Where There's a Wall, There's a Way


Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't need to list the walls, fences, etc., that governments have built for centuries to keep some people out and other people in. It seems to me that people who want to cross a border badly enough will find ways. 

Are there better ways to prevent them? If you think it would be interesting to discuss, let's stipulate that we must protect our borders, and we must take steps to protect against increasing numbers of illegal immigrants. We must deal with the numbers of illegal immigrants that are already here. But let's discuss other ideas that you think would be more effective than a wall (or if you insist, in addition to a wall). And just for productivity sake let's leave out the ideologies, politics, etc. and see if it's possible to focus on the merits of topical ideas. Think of it as approaching the problem similar to the way NASA might approach the problem of rescuing Matt Damon, haha. :)

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Australia as a case study. In about 2007, the Liberal government in power at the time had almost stopped the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. Then, in 2008, the Labour government in power at the time, perhaps to appease the left wing of their party, abolished some of the measures that the previous government had put in place to stop the refugee flow. As a result, over the next five years, almost 50,000 asylum seekers found their way to Australia through non-legal means. When the government changed again, in 2012, with the Liberal's back in power, a series of increasingly strict, some say harsh measures were put in place which gradually began to restrict the flow of asylum seekers to Australia. In the words of Australia's Minister for Immigration, these measures have been aimed directly at "breaking the business model of the people smugglers." Now, in the last year and a half, as these measures have began to take affect, we have had no "unauthorised maritime arrivals" (that's government speak for non-legal asylum seekers). 

I believe that of the many different components of the policies aimed at stopping the asylum seekers, the one that has had the greatest impact is the government's iron clad guarantee that no non-legal asylum seeker will EVER be allowed to settle in Australia, under any circumstances. Even if their claim for asylum is processed and it is found that the applicant is a genuine refugee, and does have a legal claim for protection, the Australian government has decided that that person will not be settled in Australia. Most NGOs and the United Nations High Commission on Refugees say that this policy brings Australia into breach of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but the government's lawyers have been able to find a way to say that even with this policy, Australia is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

Other components of the policy are off shore processing and mandatory detention. If an unauthorised maritime arrival did occur in Australia, the people on that boat would be taken into custody, then flown on a government chartered plane to a tiny failed state called Nauru, the second smallest country in the world after The Vatican, or to a remote island called Manus, in Papua New Guinea where they are held in a secure facility under guard. Their claim for asylum would not be processed in Australia or by Australians and they would not have access to the Australian legal system. Once a decision has been made concerning their refugee status, they are allowed out of the secure facility, but they have to stay in Nauru or Manus until a third country offers to take them in. This whole process has no definite time line and usually takes several years.

These policies, combined with other deterrents, completely removes the biggest marketing tool used by the people smugglers. They have no product to sell if they cannot ensure that their "customers" will be settled in Australia. They have been effective in completely stopping the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals for about the last 18 months. 

The following should be noted:

These policies are aimed solely at people who try to come here by boat. They are not aimed at, or effective in relation to, those who fly here.

As a nation that has a whole continent to itself, with no land borders with any other country, we don't have to worry about building fences.

Many Australian people are concerned about how strict and harsh and inhumane these policies are and there have been many protests and demonstrations against them, but both the government and the Opposition support them, although the Opposition says they would try to enforce them in a softer, kinder way. Many people are uncomfortable with these policies but cannot see any other way to stop the flow of unauthorised maritime arrivals because the moment you open up a loop hole, the people smugglers will take full advantage of it. 

On a per capita basis, Australia has one of the highest intakes of legal asylum seekers of any country in the world. We accept and welcome legal asylum seekers but not the illegal ones. 

It can fairly be said that at the cost of great misery, and with some doubtful legal interpretations of the Convention and way too many dollars, we are in control of our borders, and our borders are secure. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mike said:

And just for productivity sake let's leave out the ideologies, politics, etc. and see if it's possible to focus on the merits of topical ideas. 

Inasmuch as possible, yes.  But the fact is that politics is what causes some problems with the implementation of policies that would work.

First, the Constitution stipulates an enumerated power of the Federal Government is to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization."  Notice that it does not enumerate a power to control immigration.  Today we always pair these together.  But it has not always been so.  While the federal government did exercise some powers over immigration, they were generally actions which were directly related to naturalization.

The first federal foray into acts that were purely immigration was the Supreme Court's decisions on unconstitutional state immigration laws (like those imposing a head tax on immigrants from other states).  Gradually throughout the remainder of the 19th century, the federal government took more and more power over immigration.  Late in the 19th century the feds declared (through legislation) that all immigration would be subject to federal power.  Since then, the states have been battling the issue of powers of immigration.  It still is not settled from a legal perspective.

