|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 12, 2008 19:27:18 GMT -7
I am really tired of hearing the anti-border wall group rattle off 100 reasons why they are against it and usually 95 of them have nothing to do with the wall directly.
Can anyone without detailed discussion give me thier top 10 reasons for opposing the wall? I will be glad to respond with my counter points.
Here is an example of reasons I have heard (not necessarily good reasons), in the format I am looking for.
1. It will not stop illegal immigration, they will just cut holes in it or use a 25 foot ladder)
2. It will not stop drug smugglers or coyotes
3. It goes against our heritage of welcoming immigrants
4. Its racist - unless you build one on the northern border too.
5. Didn't Reagan tell the Russians to knock down the Berlin Wall?
6. It is an ecological disaster (for animals, water, etc)
7. It is being built illegally because EPA requirements and Bi-National agreements are being ignored.
8. We don't need a wall we need comprehensive immigration reform.
9. We have great trade with Mexico, our economy will suffer
10. Even the border patrol is against it
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2008 5:14:53 GMT -7
Sometimes the subjectivity is called for; what kind of "detail" is acceptable?
the wall is a projection of this government's failure to implement and enforce good immigration policy. rather than clean up systemic flaws in enforcement, they waste years and millions on failed arguments for/against this or that new trend, they bicker about the role of the military in stemming the tide of illegal immigration. and they build a wall
rather than address the loopholes and legal-speak in existing laws so that rules are clearly stated, understood and implemented, they pander to interest groups and build a wall
rather than deal ethically and responsibly with those individuals who have contributed to this society for years, with work and money, they favor some over others and they build a wall
rather than gather at each new session, review and revise immigration policy at all, our government leaders pander along party lines at election time and then they do little to enact new legislation that will competently address, much less deal with illegal immigration, the threat of terrorism, the threat of drugs and criminal activity
but they can build a wall without funding it, just like they started a war, without funding that either
You'll have to pardon my emotional arguments. I realize this doesn't adhere to the rules here. I, like you, don't always approve of the poli-speak on either side of this problem
as such, my points are made in the only means by which I think a reasonable discussion on this entire issue can be held. I don't think it's something that ought to be trivialized. So, I can't do the "ten reasons" in an "objection" format or style.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 13, 2008 7:05:49 GMT -7
Fair warning this reply may make for a long post.Sometimes the subjectivity is called for; what kind of "detail" is acceptable?
I agree there will have to be some subjectivity, any issue worth discussing always has a subjective component, ex. What is freedom?
I asked for bullet points to allow for addressing the "reasons" to oppose the wall could each be addressed in full, without writing a novel - guess it was not such a good idea.
the wall is a projection of this government's failure to implement and enforce good immigration policy.
Wrong. The wall is the result of citizens of other countries choosing to ignore our laws - complicated or not. In this case we are speaking specifically of those who choose to enter illegally through our southern border, not all all Mexican for the record.
Please define "good immigration policy". Currently imigration policy calls for basically a clean bill of health, limits on the number of immigrants from each country (an attempt at fairness), criminal background check, economic viability upon arrival, and other logical considerations. The goal is to accept immigrants to a level that the US economy can support and in fields where we are lacking skills for an improved economy.
As to enforcement - how do you enforce "good immigration policy" when an overwhelming number of immigrants, arriving from a country sharing almost 1500 miles of border with the US, choose conciously to ignore the policy in place? This is one reason FOR the wall - weed out all but the most determined and the criminal element and channel the remainder to more difficult crossing areas where "enforcement" can be accomplished.
On a different note - comments on current immigration policy and its flaws are not exactly reasons to oppose the wall, unless you are trying to say that if immigration policy were written that would stop people from ignoring it, then the wall would not be needed. In that case I could counter if people obeyed the current law the wall would not be needed either. So which came first - the wall or the utter diregard for the existing laws?
rather than clean up systemic flaws in enforcement, they waste years and millions on failed arguments for/against this or that new trend,
Please define the "systemic flaws in enforcement". Then tell me how addressing these "flaws" will improve the current situation.
