Should we have border security?

[angus]

So, do you agree with the public?  

I oppose the fence for a number of reasons that I have stated here previously, but I agree that we should have a border patrol.  Nations have a right to protect their borders.  They do not have a right to upset the ecological, biological, and economic realms in a way that adversely affects all nations.  Anything that walks, crawls, slithers, or swims across the US-Mexican border will be affected by a fence.  Moreover, there are communities whose existences depend upon the ability to move people and products across the border.  In supporting walls and fences, the GOP--once the party of economic freedom--has come a long way since Reagan's admonishment to Mister Gorbachev to "tear down that wall."  

[angus]

Hmm.

Seems like more than a little historical revisionism here.

Granted, the wall to which Reagan was referring was built to keep folks in, not out.  My only point was that we wanted the wall down.  Back then we stood for free international commerce, and opposed attempts to diminish it.  If you don't think walls diminish commerce, just ask the impoverished residents of Bethlehem, who at one time did a brisk trade with Western tourists, enough to pay their bills and send their children to universities.  Now the unemployment rate in Bethlehem is nearly 30% and the tourists don't come anymore.  Now it takes seven hours to go seven miles.  Similarly, there was a time when folks in Arizona border towns could sell their produce to the Mexicans, and buy from Mexicans artesania and manufactured goods.  Not so any longer. Not with that big monstrosity of a wall between Sonora and Arizona.  So we can't pretend that walls don't diminish the very thing that conservatives and libertarians claim to cherish most:  economic freedom.

If our army wasn't so weak and demoralized from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could be stationed on the southern border.  I think this is a legitimate function of the Army.  Mexico uses its army to patrol its southern border with Guatemala, as it has a serious illegal immigration issue.  But to be honest, even with its armies and border patrols there, and even with the severity with which Mexico treats illegal immigrants, the tide of illegal immigration into Mexico is great.  An estimated 400 thousand Central Americans cross into that country every year, according to the Instituto Nacional de Migración in Mexico City, so it's not clear that border patrols, bloodhounds, and beatings are the best solution either.  I expect you know all this and that's why you're keen on building a wall, but walls create too much ecological collateral damage, and they're ugly, and they inhibit commerce between nations, and they send a horrible message to the people of the United States.  One that stands in direct contradiction to The New Colossus.

[angus]

Sorry about the free association.  That Robert Frost poem enters my consciousness every time the issue comes up.  Clearly you didn't write the word "wall" specifically.  (Although even Robert Frost slips back and forth between uses of "wall" and "fence" and he was a poet laureate!  So don't get worked up over it.)  As for Lazarus' poem, it asks specifically for the homeless and the destitute.  Hard to mistake her meaning, but I'll stipulate that it is tangential to the thread so we needn't dissect it here.

As a matter of fact, I have been across the border at Nogales.  I've crossed the US-Mexico border by car at two places in California, one in Arizona, and at least five in Texas.  I've also crossed the Mexico-Guatemala border at two different places and the border from Mexico to Belize at Corozal.  And I've crossed many other international borders.  I've been made to eat my bananas there, on the spot.  Choke it down or be fined, gringo.  I've had to step out of my car while they spray it with some nasty pesticides.  I've had to unwrap carefully packed artesania and have it inspected, and stand aside as border officials walk all around my car with mirrors and dogs.  Once a U.S. official in Texas spent about 20 minutes with a set of three Oaxaca masks trying to decide whether they were made out of cocaine.  So, yes, I am fairly familiar with the border crossings from Mexico to other countries.  The strictest patrols and the most thorough searches are in the US.  Airports too.  I've noticed in airports, particularly when flying back from the Andes or from Amsterdam, that they have the big dogs sniffing bags.  Not so much when I'm flying back from China or Cairo.

Yes, one could argue that attempts to stop illegal importation amounts to diminution of commerce, but no, that's not what I was trying to do.  Nor was I saying that there is no commerce through Nogales.  Obviously Nogales is one of the largest providers of medical and dental care in Mexico for patients from the U.S.  And I can purchase mangos and papayas at a supermarket in Cedar Falls, Iowa, so clearly we have commerce with Mexico.  I was saying that commerce is inhibited by walls (call them "fences" if you prefer), and yes that fence--I still think that most would indeed call that one a "wall" but it's a silly bit of lexicon to argue about--running between Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona inhibits commerce to some degree.  It costs money, and it's just a piece of scrap metal that will be jumped over, tunneled under, or avoided, and that money could have been spent on goods and services.  Moreover, it does inhibit the transit of several species of animals which are important to the desert ecosystem.  (When will we learn that destroying the ecological balance does have long-term economic consequences?)  Also, it limits the number of crossing points and adds to the cost of transporting legitimate goods internationally, raising costs to consumers and diminishing the profits of business that manufacture goods.  Finally, it separates families.  Traditionally, especially in latino communities, families provide counseling, nursing, and baby-sitting services, as well as a number of other important functions.  Some of those bandits may not end up as bandits if only their Abuelos and Abuelas could have spent more time with them.