My Position:

1) Build the stupid wall because nothing else does nearly enough to keep illegals out.
2) Allow all people to come to the border for a background check (including fingerprints, photo ID and DNA sampling).
3) If they pass a background check, then allow them to apply for either a visa or a green card.  (apply waiting period).
4) DO NOT allow any immigrants to achieve citizen status -- with very few exceptions.
5) Children born on US soil to immigrants shall have a secondary citizen status.  But their children will be considered full citizens.  Yes, three generations for full citizenship.

  1. Immigrants (even if babies at the time of crossing the border) will never be citizens, but they will be allowed to live here.  And they should be required to pass the citizenship test.
  2. First generation US born would have only one advantage over the immigrant generation.  They would not be subject to deportation other than such a cause that would make a full citizen subject to exile.
  3. Second generation US born would be full citizens in every way shape and form.  I would really like it if everyone in the country were required to pass the citizenship test.  But I guess there are some theoretical problems with that.
  4. I also believe that each generation should be based on the dual parentage as was originally intended by the Founders.

I recognize that this would mean that I, myself, would not be a citizen under this rule.  But I love the idea of America and the divinity of the Constitution enough that I would think it a welcome exchange if it meant the preservation of the American way of life and the spirit of the Constitution.

The thing is that I have no problem with immigration. And I have no problem with easy immigration.  But it should be controlled and orderly.  And it should be done in such a way that it doesn't drastically alter the social norms and customs in a single generation.  Mass immigration -- especially with voting privileges and the ability to hold public office or government jobs -- will change this country to the point it is no longer our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put forth so simple a notion, I would love to see the dual impact of more rigorous border control (without getting to the wall of the OP per request) with an efficient immigration track. 

I, like Carb, think immigration is a fine thing. And also like Carb, keep it orderly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From me... somebody who took almost 10 years to finally get a green card... I think the US immigration system is too welcoming.

The fact is, a lot of people want to come to the US.  Yea yea, you hear Filipinos and Mexicans say Life is Better in the Philippines or Mexico... they only mean that culturally, not economically.  They still want to live in the US so they can send money back home.  So, the first chance they get, they'll go to the US, even risking the illegal routes, just so they can have that chance to earn dollars.

The progressives like to say... We should open our borders to these unfortunate folks and share our wealth... yeah, that's the fast track to making the US a 3rd World County.  Which, I guess solves the immigration problem.

So yes.  Strong borders.  The US don't have full natural borders.  That's why it needs a wall.  There are farmlands in Texas that are private property that abuts Mexico.  These property owners don't just protect their land from wolves and coyotes, they protect them from people too.  I mean, it's fine for us subdivision dwellers to put up an 8-foot wood fence to prevent thieves from coming in as well as nosy neighbors.  It's highly different for these guys who has to keep their property safe from a daily influx especially those trafficking drugs and people for the porn and slave industry.

In addition to the wall and the access road alongside it for border patrol... drone technology to monitor the border to supplement surveillance, vibration technology to detect tunnels, and a highly efficient detention facility to process arrests.

Now, one might question... hello... 3,000 miles of border between Canada and the US... no wall.   What gives?  Well, plain and simply, there's relatively very few problems coming from the northern border.  Yes, you still have the skipjacks... Filipinos flying to Canada then crossing illegally into the US.  But, getting into Canada is just as difficult as entering the US.  Canadians also has a lot less reason to want to risk illegal crossings into the US.  So, how to make the southern border safer?  Improve the lives of our Southern neighbors.  In their own countries.  Unfortunately, Mexico's Spanish heritage has kept them from progressing.  Much like the Filipinos.  The Spanish legacy of government corruption still holds its grip even after more than a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the major objections I have to government bureaucracies and policies is the notion that one program fits all possibilities.  To me a “wall” is based in the one solution mentality.  Let’s take Mexico as an example – in part because the Mexican border is such a big problem that old thinking has not done much to resolve.  Because of the large amounts of individuals from Mexico desiring to come to the USA I think we should consider putting pressure on the Mexican government to provide a state primarily or exclusively in Mexico that would become a “territory” of the USA.  This territory in Mexico would be under a special dispensation of USA law.  The size of the territory would be based on the number of individuals wishing and allowed by Mexico to live there.  The territory could be located at the border and have area provided by both countries with perhaps the greater land area coming from Mexico.  The point is that citizens of that territory state would be awarded special visas that grant certain privileges in both countries.

