Raising the cost of any action will result in a decrease in the amount of people willing to take it. It is the same principle that says that although any determined burglar will be able to neutralize (by killing, removing, or sedating) a watch dog if he is really interested in robbing a given home, that does not mean that the dog will not deter less determined / ruthless / prepared burglars.

That is not an argument that clinches the specific case of Trump's wall (or any other wall), of course. Cost/benefit analyses are required -- and are presumably taking place. But the point is that the goal of the proposal is not to "prevent [illegal] immigration", it is rather to raise the costs associated with it.

There was already a tunnel under a segment of the wall. I think that says it all. It's a waste of money and resources.

And in what way would it help the situation? Prevent what? If people move over the border and won't get proper help to integrate into society, they will feed the socioeconomic problems with poverty etc.

What if the cost of the wall would be put on better relations with neighboring countries, with better help of integration for immigrants coming into the country? Problems by immigrated people do not come from them being "different", that is in essence racism. The problems come out of their socioeconomic situation and the lack of integration. It raises tribalism, segregation and hate within society and the consequences can be felt for decades after.

Name one country that has increased long term stability with force and locking borders in the past?
Name one country that has increased instability because of force and locking borders?

What aspects of Trump’s wall could work? Could it really prevent immigration? — Franklin

No.

The whole thing is an idiotic punchline for simpletons: Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.

Yeah! More beer...

There already is a wall, and electronic surveillance and manpower. Illegal border crossings on the southern border have been dropping since 2001... and are down ninety percent in that time. The vast majority of people coming to the southern border are seeking asylum... which is a perfectly legal activity.

The real immigration "problem" comes from visa overstays with Canada being the main offender, at twice the rate of Mexico.

So a southern border wall is simply a Trumpian dogwhistle.

Soon, the USA will be overrun with Canadians.

Probably won't be a problem since Canadians are mostly white...

Well, consider Rome's experience with walls (and that of other civilizations/nations) for purposes of making a determination of the value of the thing. Hadrian's Wall was about 70 modern miles in length; much shorter than a wall along contemplated by Trump, which is estimated at 700-900 miles long (not the entire border with Mexico). There were 17 large forts constructed along it, smaller forts every Roman mile (.92 of an English mile), and watchtowers every third of a mile. It was manned by about 10,000 to 15,000 solders. After Hadrian's death, it was abandoned by Antoninus Pius, his immediate successor, who built a wall made largely of turf (instead of stone, like Hadrian's) further to the north, about 37 miles long. Then Marcus Aurelius, immediate successor of Antoninus Pius, withdrew the troops from the Antonine Wall, back to Hadrian's Wall

Historian's dispute whether the walls were truly defensive, to keep the barbarian's out, or whether their purpose was symbolic--to show Roman might and achievement. It's doubtful that the walls kept the barbarians at bay to any great extent, but it seems they were never tested as a barrier. There were no major battles at or for the walls. They may have been useful in regulating somewhat the flow of traffic north and south. But Hadrian's wall in particular was important more for the fact that it served to develop the land to the south of it, e.g. villages were created behind it, roads were built, farms were needed, etc. Some of the wall forts continued in use until the legions left Briton in the 5th century. If the walls were intended to be defensive, it seems they were significant not as barriers but for other reasons.

It doesn't seem contemplated that Trump's wall will be manned as the Roman walls were, so I question how effective it will be as a barrier. I suspect people will go under, around it, over it or even through it if they want or need to. I don't think it will be an important symbol, except perhaps of expense in the service of vanity. It won't be a development tool or "civilizing" tool as the Roman walls may have been. It's another stunt. That's what this man is about.

When dealing with a liar, it's important to keep track of what you're actually talking about. Nothing Trump says can be taken at face value. So far as the wall goes, every reason he's given for building it has been false, and he completely ignores problems with its building and its ability to do what he claims it will do.

There are, then, no substantive reasons for building it. Why are we, or anyone, even talking about it then? In my opinion, when you're a Trump, you think it's in your interest to simply keep people tied up in your lies.