Of course it is reasonable to expect foreign visitors and foreign workers to be able to produce the appropriate documentation on demand, and if they can't, then we should deport them.  I think that's a pretty mainstream view.  But unsightly and environmentally-damaging walls such as that in Nogales are more trouble than they're worth.  You can point to a decrease in the number of illegal immigrants, but many analysts will cite the economic recession in the US as the main reason for that decrease.  Taking that course will only lead to the my-expert-can-beat-up-your-expert game.

Obviously we should be working with the Mexican government--especially with the current Mexican administration as it seems to be genuinely interested in corruption cases--to clean up the Mexican federal police corps.  We should also continue to examine our own culture to look for more effective ways to deal with narcotics abuse.  But as long as there is poverty in Mexico, then individuals will be tempted to turn to crime as a means to escape poverty.  You can build more sophisticated borders, and you will only create more sophisticated criminals.  For the amount we spend annually on fences, patrols, surveillance, and incarceration, we could be making great strides to eliminate poverty by more humanitarian, and more effective, means.

[angus]

First, so a "fence" is a "wall"?  Hmm.  Is a motorcycle a truck?

Second, it was the ORC question which refers to the "fence."  Based on extensive study I find that a ditch (eight feet deep by thirty feet wide) backed up by a berm (from the debris excavate from the ditch) planted with indigenous flora (to reduce errosion) backed up by an access road paved with pea gravel, backed up by radio repeater towers where there are communications problems (the radios used by BP are, like most, line of site) supported by an expanded Border Patrol equipped with appropriate technology.

Third, it may suprise you to learn that hundreds of thousands of people (American and foreign nationals) legally transit the southern land border every year.  So, the "imposition" is de minimis.

Fourth, I don't know if you are aware of the extensive environment dammage done by those illegally entering the country.  I have previously posted an article by the Tucson Weekly, a leftish alternative paper on the subject.

Fifth, as I have previously noted on numerous threads, the term "illegal immigrant' as being synomous with illegal alien is simply false.  Many of the illegal entrants are in fact, soujourners who come to the United States for enrichment, and fully intend to (and often do) return to their homes afterwards.

Sixth, I suggest that your confidence in the government of Mexico is rather (ahem) misplaced.

Seventh, your suggestion that all efforts to obtain border security are doomed as the brilliant criminals will find some way to get around them has a number of problems:

a.) most criminals are pretty stupid, and
b.) in the real world nothing is perfect, and
c.) if you argue that perfection or nothing, then, since nothing the government does is perfect, according to your 'reasoning,' the government should do nothing.

You're very logical Carl, and not given to fits of emotional diatribe.  I'll try to show the same courtesy, taking your rebuttals in turn.

First, we're arguing syntax here, which isn't helpful.  Clearly we haven't defined the terms.  But yes, I think most folks would call the structure that forms the southern border of Nogales, AZ a wall.

2.  Actually, the ditch and berm idea isn't bad.  It certainly wouldn't be as aesthetically offensive as what is presently coursing through Nogales (or Bethlehem or, formerly, Berlin), but I'd have to imagine that it may also disrupt the migratory patterns of wildlife, maybe even to an extent that we should study it.  I know you're not a spotted owl kind of guy, but it may be worth examining the long term ecological and economic effects, and whether it'll actually work, before we agree to build it.

3.  Depends on how low you set that bar.  "De minimus" for you you may be "de optimus" for some.  Neither of us has as yet provided any figures, but I may just delve into it.  My gut feeling is that putting up a wall (again, read that "fence" if you prefer) between my doorstep and your taco stand, as a practical matter, will mean that I stop buying your tacos, no matter how tasty they are, and start buying them from someone on my side of the street.

