Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California is hoping to garner enough support in the House to construct a 2,000 mile wall along the US/Mexico border to keep immigrants from crossing. He says that "illegal aliens continue to funnel directly into many of our local communities and adversely impact our way of life by overwhelming our schools, inundating our healthcare system and, most concerning, threatening our safety. " Tell us what you think.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Weekly Debate: Should the US construct a wall to keep out immigrants?
Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California is hoping to garner enough support in the House to construct a 2,000 mile wall along the US/Mexico border to keep immigrants from crossing. He says that "illegal aliens continue to funnel directly into many of our local communities and adversely impact our way of life by overwhelming our schools, inundating our healthcare system and, most concerning, threatening our safety. " Tell us what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I support stronger measures for combating illegal immigration. It is vital not only for our national security, but also for our national economy, our national healthcare, and national education systems.
The creation of the a fence along our southern border will only be supported when terrorist who cross the southern border begin blowing up targets just across the border. Until then, the House will never go for it.
In the meantime, we should be looking at enforcement of current laws and regulations, strengthening deportation, building more jails and prisons along border towns specifically for holding illegals, and prosecuting businesses that hire illegals.
If a fence is the only way Congress will act, then fine, build it. But I doubt it will happen. Additionally, the increase in border crossers in the time preceding construction would overwhelm authorities and the result would be completely opposite of the intended goal.
What do you think?
ABSOLUTELY!!! But even more important than that -- change the laws. Two of the first I'd get rid of: 1) everyone born on U.S. soil is automatically American 2) the ability to legalize after being here illegally And a bonus third: Reintroduce citizenship retention requirements.
I do not feel that building a huge wall in any way helps prevent illegal immigration. Rather, Mexico needs to improve law enforcement on their end. A wall would just shift the problem around -- people will always find loopholes (quite literally).
I agree with the notion that someone born on American soil shouldn't necessarily be an American citizen. That seems like an antiquated law. Unless the parents of the child feel associated with the US and commit themselves to going through the "naturalization" process, as you call it, I see no reason why their children should automatically become American citizens.
Other countries have good measures regarding this. As the children get to a certain age of maturity (say, 18 years), they should be able to decide on their own whether they want to become American or not. Obviously, having gone through education, they should know enough about the US at that point to make an informed decision on what country they want to associate themselves with.
Bigger walls simply mean higher profits for the coyotes who traffic the humans. In my opinion, it's a waste of money and won't impact illegal immigration at all as people will find ways around it.
The idea of a wall is silly. I think we in the US take the economic contribution of immigrants for granted, and that very few are even able to take advantage of the support systems that we claim they are draining.
It is a sad state of affairs when human beings have internalized the barbaric notion of the nation-state to the cruel extent that they are willing to erect soul-crushing walls to protect their status and privilage from the very same peoples who used to, after all, inhabit what are is now the U.S. southwest. In such a mindset, the concept of a common humanity is swept away into a storm of racism and ethnocentricity.
No longer are those south of the border human beings, they instead are a plague.
"Illegal" immigrants, of course, are not even eligible for many of the social services which they are supposedly bankrupting in the tortured logic of the jingoist.
One must wonder how many of the middle-class white people responding to this post, expressing the utmost concern about brown-skinned hordes from south of the border, are indeed themselves "legally" living in a land that was brutally stolen from its native inhabitants.
Building the American-Mexican equivalent of the Great Chinese Wall has immediate emotional appeal in the face of a problem that demands solutions. But there is not one single "silver bullet" that will solve a complex security, social, economic, and political problem which, by the way, is hardly new. Illegal immigration from Mexico has been an accepted "industry" for almost 100 years. Not until after 9/11 have Americans beyond the southern border areas become aware of this migratory flow of humans to fill an economic vacuum. Granted, this migration has begun to impact more heavily on our social services, because we have permitted the illegals to freely use them without restriction.
Mr. C frames rational solutions in a nutshell: " . . . we should be looking at enforcement of current laws and regulations, strengthening deportation, building more jails and prisons along border towns specifically for holding illegals, and prosecuting businesses that hire illegals."
Recalling the absolute failure of similar barriers in history (never mind the horrendous costs of building and maintaining them), I'd endorse those measures, and add to them the following: (1) Augmenting security and intelligence forces in Mexico to identify and interdict terrorists (as well as criminal acts such as drug smuggling; (2) Increasing Border Patrol forces and outfit them with communications and other high tech equipment such as UAV spotters; (3) Augmenting BP forces, with U.S. military forces (Guard, Reservists) on as "as-required" basis.