We all have experience with people who have lied. All of us have told a lie. But the fact is that very few of us have experience in dealing with anyone as toxic as Trump. Most of us are confused and trying to figure all this out - meanwhile he moves ahead, or what he thinks is ahead.

It can be helpful in trying to understand the experience of dealing with a liar like Trump to think in terms of drug addicts. There are many more drug addicts than people like him. But they share in their respective capacities for relentlessness. You don't trust an addict in any way - and who would be mean enough to make such a rule, except other addicts, which in fact they do.

And analogously it's just plain a mistake to trust Trump, about anything. What I have trouble understanding is how he gets liars like him, like Kelly-Ann and Sandra and so forth, to lie along with him, because it's pretty clear that everyone who rides with him is unhorsed sooner or later.

Because the "ideas" at the center of Trump's verbal displays are illusions, it's a mistake to compromise on them - at all. What is required in dealing with a Trump is a matching corporate strength that understands that his brand of evil is a kind of warfare, and needs to be met everywhere without yielding anywhere. To paraphrase, it takes a mental institution.

A good introduction to Trump's brand of evil can be found in Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie. Trump is certainly a person of the lie!

There are, then, no substantive reasons for building it. — tim wood

Tim, Can you please put into context for me the Dems' former strong support for a barrier (fence, wall, whatever) over the past few years? For example:

Democrats haven't always had such a hard position on the border wall. Over the past decade, Democrats have supported billions of dollars in funding for physical barriers. In 2006, the Secure Fence Act passed with bipartisan support requiring the construction of physical barriers along 700 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Sixty-four Democrats voted the measure in the House and 26 in the Senate.

The current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for it, so did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama praised the bill in a floor speech saying it would "certainly do some good" and "help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country."

In 2013, all Senate Democrats and most House Democrats backed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the so-called Gang of Eight bill. It included $46 billion for border security and around $8 billion to repair or reinforce barriers along the 700 miles of the border as required under the Secure Fence Act.

Schumer also briefly offered to deliver the Democratic votes to fully fund the border wall at $25 billion in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. The January 2018 deal quickly fell apart amid a government shutdown, criticism from Democratic and Republican bases and Trump's insistence on adding legal immigration reform onto the deal.

Democrats supported the wall in 2006 when it was a fence

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2006-secure-fence-act-vs-trumps-border-wall

I'm sure you've seen the strong anti-illegal immigration quotes from Obama, Hillary, and Schumer on video. If not I'll be glad to post them for you to study.

Question: There are currently 693 miles of fence along the US-Mexico border. Would you be in favor of tearing them down?

This is not a Trump or anti-Trump post. This is about the politics of the US-Mexico border.

Do you approve of a fence but not a wall? Is it the word "wall" you dislike, but you're ok with the word "fence" or "barrier?" Think the 693 miles of existing fence should be torn down? Or that 693 miles of fence is ok but definitely not 694? It's hard to understand how suddenly Trump is bad and evil for agreeing with what the Democrats voted for and spoke in favor of.

Historian's dispute whether the walls were truly defensive, to keep the barbarian's out, or whether their purpose was symbolic--to show Roman might and achievement. — Ciceronianus the White

The Great Trump Wall is completely symbolic, a monument to the most excellent Donald who Made America Great Again.

I buy the arguments against the wall. I believe them conclusive. If folks voted for a wall once, then where is it? This is not to say that no walls have value. But the discussion as I read it simply does not address any question of where walls might be of value. That is, there may be a discussion to be had, but not with Trump. Further, no wall is ever a solution, unless the articulation of the problem is specially tailored to it - but by that time the discussion has left the reality of the problem and landed in the "reality" of the "solution."

It's part of the method of quality management to spend a lot of time on the question of how to improve whatever it is you're looking at. The word "problem" isn't exactly banished, but the goal of quality management is not the mere solution of problems, for the simple and clear reason that mere solutions are not enough. This was basically an American discovery, implemented to win WWII. WWII being won, American industry turned its back on it. The Japanese, however, noticed that a) they lost that war and b) were interested in why. They adopted quality management, as developed by W. Edwards Deming, and one result, among others, is Toyota.