4.  I was not aware of your own article, but I have to admit that I'm impressed.  Yes, I know that environmental damage has been reported by the BLM and the national parks service and I've read some of those reports.  Or parts of them.  But even a cursory examination of those reports leads you to conclude that it is the fact that the lands set aside for wildlife are being trampled.  Now, it seems to me that the obvious question is:  why on earth would millions of people trample through sagebrush and thorns and cacti?  I'd rather walk along a paved route.  Like the big, fat one heading north from Sonora.  Oh, wait, there's a fence blocking that route. 

5.  Stipulated

6.  You just glossed over that.  Sardonically.  Yes, Calderon said, for example, as recently as May of last year that he wanted to continue working with Obama to stem the flow of narcotics into the US.  In fact, he challenged the US at that time to meet him halfway.  You may recall that was about the time that Obama called the new Arizona law "misguided."  While you may not agree with that conclusion, you have to admit that it isn't the best way to get Calderon on your side in the effort to fight illegal drug importation.

7.  No, you're misinterpreting.  I did say that it's a waste of money, and that it isn't the most cost-effective solution, but even you admitted as much when saying that your ditch and berm is a better bang for the buck.  But more importantly what I'm saying is that if we do have a one-way net flow of migration to the US--and we have had that situation since the constitution was ratified and even before--then you have to look at the underlying causes.  In Germany, after WWII, we sank billions of dollars into rebuilding a nation.  That nation, although at one time the greatest contributor to America's newly-arrived foreign population, is now a stable, peaceful, and a major contributor to the world's economy.  And there are many other examples to show some evidence that US investment will pay off.  I'm not saying that it's exactly the right time.  What with the bailouts and medical insurance act and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other such costly ventures (which you can blame on both political parties), we aren't so solvent at the moment.  I'm just saying that for the cost of what you're proposing to put a big band-aid on a fundamental economic problem of our neighbors, we could take a stab at actually helping them solve that problem. 

[angus]

We seem to be running in a brick wall (of your making) here.

How very droll.  Seems that you do have a sense of humor after all.

Clearly the security fence in Israel--an image of which is posted below so that all will understand what we are apparently calling a "fence" these days--has made terrorism more difficult.  Statistics on suicide bomber fatalities bear this out.  But statistics also show that the fence has been an economic burden to honest, tax-paying Palestinians living in the West Bank.  We also have some statistics on the number of wells and aquifers that are now off-limits to the people of that arid region, and of the changes in water quantity and quality, stream channel morphology, groundwater levels, and surface water flow.  I guess you have to weigh costs and benefits to all sides:  one side pays an enormous economic cost, the other side perceives a security benefit.  About the long-range ecological costs and benefits we can only speculate, and I suspect it's a subjective matter.



As for the corruption in Mexico's government, I think it begins at an early age, when children are taught by their parents to fear and mistrust government.  Calderon understands this, and has spoken about it.  He also understands that education is the way, and that it will take a generation of hard work.  Putting a "fence" along the border will not alleviate the mistrust, and it may exacerbate the problem.  But by educating the children of Mexico at an early age, there will likely be greater success at changing the culture of corruption.  I know some here have eschewed the teaching of values by public schools.  I have not.  I think the schools are a fine place to teach citizenship and public responsibility and not to steal or cheat, etc.  In fact, indoctrination of children in the public schools is the same step that many industrialized countries have taken with great success in this regard.

[angus]

Carl, there are people in the Levant who live five miles from each other that will never pass one another on the streets!  They don't know each others cultures.  Many can't speak the other's language.  Their children don't play together.  This is what the wall does.  Is this the best long-term solution to ensure national security?  I regard this isolation as part of the social costs, and the bitterness and poverty engendered is likely to increase hostility.  Then you have to depend on a physical barrier because all rational methods to achieve peace are beyond possibility.  It's like a narcotic.  At first it seems to work, so you take more, and eventually you need it to remain sane.  It may seem off-topic to discuss other fences, but such a barrier between the US and Mexico is likely to have the same effect. 