This territory concept would allow Mexico primary control over who of their citizens are allowed to become citizens of that territory and a way for the USA to obtain cheap labor in certain markets under USA government control as well as incremental benefits and tax status in the USA economy.  I have not provided a complete description of this option and leave a great deal to everyone’s imagination.   My point in this suggestion it to start thinking outside the box of ancient tradition that does not work very well in our current circumstance.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One of the major objections I have to government bureaucracies and policies is the notion that one program fits all possibilities.  To me a “wall” is based in the one solution mentality.  Let’s take Mexico as an example – in part because the Mexican border is such a big problem that old thinking has not done much to resolve.  Because of the large amounts of individuals from Mexico desiring to come to the USA I think we should consider putting pressure on the Mexican government to provide a state primarily or exclusively in Mexico that would become a “territory” of the USA.  This territory in Mexico would be under a special dispensation of USA law.  The size of the territory would be based on the number of individuals wishing and allowed by Mexico to live there.  The territory could be located at the border and have area provided by both countries with perhaps the greater land area coming from Mexico.  The point is that citizens of that territory state would be awarded special visas that grant certain privileges in both countries.

This territory concept would allow Mexico primary control over who of their citizens are allowed to become citizens of that territory and a way for the USA to obtain cheap labor in certain markets under USA government control as well as incremental benefits and tax status in the USA economy.  I have not provided a complete description of this option and leave a great deal to everyone’s imagination.   My point in this suggestion it to start thinking outside the box of ancient tradition that do not work very well in our current circumstance.

 

The Traveler

This sounds good in theory but poses big problems.  No country - and that includes Mexico - wants to cede control of its country, even just parts of its country to a foreign power.  As much as Europe talks about globalization and multiculturalism, the minute they realize they're going to lose control of their country, they do a 180.

The Philippines, for example, was a commonwealth of the USA.  It was great.  We got the US military to defend us in WWII, we got our education system revamped, we got instant trade partners, etc.  But, the whole time, we fought tooth and nail for independence and got it.  So then, this guy (he was one of my dad's cousins even) ran for the office of the President on a Commonwealth or Statehood platform to solve the many many problems we had post Marcos and post Aquino and he got statistically zero support.  It was one of the most dismal presidential campaigns in the country's history.  This coming from a country where a whole lot of them work in Guam, and whole lot more want to migrate to the US so much so that there's a big number of them staying in the US mainland illegally.

We've had several political campaigns to split parts of Mindanao off to be a shared territory with Brunei or Malaysia because they want to be an Islamic State which is against the Philippine Constitution.  That went absolutely nowhere.  We're even disputing territory with China right now and no Filipinos live in that area.

National borders have remained pretty sacred all throughout history - the only time it changes is through war.  Okay, so the USSR splitting and Germany combining were generally peaceful transitions but that was done under the threat of war...

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This sounds good in theory but poses big problems.  No country - and that includes Mexico - wants to cede control of its country, even just parts of its country to a foreign power.  As much as Europe talks about globalization and multiculturalism, the minute they realize they're going to lose control of their country, they do a 180.

The Philippines, for example, was a commonwealth of the USA.  It was great.  We got the US military to defend us in WWII, we got our education system revamped, we got instant trade partners, etc.  But, the whole time, we fought tooth and nail for independence and got it.  So then, this guy (he was one of my dad's cousins even) ran for the office of the President on a Commonwealth or Statehood platform to solve the many many problems we had post Marcos and post Aquino and he got statistically zero support.  It was one of the most dismal presidential campaigns in the country's history.  This coming from a country where a whole lot of them work in Guam, and whole lot more want to migrate to the US so much so that there's a big number of them staying in the US mainland illegally.

We've had several political campaigns to split parts of Mindanao off to be a shared territory with Brunei or Malaysia because they want to be an Islamic State which is against the Philippine Constitution.  That went absolutely nowhere.  We're even disputing territory with China right now and no Filipinos live in that area.

National borders have remained pretty sacred all throughout history - the only time it changes is through war.  Okay, so the USSR splitting and Germany combining were generally peaceful transitions but that was done under the threat of war...

Something like I suggested worked form the Mormons that settled the western territories.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Something like I suggested worked form the Mormons that settled the western territories.

 

The Traveler

That's because nobody had a defensible claim on Utah at that time.  New Mexico and California were won by the US in the US-Mexican war.  The US-Mexico treaty of Hidalgo peacefully handed the US the territories north of the Rio Grande including Utah as an acknowledgement of defeat in the war.  The Mormons had to declare statehood to continue to defend their land as it has become part of US territories.  This was not Mexico sharing land with the US.  This is the US taking those territories and establishing its borders by show of strength and gaining states through the allegiance to the US Constitution.