So what, exactly, is the problem at the Southern Border? I'm thinking you do not know and that no one knows, because no one cares (enough to invest the time and effort to figure it out). Symptoms? Sure. But that's not enough.

There are openings all across the nation to get in with out running into the wall. The border of California with the ocean, the Canadian border, etc. The wall would not eliminate the possibility of entering into the country illegally, and we would still have to have some form of enforced defense elsewhere. What more, have you heard of "a ladder?" :)

Let's get serious about security. Enough of this sickly inability to use force!

It isn't the physical barrier that effectively keeps people in or out. What works are the land mines, the machine guns, the watchtowers, drones, mobile pounce squads, ill-tempered guards and worse-tempered guard dogs, and a robust desire to use force. It's the summary executions, the avoidance of fussy civil rights rules, the ICE raids where the illegal workers are carted off to labor camps, and so on.

Are their no planes capable of strafing caravans? Where are the box cars to deliver people back to their beloved homelands?

Brick walls? Naaah!

Tim, Can you please put into context for me the Dems' former strong support for a barrier (fence, wall, whatever) over the past few years? For example: — fishfry

Let me try to summarize your apparent argument here:

"The Democrats voted for border security measures before. The wall is a border security measure. Therefore the Democrats should be in favor of the wall."

This is not convincing, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Your bolded sentence nicely summarizes the absurdity of your position:

Democrats supported the wall in 2006 when it was a fence — fishfry

A wall in 2019 is not a fence in 2006.

What if Trump had tried another thing. Giving economic aid to the countries from which people try to enter the USA illegaly. It would be good business for everyone, right? People would stay wherever the hell they are if given economic and political security and people both sides of the border would be happy.

I guess there's no money in it.

The Great Trump Wall is completely symbolic, a monument to the most excellent Donald who Made America Great Again. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. An effective joint effort to minimize illegal immigration would be far complicated to explain to a Trump supporter.

Or to Trump, for that matter. A physical concrete wall Trump can understand.

So, the argument now is not that Dems want open borders (the usual right-wing line), but actually that they are just as strong on border security as Trump and really want a wall, but covered it up in advance by pretending they only wanted a fence, so they could prevent a wall when Trump came to power because they knew he'd want one and that would give them a great opportunity to not get what they really wanted all along.

Interesting theory. :chin:

Borders are stupid... unless you are the farmer.

It's already well-known that most illegal aliens don't enter the country illegally. They don't sneak across the border.

Even for those who do want to sneak in, are we forgetting about the huge bodies of water that aren't going to have any wall?--the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean?

It's already well-known that most illegal aliens don't enter the country illegally. They don't sneak across the border.

Even for those who do want to sneak in, are we forgetting about the huge bodies of water that aren't going to have any wall?--the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean? — Terrapin Station

You assume that common people and politicians trying to get votes from common people have enough knowledge to understand this. I always assume most people to be initially stupid and uneducated until proven otherwise, but that's just the nihilistic part of me :sweat:

I was just providing some detail to the question the TC asked, "Could it really prevent immigration?" The answer is "no," for the reasons I gave.

I was just providing some detail to the question the TC asked, "Could it really prevent immigration?" The answer is "no," for the reasons I gave. — Terrapin Station

And I agreed with my kinda ironic description of why it is as you say.

So, the argument now is not that Dems want open borders (the usual right-wing line), but actually that they are just as strong on border security as Trump and really want a wall, but covered it up in advance by pretending they only wanted a fence, — Baden

The point being that the Dems are awful hypocrites on this issue. Take the "putting kids in cages" picture used against Trump, that turned out to be from 2014 when Obama put kids in cages. In the summer of 2014 the Obama administration had a terrible humanitarian crisis on the southern border, which it handled very badly. Instead of separating families until their identities could be confirmed, the Obama administration just turned kids over to traffickers. You could look it up, some of the scandals became public.

It's terribly hypocritical for the Democrats to label Trump's policies as cruel when Obama's response to the 2014 crisis was arguably worse. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a lot of people don't even know about the 2014 crisis because there was very little mainstream coverage. So again it's political and has nothing to do with the reality on the ground.