I agree that corruption is a reality and that it's systemic.  I have witnessed it many times.  I've paid twenty dollars in Mexico City to a cop in exchange for not towing my car even though it was illegally parked.  I once gave ten dollars to a cop in Merida in exchange for not giving me a ticket even when I ran a red light in broad daylight.  (They're very specific:  "Act like you're asking me directions and pass me your map.  Put the twenty inside it and pass it out the window to me.")  I even paid fifty dollars in Tijuana once in exchange for not being arrested for driving drunk.  I wouldn't try that in the US.  Would you?  Well, maybe in New York City in the 60s and 70s, but that's an exception rather than the rule.  US cops paid well enough and held to a high enough standard of ethics that they don't take bribes.  Generally.  But there's more to it than that.  US cops grow up in the US, where public schools have you pledging allegiance and learning about democratic values and the ideal civic involvement.  Most parents are not teaching the children to be afraid of authority figures here.  But in Mexico this is generally not the case.  And I'm not saying that it's an inferior culture or in any way denigrating Mexicans.  It's a beautiful country with a generous, peaceful, and hard-working people.  I've driven the length and breadth of Mexico, solo, from its northern frontier to it's southern frontier.  I've spent months at a stretch in Mexico and have visited 22 of the 31 Mexican states so far.  ¡Me encanta México!  It's my second-favorite country in the world, after my own.  I'd consider retiring there if my wife would let me.  So don't misunderstand my statements about its culture of corruption .  It's corrupt because of a complexity of factors involving history, wealth distribution, and education.  We can't change history, but with time and effort Mexico can grow a generation of well-educated, law-abiding citizens.  If you're keen on throwing money at the related problems of drug-trafficking and illegal immigration, then why not put it into the source of the problem?  A wall is simply an analgesic, but education and elimination of hard-core poverty is more like a cure.

[angus]

Carl, you're too well-informed to be so stubborn.  Getting into a border discussion with you is like getting into a theological discussion with jmfcst. 

Obviously Rwanda was caused by a history of frustration, and by exploitation by European masters of ancient tensions.  Interesting that you should mention Rwanda.  I remember it well.  I'm not a fan of power projection or policing the world, but if there ever was a case when the US had information and time enough and resources enough to act to stop a terrible act but didn't, that was it.  Clearly, walls and fences didn't cause that one.  In fact, the Tutsi and Hutu children were playing well together before the assassination of the Hutu President.  And for centuries, although the two tribes had their ups and downs, they certainly did not isolate themselves from one another, so don't try to blame isolation as catalyst.  As for Biafran, I'm tempted to google it and try to come up with an intelligent retort, but I'd rather admit from the start that I'm not as familiar with the circumstances surrounding those atrocities.  I'll just say that I recognize sarcasm when I see it and assume that physical border barriers had nothing to do with that either.  Let's stay on topic.

Just one clarification before we continue.  When I say wealth redistribution I do mean in the most ancient and honorable way:  by free exchange of goods and ideas.  Before you read anything into it, I'll remind you that I'm a fan of capitalism and of keeping taxes reasonable.  But government does have a role to play in education and welfare.  And providing people with the basic tools to be able to freely exchange services is a reasonable investment of the Mexican government.  It might also be a reasonable investment of our foreign aid dollars, except at the moment dollars are stretched pretty thin, and I'm a bigger fan of austerity just now.  Remember, I'm not the one pushing for greater spending on border control.

I also don't think I have misrepresented your concerns.  I too am concerned with people killed in the US.  So let's figure out what's causing that.  Seems to me it's mostly spillover from the three Mexican drug cartels fighting over turf.  Am I mistaken?  And it seems to me that there are several million people coming from Mexico illegally into the United States each year.  Moreover, it seems to me that those two issues--which are indeed related by common causes--concern you greatly.  You genuinely seem to want to throw some money at the problem.  I have suggested some reasonable ways to spend that money in a way that will potentially buy long-term relief. 

The terrorist issue is separate, but I'd agree that you could package that with border security as well.  Problem with terrorists stem largely from our unsustainable foreign policy.  That's much more simple.  Mexican illegal immigration is complex, and I'll admit that we can't blame ourselves for it.  But attacks on US persons by, for example, radical islamists are simply the responses of frustrated folks.  Of course, most of the actual attackers aren't the ringleaders but rather exploited fools.  But their masters are a generation of Saudis and others who haven't had to study engineering or medicine or science in order to make a living like the rest of us precisely because they come from families that are rich from US dollars pouring into their pockets.  Those same dollars that are propping up dictatorships pay for the educations of bored young men who can afford to spend their hours studying a peculiar brand of philosophy and theology and work themselves up into a dangerous anti-Western sentiment.  I'm surprised we're not on the same side here.  I am a sympathizer of the Tea Party types on this sort of spending.  Lets bring our boys home, let's get our oil right here and invest in alternative energies, and let's and stop trying force our values on the world.  We can't afford it anymore, and it was never a good idea in the first place. 