All these measures would cost considerably less than a Great Mexican-American Wall that has the potential of becoming at worst a terrible public confession that we were unable to rationally solve a problem with our neighbors, and-- at best -- an international joke and an oppressive, embarrassing white elephant.
The only problem with Mr. C's and my measures is whether there exists the political will to implement them. On the Right exists the long-standing shibboleth of "business needs the seasonal labor force," while on the Left, humanistic sentiment favors open borders and militates against taking what it considers aggressive, inhumane action (not to mention the temptation to surreptitiously employ these folks at the polls and in databases used to carry out redistricting)
What concerns me most about this query is the sheer idiocy of the premise. National security, illegal immigration and the supposed "War on Terror" are simply polite code words for anti-Latino racism.
Paleoconservative presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan brought up this nonsensical xenophobic idea years ago and like Herpes, it pops up every time the American public is agitated and uncertain as to why the country is not doing as well as our leaders say it should be.
Historically Latinos and Mexicanos in particular have been the ethnic group of choice for laying economic and crimminal blame. In the early decades of the last century, Mexicans were picked up off the streets and sent back to Mexico by rail to offset American unemployment . The problem was people were out of work due to the inherent greed of big business, not Latin immigration. In fact, it was the business communities of Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona that demanded the initiative be recinded since it was the migrant workers from across the Rio Grande that performed most of the manual labour positions in those states that Euro-Americans flatly refused to do. And it was exactly this argument that quelled the Buchanan suggestion the last go round. For all the patriotic pandering to the conservative "base," the reality is that these foreign workers are vital to the American economy of exploitation of cheap, unregulated labour from the south.
One thing that should be asked in concert with this question but I see no evidence of it here, or in the national debate on this subject is this: If the U.S. is going to build a fence to keep out "Pedro," (I'm quoting Pat Buchanan here) is the U.S. willing to construct a gate to keep out the Canadians as well?
If the U.S. is really trying to defnd itself from anti-American terrorism, the U.S. should stop perpetuating terrorism at home and abroad. And before anyone lobs vociferous condemnation and charges of rampant liberalism to that statement, for the record, I am not a liberal. I just refuse to accept the concept of American exceptionalism in a globalised community. That's simply the application of common sense to a non-commonsensical set of twisted national policies masked as "liberty."
Mr. Angryindian, you're just flat-out wrong in trying to ascribe every problem America suffers to racism. Racism is indeed an anachronism that has existed since man discovered his fellow across the "mountains" is "different." It also underlies many problems within a society. But to try and view all of history through the lenses of racism is an indication of an intellectual handicap, expressed by an obsessive focus on one element of a problem.
YOU WROTE: "I am not a liberal."
O.K., so you're not a liberal. I could care less about "what" you are politically. But in the spirit of well-intentioned people on this blog, it's fair to ask you to stay on point and attempt to directly answer the question posited here, namely what should be done about the very real problem of 10,000/month emigrant wave from Mexico northward. A wall, or no wall? Or . . . ?
Giving you the benefit of doubt that you just might be harboring a solution buried somewhere deep in your concluding linguistic convolution, how about restating it in a way us ordinary folks can understand it:
QUOTING YOU: "I just refuse to accept the concept of American exceptionalism in a globalised community. That's simply the application of common sense to a non-commonsensical set of twisted national policies masked as "liberty."
Or are you saying there's no problem, after all? If so, why not just say so!
I support improving border enforcement, more ICE enforcement, increasing legal immigration limits, increased naturalization, English First and bringing current illegal immigrants out of the shadows into the legal environment in America. This will bring illegals out of the shadows in America, improve their standards of living, and increase the security of the country.
I love flame wars. I'm going to go get some marshmallows and make you guys some s'mores. :D
I tend to agree that a wall across the Southern border will not completely stem the tide of illegal immigration. However, I think that it might be pretty effective if funded well enough.
In general our enforcement has not been funded at a level that is effective. I think we're pretty much turning back as many as we can given the numbers of officers and other resources in the field. Until the establishment in Washington D.C. feels some pain (as California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have, there won't be any real action.
I'm very worried about the tone of the debate. Much of what is said is racist. It's easy to vilify dirt poor brown people. We, in the Southwest, have a long history of doing just that.
