenting reality then secret government conspiracies these days IMO.

I wonder if there might be certain segments of territory where a wall could be useful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfWRDWYvMjo

It blows my mind that people care so much about illegal immigration when the existential threat of climate change is looming over our heads.

We are in for a shit storm if we don't start attempting to mitigate the ruin this could bring upon us.
We have like 20 more years before we are screwed if it isn't too late already.
Seriously.

Here is a small example of what could result from our apathy.
A couple of degrees warmer and a majority of grain crops will not be able to grow.
I'm talking roughly 60% of all grain crops.
All it takes is a tiny bit of global temperature variation, just a few degrees shifted one way or another.
Think about the implications of that!
The majority of the population of the world relies on grain crops as a dietary staple.
So, go figure.

Not to mention the wall ain't gonna stop anything, it is just a partial wall, only going over stretches of territory with no natural barrier, people will still find ways in if they are desperate enough.
Yes, Illegal Immigration is an issue, but this isn't the Qin Dynasty of Ancient China, we have far bigger issues to worry about than a fucking wall.
Yes, we need some serious immigration reform, but the wall is not the answer or even an effective solution at that.
Seriously, that's like the solution a toddler would come up with to the immigration issue. It's ridiculous.

CaesarEJW wrote: Seriously, that's like the solution a toddler would come up with to the immigration issue. It's ridiculous.

Only if the toddler thinks its the extent of the solution..
Complex problems usually have multi-faceted solutions and I expect any wall is part of a solution other then the entirety if it.

Adder wrote:

CaesarEJW wrote: Seriously, that's like the solution a toddler would come up with to the immigration issue. It's ridiculous.

Only if the toddler thinks its the extent of the solution..
Complex problems usually have multi-faceted solutions and I expect any wall is part of a solution other then the entirety if it.

I agree completely. Complex issues require complex answers.

Yes I know the wall seems a little much , but it's a start . If the politicians on both sides of the aisle would stop pounding sand then maybe we would get somewhere with the immigration Reformation but that will be a while a way . Someone had a good point about people over staying there visa , well at the least we know who they are , why they came and can be held accountable for any crimes they commit unlike undocumented illegal immigrants we know nothing or little to nothing about . The wall is meant not to be an all in one solution but to slow them down as much as possible to where boarder patrol can handle it . Yes you can use large latters but it will still slow them down and make it to where there can be less of them coming in at once .

Here in AZ it's always been a hotbed topic. Whether it's water stations out in the desert to help with the decline of deaths in the summer's heat to Border Patrol issues to tunnels, trucks crossing in the dead of night on no road areas, etc...

There is no exact answer. Some have said it's politics vs Cartel Money vs Human Rights vs US sovereignty, etc...

It's not going to be resolved overnight, no clear answers as of yet. Every time they discover a way to stop one way to enter, a few more pop up somewhere... sad to say.

Malicious wrote: Yes I know the wall seems a little much , but it's a start . If the politicians on both sides of the aisle would stop pounding sand then maybe we would get somewhere with the immigration Reformation but that will be a while a way . Someone had a good point about people over staying there visa , well at the least we know who they are , why they came and can be held accountable for any crimes they commit unlike undocumented illegal immigrants we know nothing or little to nothing about . The wall is meant not to be an all in one solution but to slow them down as much as possible to where boarder patrol can handle it . Yes you can use large latters but it will still slow them down and make it to where there can be less of them coming in at once .

You are not responding to anything I posted. I gave references.

The 2 Republican Senators and 25 Republican Representatives (from Texas) all voted against the wall. There are already barriers in place where the vast majority attempt to cross. Improving those that need it makes sense. There are hundreds of miles where there are plenty of dead bodies because there's only massive amounts of desert. [T]he longest contiguous unfenced stretch of border — more than 600 miles total — is in the middle of Texas. There's no major city here on either side of the border. Billions of dollars for miles and miles of a wall to destroy the environment where almost nobody attempts to cross and most of the few that do die along the way.

Why is that a good idea? Please read the articles I posted and refute them. See: https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/123483-critiquing-the-boarder-wall-for-br-john?start=0#348813 And See: https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/123483-critiquing-the-boarder-wall-for-br-john?start=0#348824

Malicious wrote: Yes I know the wall seems a little much , but it's a start . If the politicians on both sides of the aisle would stop pounding sand then maybe we would get somewhere with the immigration Reformation but that will be a while a way . Someone had a good point about people over staying there visa , well at the least we know who they are , why they came and can be held accountable for any crimes they commit unlike undocumented illegal immigrants we know nothing or little to nothing about . The wall is meant not to be an all in one solution but to slow them down as much as possible to where boarder patrol can handle it . Yes you can use large latters but it will still slow them down and make it to where there can be less of them coming in at once .

Dear Malicious,

Spending $10B as a "Start" is not a good idea. In fact it really isn't a solution at all. Any "fixed" defense can be strategically evaded. It's just like plugging 1 hole for computer viruses to go through. Once people who make the viruses see the plugged hole they will simply find another exploit or find a way to unplug the hole. The border wall did slow people down... for about as long as it took for people to see that they could simply cut through it. It's like proposing to build the great wall of china but missing the fact that the walls surrounding castles and kingdoms were often meant to slow down invaders and stop people from coming in on horses. You know... medieval attack strategies. However, if the wall was too long, an invasion force would simply come in at a less guarded point. No wall was ever impregnable. And the thicker the wall is the more it costs. Trump thinks this is a good idea because he likes construction and can probably make sure construction companies he knows gets a lot of the work and can give kickbacks for the contracts to Trump business entities. Remember Haliburton?

A better idea:

Contract Elon Musk to build an army of electric powered drones that can fly long distances and act like Roombas. Create several "bases" with charging stations that they can automatically dock at and power them with solar panels. Launch a few satellites that can double as internet providers for rural areas near the border. Have those satellites track people spotted by drones. Have small stations of border patrol along the border who can pick people up who are spotted. These drones could have several cameras each, including a camera attached to a telescope. You can also have hot air balloons tethered to each station equipped with an emergency parachute. There are many other things you can do without spending $10-20billion on a dumb wall that can't see anyone who makes a hole through it.