We don't need to spend more money on secure borders in order to support our ruinous mission of spending too much money telling the rest of the world what to do!  That's a vicious cycle.  We need to relax, mind our own business, stop playing world policeman, and let the free market find its way out of the hole.  The world will take notice if we do well.  You been watching the interviews with Egyptians on the street?  They don't love us because we have been in bed with President Mubarak all these years.  If we can simply live and let live, but live well in so doing, then we won't have to forcefully export our values on others. 

[angus]

Carl, sorry it has taken so long to notice your response.  Life got in the way.  So, where were we?

Second, my point, which you seem to not have discerned was to provide two illustrations that your assertion that all problems in the world are because of "walls", and that history disproves your assertion.

Oh, I discerned it immediately.  Your tone was sarcastic, but your message was clear.  More importantly, you are misrepresenting what I said.  I do not claim that all the world's problems are because of walls.  In fact, I specifically said Mexico's were due to a number of factors, none of which were walls.

your assertion that it seems to you that with respect to people killed in the US, "its mostly spillover from the three Mexican drug cartels."  Well, I have talked to the experts, and that simply is NOT the case.  So, yes, you ARE mistaken.

Perhaps I am.  But you cannot neglect its effect.

I thank you for pointing out that you are absolutely opposed to spending anything for border security (and are fervently opposed to any measures that actually work, because they work).

Again you misrepresent my point of view.  I stated from the outset that countries have the right to protect their borders.  But I also said I am generally opposed to wasteful spending.  You have said that we are spending money inefficiently on border security.  You suggested a moat and berm.  I only replied that we'd need to look at the efficacy as well as the long-term ecological effects of this approach.  Don't put words in my mouth.  I have never claimed to be fervently opposed to any nation taking reasonable steps to protect its borders.

Fifth, your delusion that terrorism is the result "largely from our unsustainable foreign policy"is wrong and absurd.

Our foreign policy is absurd.  My take on it is rational and reasonable.  Our attackers may be murders and cowards (here I'm speaking of terrorists from the Near East, not Mexicans), but you must admit that they haven't tried to hide their motives.  And those motivations stem precisely from our government's policies.

 

Sixth, if you want t 'invest' YOUR money in the government of Mexico, by all means, go ahead (you'd have a better return 'investing' in lottery ticks).  However, don't touch my money to give it to the Mexican government!!!

Again you are taking me out of context or paraphrasing my comments so extremely that they take on a new meaning.  What I said, and have always said, is that our government's debt and increasing budget deficit is the biggest problem right now, and that I'm a fan of austerity.  I then said that if you insist on spending more money on the problem of illegal entry by Mexicans, then at least take that money and spend it in a way that would help diminish the poverty and corruption that is the underlying cause of the flow of immigrants. 

Oh, and one of the first priorities of the federal government is to protect our citizens from foreign attacks. 

Agreed.  But you seem obsessed with this issue.  I respect that everyone has his priorities.  And you live, after all, in a region that is not only close to an international border but also in one that was acquired by the US in a fit of territorial expansion against Mexico.  So you see undocumented aliens using our facilities more often than I do, and are more sensitive to it. 

Perhaps I have exaggerated your position, or misunderstood you.  I'll try to read more carefully.  I ask that you show the same courtesy.  Still, it seems to me that the issue has become a disproportionately important to you, and your solution seems always to be one that doesn't require any recognition of the underlying causes of the mass migration.  It's as though you see a pot of water boiling over, and instead of turning off the heating element under it, you decide to screw a lid tightly down on the pot.  This is misguided, in my humble opinion.

[angus]

I guess we're both repeating ourselves, so I think that I have not much to add to this debate, especially since we're digressing into personal attacks.  Your suggestion that my inability to keep up with whatever terms you deem politically correct and therefore acceptable is somehow evidence of an attempt on my part to mislead is provocative, but I'm not biting. 

I'd only add that it seems hardly sophisticated to recognize that folks come to the US seeking a better life, looking for economical mobility, fleeing oppression or violence, or to escape poverty.  We're a land of immigrants, and the underlying causes of mass migration to the US is something we were all taught from a young age, and there's no reason to think the the Mexicans are different.  If somebody uproots and moves to a strange country that is hostile to his presence, you have to assume that he thought that the alternative of staying put was worse.  This does not require some special degree of sophistication.