Of course, you can always try to expand your borders by waging war against Mexico again...

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's because nobody had a defensible claim on the western territories at that time.

But that is not to say that nobody tried.

Note also that Mexico is not supportive of a wall and in many cases they do not want certain of their citizens back – or to maintain them as their sovereign citizens within their own legal borders or in other countries with proper visas.   As I understand there are certain organizations associated with Mexico that would like to take territory from the USA.  There are many interests and it is doubtful that whatever happens that everybody will be ecstatic with whatever is determined to resolve the border issues.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But that is not to say that nobody tried.

Note also that Mexico is not supportive of a wall and in many cases they do not want certain of their citizens back – or to maintain them as their sovereign citizens within their own legal borders or in other countries with proper visas.   As I understand there are certain organizations associated with Mexico that would like to take territory from the USA.  There are many interests and it is doubtful that whatever happens that everybody will be ecstatic with whatever is determined to resolve the border issues.

 

The Traveler

Mexico is not supportive of paying for a wall.  They actually like borders.  They have borders with Guatemala - not a wall, just a fence with the natural borders created by all those rivers but it was something they begged the US to help them negotiate with Guatemala.  They prefer to have a strong border on the US side to wipe out their drug trafficking and gun running problems as well as their own illegal immigration problems with people from South America illegally crossing their own southern border as a pass-through to the US.  And of course, they don't want their criminal citizens back.  They sure hope the US will keep El Chapo.  And yes, they want to keep those remittances coming from the migrants.  They don't much care if their citizens come home as long as their money keeps coming home.  They make more on those remittances than they do with their oil.  Still, that doesn't imply in any sense that Mexico is willing to cede over control of part of their land to the US especially after having fought a war over it.

But yeah, the idea is a sound one.  It's exactly what I was hoping the US will do in Syria.  Carve out part of Syria, defend it with allied troops, establish trade agreements with that part of Syria and direct all refugees there.  But yes, I do believe it's a land area that we have to win from Assad - either militarily or through peace talks.  This is entirely different for Mexico who is not a bad kid on the international stage and wouldn't have a reason to be compelled to give up territory.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I don't want another 9/11 on US soil, but I also don't want everyone turned away.

I have some acquaintances within the FBI that I have talked directly to and voiced my concern.  I believe that I would go into 80% of the garages in the USA and from the materials there – use in attack on US soil that I estimate would take close to 20 million lives.  My FBI friends agree with my numbers and concede that it would be almost impossible to stop someone from doing what I think could be done.  My point is that we are very vulnerable in our society and that those that would harm us are not very smart - yet.

But to be honest – I am more concerned with the divisions in this country and the insane hatred expressed between differing political stripes than I am of those that hate us from outside.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

But to be honest – I am more concerned with the divisions in this country and the insane hatred expressed between differing political stripes than I am of those that hate us from outside.

 

The Traveler

This.

The Washington power grab out of the establishment swamp is expected to cause lots of trouble.  Nobody wants to give up power peacefully.  But this new norm of protest instigated mostly by media narratives is way more than I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This.

The Washington power grab out of the establishment swamp is expected to cause lots of trouble.  Nobody wants to give up power peacefully.  But this new norm of protest instigated mostly by media narratives is way more than I expected.

 

I have expected that this country is quickly headed towards a Civil War.  My theory has been that if Trump was elected that the war would occur sooner (for the reasons you have stated) but would be less severe than if Hillary had been elected.  However, now I am not so sure – it appears to me that a great deal of blood will be spilt before many will reconsider their political agendas.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have expected that this country is quickly headed towards a Civil War. 

I don't see armed conflict happening. Despite all the hysterics coming from both sides that's not in the future. What'll happen eventually is that we will see a Brexit type event happen here in the states-and that's a good thing. Local control is much better than having a centralized government where Vermont makes rules that Wyoming has to follow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I don't see armed conflict happening. Despite all the hysterics coming from both sides that's not in the future. What'll happen eventually is that we will see a Brexit type event happen here in the states-and that's a good thing. Local control is much better than having a centralized government where Vermont makes rules that Wyoming has to follow. 

 

Besides the obvious rhetoric that can be dismissed there are calls for violence and property damage that has been backed by planned destruction of property in what is called demonstrations.  There have been documented plans of assaults with the intent to create violence within at least one of the primary political party’s leadership.  My assumption is based on experience that by time we see things at the surface within political landscapes – there is much more going on beneath the surface.