I'm also very worried about the image a fence or wall would project. The U.S. used to brag about it's unguarded borders with Mexico and Canada.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the debate will be the effect on the '06 and '08 elections. The issue may be the new "Southern Strategy" for the Republican party.
President Bush campaigned on the issue in 2000 touting a "guest worker" program. Those aspirations died on 9/11. Since then the country has not been in the mood to make it easier for immigrants, fearing an influx of criminals and terrorists.
No candidate is going to be able to dodge the issue. All must now have a strategy to deal with it. I would think that appearing soft on illegals would be the death knell for any campaign. Many will follow Tom Tancredo's example and make it a primary issue for their campaign. Do not underestimate the political advantages of negative campaigning. It's very easy for politicians to go negative on "illegals" that are "draining our resources."
Y'all have made some great comments above. Keep stirring the pot. I side with Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano in declaring emergencies along the border. Our own Governor Owens is in favor of the wall.
Coyote Gulch
If the wall is constructed and if it is expanded until it encompasses the entire United States, in the not too distant future it may even serve
to keep U.S. citizens from leaving.
...Submitted by email by Glyne Griffith
I find it amusing and indicative of the effect of the main stream media's (MSM) bias that there is so little effort made to discover the reality not the perception of what is actually taking place along our southern border. I have lived on the border in Mexico for the last three years. I have seen the reality. I see it everyday with groups of 5 or 10 men with their backpacks or begging at the border crossing for a few pesos to buy water before they "jump the fence".
Hundreds of thousands of latin americans cross into the USA from Mexico every year. This is a fact. Where there is adequate manpower and a barrier sufficient to deter a crossing, the numbers are down. They move to a less protected spot. This is a fact. To say that it is up to Mexican law enforcement is at best a nieve at worst ignorace. Those officials in Mexico who are not receiving the "merdida" or bite, bribes in the US, are so underpaid that they are not willing to risk their lives to stop a coyote.
If you beleive that these illegals are not affecting the US ecomony, you are misinformed or deceived. Althought, I realize that they are a source of cheap labor, in South Carolina, for example, any women, legal or illegal, immediately and unquestioning qualifies for complete medical coverage from the state the moment she is pregnant. And that is in a red state.
Do you realize that the number of cases of whooping cough and tuberculosis are on the rise in the US? These diseases are often being carried in by the illegals. In one town along the border in Mexico, TB is so bad and so rampant, the Mexican government has had to set up a clinic just to treat it.
I agree that a barrier is mandated. There must be more vigilance at the border. If that involves the military, then so be it.
I feel for these latinos who are wanting to improve their lives with the opportunites provided in the US. This must be addressed as well. However, because of the near complete lack of infrastructure in Mexico, it is difficult for our State Department to assess the legitemacy of a Mexican's request for a work permit, etc. and therfore the process is lengthy and arduous.
We must protect our borders but we must not forget the human element. We must prevent drugs and terrorist from entering but we must consider, compassionately those who have genuine needs, seeking employment and self improvement.
This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with national security.
A border fence will not change things. Employers hire undocumented immigrants who come to the United States for jobs. We need more liberal migration between the NAFTA nations, just as there is free migration within the European Union.
I agree that law enforcement on the part of Mexico should be greatly improved, but I say that for the benefit of Mexicans. They really need it.
Someone needs to do the dirty work in this country, it is as simple as that, and the US is far from ready to stop the steady influx of cheap labor (as they have been wont to call Mexicans). If the wall does go up, the US will be hated far more than it is now, and the problem of illegal immigration will not end either. If the US really wants to screw itself over, again, with this insanely stupid wall idea, be my guest. Why they can't sit down and use their brains to improve border control, I'll never know. In the face of international terrorism, a lot of other countries have done just that.
I don't believe Latin Americans are crossing the border to take jobs we want. On the other hand, almost 20,000 Canadians cross the border to take high-skilled jobs in the US every year and noone notices. Why? Because (surprise!) they look just like us! Sneaky Canucks.
Taylor, Taylor, Taylor! I know you don't mean to say so (but you just did) that you agree with Mr. Angryindian's racially tinted worldview, to wit: Annually 20,000 Canucks can take jobs in the U.S. unnoticed, while in the same time frame some 100,000 (new) illegals do so, but because they're mainly brown-skinned, the get bashed.
You forgot to mention that the 20,000 Canucks (I'll accept your figure, although it sounds high) would be 100% LEGAL immigrants if they're taking high-tech jobs.
Nice try, but let's get back to the real world.