Right now the biggest flaw in our system is/was a lack of effective border patrol leaving it wide open for both illegal smuggling of drugs etc and for fairly direct approaches for illegal immigration. The wall certainly is a part of an improvement to close this flaw and improve or make more efficient/effective the use of law enforcement staff in the role of enforcement.
they bicker about the role of the military in stemming the tide of illegal immigration. and they build a wall
There is by law no role for the military directly in this issue. The military in the form of National Guard under the orders of their respective governors were utilized for observation, patrols, and construction duties and were not permitted to engage directly in apprehension.
Again - the wall where it has been built has helped stem or redirect the flow of illegal immigrants to where apprehension can take place, before the illegal immigrants can get to populated centers and disappear.
What role would you prefer for the military? Should we deploy them on the border instead of a wall? Should we create a militrized border zone much like Israel? I would not prefer this, although I wish the Mexican Military would stop ignoring our border when it suits their purposes, border violations by the Mexican military are not all that uncommon.
rather than address the loopholes and legal-speak in existing laws so that rules are clearly stated, understood and implemented, they pander to interest groups and build a wall
Please explain what loopholes you are concerned with? Do you mean the different criteria and visa types available for legal entry such as those reserved for people with desired/needed skills and education?
I agree all laws should be easily understood - but in this case while the details may be difficult - the basic law is not - You enter through a proper crossing point and you present proper documents. How hard is it to know that if you are sneaking across a fence in the middle of the night and avoiding law enforcement agents that you might be doing something illegal?
What "interest groups" are you referring to? If you mean to say "racist" white conservatives than say so. Or do you mean those citizens who believe our national sovereignty gives us the right to define how our borders are defended, define our policy on immigration and to enforce both definitions?
rather than deal ethically and responsibly with those individuals who have contributed to this society for years, with work and money, they favor some over others and they build a wall
The wall is not meant to nor can it impact those already in the country illegally. This is an immigration issue, but not related to the wall - a red herring. The situation with 12 million (usual estimate) illegals in the country was certainly the result of past failures at securing/controlling the border, but cannot be addressed at the border now. Sorry this is an issue for a whole different thread.
rather than gather at each new session, review and revise immigration policy at all, our government leaders pander along party lines at election time and then they do little to enact new legislation that will competently address, much less deal with illegal immigration, the threat of terrorism, the threat of drugs and criminal activity
Sorry I am out of time. I will continue with the remainder on my next post.
but they can build a wall without funding it, just like they started a war, without funding that either
You'll have to pardon my emotional arguments. I realize this doesn't adhere to the rules here. I, like you, don't always approve of the poli-speak on either side of this problem
as such, my points are made in the only means by which I think a reasonable discussion on this entire issue can be held. I don't think it's something that ought to be trivialized. So, I can't do the "ten reasons" in an "objection" format or style.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2008 8:04:27 GMT -7
Fair warning this reply may make for a long post.I don't have much time either...but some things stand out at a glanceSometimes the subjectivity is called for; what kind of "detail" is acceptable?
I agree there will have to be some subjectivity, any issue worth discussing always has a subjective component, ex. What is freedom?
I asked for bullet points to allow for addressing the "reasons" to oppose the wall could each be addressed in full, without writing a novel - guess it was not such a good idea.
the wall is a projection of this government's failure to implement and enforce good immigration policy.
Wrong. The wall is the result of citizens of other countries choosing to ignore our laws - complicated or not. In this case we are speaking specifically of those who choose to enter illegally through our southern border, not all all Mexican for the record.
no. the wall is the result of this government's inadequate, ineffective and inappropriate response to it's own immigration problems.