Had Hillary been elected I had projected that armed conflict would not take place until near the end of her second term or even perhaps later (except for limited planned events to create political advantages – all for reasons open for descussion.  But with Trump – I doubt that things will last through a single term.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Besides the obvious rhetoric that can be dismissed there are calls for violence and property damage that has been backed by planned destruction of property in what is called demonstrations.  There have been documented plans of assaults with the intent to create violence within at least one of the primary political party’s leadership.  My assumption is based on experience that by time we see things at the surface within political landscapes – there is much more going on beneath the surface.

Had Hillary been elected I had projected that armed conflict would not take place until near the end of her second term or even perhaps later (except for limited planned events to create political advantages – all for reasons open for descussion.  But with Trump – I doubt that things will last through a single term.

 

The Traveler

@Traveler

I disagree with you a lot, and I want you and everyone else to know that it isn't personal. I like you and I like your posts. 

But what you said isn't going to happen. Eight years ago people tried to say that Obama wouldn't leave after his eight years and marital law would be instituted, heck we'd all be in FEMA camps at this point. So no, what you said is just not going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Besides the obvious rhetoric that can be dismissed there are calls for violence and property damage that has been backed by planned destruction of property in what is called demonstrations.  There have been documented plans of assaults with the intent to create violence within at least one of the primary political party’s leadership.  My assumption is based on experience that by time we see things at the surface within political landscapes – there is much more going on beneath the surface.

Had Hillary been elected I had projected that armed conflict would not take place until near the end of her second term or even perhaps later (except for limited planned events to create political advantages – all for reasons open for descussion.  But with Trump – I doubt that things will last through a single term.

 

The Traveler

 

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

@Traveler

I disagree with you a lot, and I want you and everyone else to know that it isn't personal. I like you and I like your posts. 

But what you said isn't going to happen. Eight years ago people tried to say that Obama wouldn't leave after his eight years and marital law would be instituted, heck we'd all be in FEMA camps at this point. So no, what you said is just not going to happen. 

I'm with MG on this one but yes, I do see where Traveler is coming from.  I just look at the people who are protesting - even the ones doing damages.  I just don't see them as selfless enough to lay down their lives for their cause.  And that's very necessary for war.

I'm looking at my kids and I can see their warrior spirit that they got from their dad and I don't doubt they would lay down their life for their cause - God, family, country - when necessary.  But that kind of spirit usually are not the type who would go out there and make lots of noise.

So, what I'm trying to say (and I'm the level of amoeba on expertise about this) is - just my impression on things, the warriors are on the other side of the protesters and if the rubber has to meet the road and these warriors get called upon, I believe the war will be over before it starts.

Just my musings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we want to look at immigration and see what we can do it might help to look at the economic models of supply and demand.

If there is a big enough Demand for something... someone will Supply it (at a cost of some kind)

For immigration to see what the difference Demand makes all we have to do is look at the two borders... the Canadian and the one with Mexico.  Both are guarded basically the same with large sections unprotected or not very well protected.  But no one is really concerned about the Canadian border like they are with the Mexican border and this difference is in the Demand.  While they are different the USA and Canada are largely equal.  Whereas the USA and Mexico have some serious inequalities which drive the Demand.

So how can we address this?..  Well there is only two ways to address inequalities.  You either tear one down or you build the other up.  I don't think anyone here really thinks the idea of tearing down the USA until it is no better then Mexico is, is wise, and yet sometimes that is the direction we seem to be heading.  The idea of lifting Mexico up seems much better.  But that is nation building at its core and that generally doesn't work that well for us.

So that is what we are looking at from the Demand side... now lets look at the Supply side.

As long as there is a Demand there will be a Supply.  For Immigration there are two forms of Supply...  Legal and Illegal.  People will choose the one that gives them the best value for there efforts.   Legal immigration requires dealing with a bunch of paperwork, waiting in limbo a very long time, and being verified..  It is at the whims of the people in power.  Illegal immigration requires a risky border crossing, risks of capture and detainment, and some other stuff.  But it can happen really quickly.

So to deal with the Supply we need to make the Legal Immigration the one that offers the "Best Value."  We could make Legal immigration dead easy, but this is hindered by the fact that we want to keep out the criminals, and terrorists.  Which means paperwork, which means vetting, which takes time. We could also make Illegal immigration harder.  This is what things like the Wall is suppose to do.  The wall is not a cure all to immigration issue, and by itself probably will not make much of a dent.  More is needed to make Illegal immigration a less valuable path..  We need to make it a dead end path, we need to make sure this path does not lead to them getting what they wanted in the first place.  The problem with this is that for it to work we have to crack down on those that are already here illegally to deter future ones from seeing it as the most valued path.  And that is a humanitarian crisis, so we have things like Sanctuary Cities, and localities telling there Law Enforcement not to check or report immigration status.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share