By the way, I live on the border (with Mexico--not Canada) where I have first-hand knowledge of the daily waves that pass through (Cochise County has the dubious distinction of "hosting" the highest number of illegals anywhere along the border the past 2 years).
There IS a racial element in the area, exacerbated by indignant (rightfully so) local ranchers and others who have to clean up after the uninvited visitors pass through their south 40's and backyards. But racism is NOT the core factor driving Americans to finding a solution to a mushrooming social, economic, and political problem. Most of the rational locals simply ignore the minority who is motivated by its narrow-mindedness.
Amen to Glyne Griffith's pithy observation. East German Communists and their Soviet sponsors maintained the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 to keep out the meddling West--and that it did very effectively--but its greatest role was to keep their citizens from fleeing tyranny. So a wall, as Glyne shrewdly observes, always has two sides to it.
I'll answer "Grant" and I can do so intelligently and without flaming.
Racism was and is the foundation of American society. Period. Are we forgetting African slavery and that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 96 to 98% of the Indigenous populaton was effectively exterminated by 1890? Or is it just more palatable to just live with the lie that Indians simply disappeared and African slavery was beneficial to the slave as well as the master?
Racism is a present, not just past injustice. Ignoring that fact or flat-out denying the reality of it is not only misguided but insulting to those who suffer negatively from its existence and practise.
And let's be clear, racism and bigotry are two different issues.
Just because you choose to ignore the U.S. system of ethnic hierachy does mean that it does not exist and negatively effect scores of U.S. citizens, residents, visitors as well as unfortunate targets of this country abroad. As Taylor has mentioned, White Canadians are everywhere and in large numbers yet I have not heard of any American actions to eject or limit the numbers of Canadians that enter the U.S. illegally. I live in the Pacific Northwest and in Seattle and other smaller towns here, Canadians illegally residing in Washington State and Oregon work and live openly without visble fear of the INS. However, Mexicans here even if they are legal live in fear of being arrested and detained. Is racism involved in the lackluster INS enforcement in the Pacific Northwest? You tell me. All of the Canadians I have met here are European. They are usually food service and manual labour workers and are by their own admission, (meaning casually over a few beers) generally admit to being paid two U.S. dollars more on average than their Latino co-workers. Yet, INS poses no threat to their operating here illegally.
In fact, the only real concern the U.S. has about Canadians entering the U.S. illegally concerns the trafficking of highly potent Marijuana, or so says the U.S. Dept. of Justice: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/9904.htm
And while terrorists do come into the U.S. illegally through Canadian borders, U.S. Border Patrols rarely take such cases seriously until something bad happens like this: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/brookb/brbrtoc.htm
"Kevin Funk" reminds us that these people rarely put a dent into the social services net, not that most Americas have access to these resources anyway. But they do provide us with their labour, their trust and service to this country (many Mexicans have served in the U.S. military legal and illegal.) something we forget about very easily since it is not us (Americans) that is doing the work or living with the social stigmas.
Does it make sense for the United States to maintain and defend a strong and defined boundary, of course. To not do so is a breech of national security. But the notion of a "wall" dividing the U.S. and Mexico if not actually racism in practise, seems at least racially bigoted. If the U.S. is willing to build a wall to protect its border integrity, then walls should be constructed on all borders, north as well as south.
If racism is not involved I'm certain the Canadians will not mind.
I'm against the wall, against forced deportation, and against the use of xenophobia and racism as a salve to disguise failed policies. But, most of all, I am against the neo-liberal version of "globalization" and this self-defeating assumption on the part of many that the "laws" governing trade and markets are immutable and beyond the power of ordinary workers to change. Should people accept as inevitable lower wages and precipitously declining living standards simlply because those (relatively) few who benefit enormously from capital's version of globalization tell us that we must? As a practical matter, while we work to rid ourselves of the neo-liberal version of "globalization" (there are an infinite number of alternative possibilities, many of which would work, correctly, to the detriment of the exploiter and not, as now, the worker), we should press for two things. First, sanctions should be imposed on those countries that fail to provide for the needs of their own citizens. Secondly, we should be serious about punishing -- and punishing severely -- the cheap-labor-hungry class of employers who are the cheap precipitating factor in illegal immigration. There are by some estimates in excess of 15 million illegal immigrants in America (a recent study by Bear Stearns places that number as high as 20 million). It is a question of not just ending the misery and human suffering by workers on both sides of the border, but of properly ending the system of increasing exploitation and abuse which are the salient features of neo-liberalism. Appeals to racism or nationalism ("La Raza's" record on race and the [mis]treatment of Native Americans is as bad or worse than that of the Anglos) may provide short-term visceral satisfaction, but it deters us from doing what is right in this situation.