Please define "good immigration policy". Currently imigration policy calls for basically a clean bill of health, limits on the number of immigrants from each country (an attempt at fairness), criminal background check, economic viability upon arrival, and other logical considerations. The goal is to accept immigrants to a level that the US economy can support and in fields where we are lacking skills for an improved economy.
is this really true? this may be what is on the books. is this how the current laws/policies are interpreted and enforced?
As to enforcement - how do you enforce "good immigration policy" when an overwhelming
"overwhelming"?
number of immigrants, arriving from a country sharing almost 1500 miles of border with the US, choose conciously to ignore the policy in place? This is one reason FOR the wall - weed out all but the most determined and the criminal element and channel the remainder to more difficult crossing areas where "enforcement" can be accomplished.
"but the most determined and the criminal element"? I thought the laws were also in place to protect our border and our citizens?
rather than clean up systemic flaws in enforcement, they waste years and millions on failed arguments for/against this or that new trend,
Please define the "systemic flaws in enforcement". Then tell me how addressing these "flaws" will improve the current situation.
I will post on this one further when I get more time......
Right now the biggest flaw in our system is/was a lack of effective border patrol leaving it wide open for both illegal smuggling of drugs etc and for fairly direct approaches for illegal immigration.
I disagree; I don't think this is the biggest flaw The wall certainly is a part of an improvement to close this flaw.
they bicker about the role of the military in stemming the tide of illegal immigration. and they build a wall
There is by law no role for the military directly in this issue.
then they should not be considering using the military, active/inactive, any branch for this purpose. and yet, this is still an active debate
The military in the form of National Guard under the orders of their respective governors were utilized for observation, patrols, and construction duties and were not permitted to engage directly in apprehension.
Again - the wall where it has been built has helped stem or redirect the flow of illegal immigrants to where apprehension can take place, before the illegal immigrants can get to populated centers and disappear.
rather than address the loopholes and legal-speak in existing laws so that rules are clearly stated, understood and implemented, they pander to interest groups and build a wall
Please explain what loopholes you are concerned with? Do you mean the different criteria and visa types available for legal entry such as those reserved for people with desired/needed skills and education?
no, not necessarily...more on this later
I agree all laws should be easily understood - but in this case while the details may be difficult - the basic law is not - You enter through a proper crossing point and you present proper documents. How hard is it to know that if you are sneaking across a fence in the middle of the night and avoiding law enforcement agents that you might be doing something illegal?
What "interest groups" are you referring to? If you mean to say "racist" white conservatives than say so.
but I don't mean just racist whites or conservatives
Sorry I am out of time. I will continue with the remainder on my next post.
I would love to post more on this too but I can't just now either. It seems though that this is a debate that might take separate paths, in that you appear to place a lot of trust in the letter of the law
which is fine. I can understand this, but look around you and watch how it is enforced along the southern border. then ask and look at how it's enforced along the northern border. do not tell me there aren't inconsistencies, from border to border. state to state.
rather than deal ethically and responsibly with those individuals who have contributed to this society for years, with work and money, they favor some over others and they build a wall
rather than gather at each new session, review and revise immigration policy at all, our government leaders pander along party lines at election time and then they do little to enact new legislation that will competently address, much less deal with illegal immigration, the threat of terrorism, the threat of drugs and criminal activity
but they can build a wall without funding it, just like they started a war, without funding that either
You'll have to pardon my emotional arguments. I realize this doesn't adhere to the rules here. I, like you, don't always approve of the poli-speak on either side of this problem
as such, my points are made in the only means by which I think a reasonable discussion on this entire issue can be held. I don't think it's something that ought to be trivialized. So, I can't do the "ten reasons" in an "objection" format or style.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 13, 2008 10:17:54 GMT -7
Boy is this debate going to lead to long threads. I will keep my comments in bold and Italics, you stick with the green. Watch for separate threads as I attempt to weed through the arguments for those that actually relate to opposition to the wall versus complaints about immigration policy or government ineptitude. Thanks
|
|