For the record I don't agree with Trump's policies regarding the Mexican border. It's just that as someone who's followed US-Mexican politics for decades, I find the willful ignorance on the left appalling. Even those pictures of that woman and kid getting teargassed. Obama teargassed migrants at the border on average once a month from 2011 to 2016. You could look that up too. Hell I was teargassed at the Occupy protests in 2011. Ain't that big a deal. The moral posturing of the left is silly to people who actually follow border politics.

Let me try to summarize your apparent argument here:

"The Democrats voted for border security measures before. The wall is a border security measure. Therefore the Democrats should be in favor of the wall." — Echarmion

No that is not my argument. That's a strawman.

The point is that the Dems' current rhetoric is seriously out of alignment with their rhetoric from when they ran the government. You do know that Obama deported more Mexicans than Bush did, right? I object to the hypocrisy from the Dems on this issue. The Dems WERE in favor of STRONG border security before Trump showed up. Are you claiming to be unaware of that?

So what, exactly, is the problem at the Southern Border? I'm thinking you do not know — tim wood

I've followed US-Mexican politics for forty years and lived in Mexico for four and a half years. I've been across the border in San Diego 60 times or so. You are wrong in your assumption that I don't know about the border. You know that fence sticking out into the ocean that you always see pictures of? I've been there. Not that any of this matters, but you're factually wrong about what I know.

But the point is, how did the Dems get from the Secure Fence Act accompanied by strong anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? Is everyone so consumed with hate against the Terrible Orange Man that they can't or won't examine even recent history?

I asked you some direct questions you didn't answer. Are you for a fence but against a wall? Is it just the word that bothers you? Are you in favor of tearing down the 580 miles (that's Wiki's number, earlier I posted a slightly different number I've read elsewhere)? Or do you think 579's too little, 581 too much, and 580 just right?

These are straightforward questions. Is it just the word wall versus fence that you object to? Or adding to the existing 580 or so miles of existing fence?

...to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? — fishfry

So, your claim now is that the Dems went from supporting a wall and gassing and caging immigrants just as much as (or more than) Trump did, to being in favour of no border security at all, i.e. just opening the border and letting everyone in. Because they don't like Trump...

Again, interesting theory. So, sources, evidence? You can start with the Democrat policy platform and show where it calls for an open border.

If they arrested those who hired illegal immigrants, there wouldn't be any.

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong.

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong. — Hanover

Well, you're not getting a wall with the Dems in power in the house. So, what kind of war are you predicting and when?

If they arrested those who hired illegal immigrants, there wouldn't be any. — Hanover

Extremely simplified concept without basis in reality.

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong. — Hanover

What war?

So, your claim now is that the Dems went from supporting a wall and gassing and caging immigrants just as much as (or more than) Trump did, to being in favour of no border security at all, i.e. just opening the border and letting everyone in. Because they don't like Trump... — Baden

My original response was to @tim wood. He went on a diatribe against Trump then said there was no reason for the wall.

Now please note that I am not a partisan. I despise both major parties deeply. I believe the worst the right says about the left; and the worst the left says about the right. So if you read my posts throught a partisan lens, you are bound to misunderstand me.

My point to @Tim Wood would be this: Anyone who thinks the ongoing crisis on the souther border is Trump's fault hasn't been paying attention. In fact it's the Democrats who have been making things much worse; by TALKING compassionately about the downtrodden; but then, not wanting to be branded "soft on border security," they vote for things like the Secure Fence act to shut up the right. Then Obama comes in and deports record numbers of Mexican and central American immigrants and handles in a very cruel and incompetent manner the flood of central Americans in 2014.

And then Trump shows up and says the word wall -- which I happen to agree is simply awful; I oppose Trump's border rhetoric -- but the hypocrisy from the left is just disgraceful. In fact a lot of the moral posturing from the left is exactly because deep down they KNOW that Hillary and Biden and Schumer and Reid and most other high-powered Dems in charge for the past decade were total immigration hawks and made things a lot worse.

As far as my needing to supply references that many on the left call for the abolition of ICE and a pullback in immigration enforcement ... seriously? I'm not going to read you the news.