Mr. Angryindian: YOU WROTE, "If the U.S. is willing to build a wall to protect its border integrity, then walls should be constructed on all borders, north as well as south." I agree: It's a nice PC idea. Equal opportunity walls for all!
If you read my position on illegal immigration and "the wall," you will realize we agree. You will also realize I recognize that racism is an operative element in every society, except those theoretically "hermetically sealed" social orders. I also cite living on the border at the most intense point of border infiltration in the U.S.
Finally, I probably understand racism better than many "ofays" (that's Pig Latin used by blacks in the 1960s to describe "whitey") because I've been married 35 years to a lady whose skin is not lily white, so she's constantly subject to official and unofficial "profiling" (I call it abuse) in this country--she's even been detained and held several hours against her will by U.S. border/custom officials, despite her 40 years of being a naturalized citizen--it's all about skin color.
However, where we diverge is trying to widely interpret every social problem we confront in paranoic racial terms. To effectively solve any kind of social problem, one must be able to analyze it with completely open eyes and minds.
Since you enjoy quoting "Grant" i'll return the favour.
You said: "Finally, I probably understand racism better than many "ofays." I suppose that means that you are able to comprehend the practise of racial stratification better than those who endure it firsthand. You then contradict yourself by proclaiming that I abide by "paranoic racial terms," a queer postion for a person who regards themselves as knowledgable in areas of ethnic marginalisation. If racism is real then it isn't paranoia, it empirical observation.
"Coyote Gulch" has said it, there is a racist (rather than bigoted) tone to this discussion and I concur.
This thread should be adressing ALL aspects that are behind this decision and logic concludes that racism is a defining factor. If the U.S. suggested a wall along the Northern border, I for one would not mention the isue of anti-Latino racism. So far, the U.S. has voiced no such intentions nor concerns.
Those shouting loudest for a wall are the ones least familiar with the border. Most of the border is not like San Diego/Tijuana. Most of it is mountainous frontier and barren desert. It will be an enormous waste of money, a monument to idiocy.
If you want to stem the tide of illegals in this country, prosecute those who are hiring them. This will never happen because the housing and construction industry have very deep pockets and Congress gets a lot of money from them.
Don't be irritated that I like quoting people--it usually prevents misunderstandings, which isn't working with you. So.o.o...
OK, OK, you win! From now on, I'm going to have myself arrested, along with my wife when she's profiled and arrested the next time she crosses into the U.S.-- so you won't accuse me of the "practise of racial stratification" [whatever that means], and thereby I will "better understand those who endure it firsthand."
And from now on, according to your worldview, I'm going to look at everybody having a different skin color or racial physiognomy with a jaundiced eye . . . and then, whenever we have a disagreement, then we'll solve it by____________[begin punching each other, debate the origins of racism, or. . .?] Please fill in the blank because I'm so naive and unlearned about racism, unless you tutor me].
YOU CONCLUDED: "If racism is real then it isn't paranoia, it empirical observation."
True, but I suggest HOW one reacts to and deals with racism may be highly paranoic! ¿Está de acuerdo, señor?
Maybe someday you can change your handle to "Happyindian" when you can come to grips with the world we live in.
The wall is just a quick fix to a deeper issue. This will not solve anything in the long run. What we, as a country, need to do is to examine our economic policies and find ways to support our Mexican neighbors entice workers to remain on their side of the border. There needs to be a more just distribute of wealth among the nations. If stronger economic opportunity and a better quality life for your family and loved ones lied on the other side of a river, or a wall, who would not want to cross it. Afterall, aside from those of Native American heritage, that is what brought many of our relatives over here.
R. Ostendorf
McAllen, Texas
Does "Grant" even have a particular point or statement of position on the subject of a physical Southern boundary? I'm reading other posts here with solid commentary on this issue. The subject is a wall dividing the U.S. and Mexico, not "Grant's" personal issues with racism.
I'm focusing my attention on the issue at hand. "Louis Godena" lays out what I consider to be a logical route to consider. If these nations were allowed to function free of IMF and World Bank imposition and American empiricist activity, perhaps people would be less inclined to leave their home nations.
The wall is not meant to keep people out, it's to keep them IN.
no fence,just a bounty,per ear.
Post a Comment