To all those who said a virtual fence is the answer …

[BeAChooser]

Nice selective quote work there, Groucho! US citizenship is meaningless to me.

But not to me. And I'm the only one who counts, since you have nothing to lose if US citizenship is devalued to the point of being meaningless while I do. That being the case, I value your opinions about as much as say a war lord in Somalia.

And dodging the issue wildly here.

I'm dodging no issues. I've addressed every comment you've made. You're the one dodging issues, Zep. As anyone who has followed this exchange can see.

Quote:
Let's talk about *Fortress Australia*?

And let's not. Changing the subject

But it's not a change in subject. You made the subject about whether creating a "fortress" (a term you used in a derisive way) to preserve the character of a country and the value of it's citizenship is really meaningless. You say my concern about those things is meaningless "to you". Fine. I'm curious whether those concepts have any meaning to you, if the country in question is your own. Because if they do have importance to you where Australia is concerned, then your derisiveness where my concerns are involved is more than a bit hypocritical. So?

But say it like that from the start, not begin with flaming rhetoric and derision.

I said it "like that" long before you joined this thread, Zep. Here … from post #108 back in July …

I haven't suggested immigration is bad. But why is allowing illegal immigration good? Why don't any other countries (like Mexico) allow that? And why is it good to accept millions and millions of absolutely impoverished, uneducated people, who don't even speak English? And yes, perhaps Americans aren't breeding enough. But surely you're not suggesting the best solution to that problem is to *adopt* the impoverished and uneducated.

And you simply ignored that statement in accusing me of wanting to ban "ANY immigration". And as I pointed out in post #114,

Most other countries haven't needed a fence either because their geography protected them from huges numbers of poor and uneducated people, their economies and social system are so bad that few want to sneak in, or because they, unlike us, have actually enforced their immigration laws and deported offenders. The fence is now a last resort because our politico's, especially democrats, have shown a complete unwillingness to enforce even the existing laws against illegal immigration.

And you ignored that too. And you've shown you don't even want to talk about that since you refuse to discuss how Australia … a country whose geography protects it from huge numbers of poor and uneducated people … handles illegals. Because you aren't really here to discuss this topic in an honest manner. You joined this conversation to disrupt … to derail … using flaming rhethoric like calling me "stupid" and "needlessly foolish".

So have you a more practical solution that will achieve your aims as stated just above?

Yes, I have. I even presented it earlier … which you obviously either didn't read or won't discuss in an honest manner.

So what will you do with the illegals that are already in the country prior to any wall/amnesty arrangement?

Are you having trouble with the American dialect? What part of "there should be no discussion of what to do with the illegals that are in this country until there is a real barrier to prevent future illegal immigration" do you not understand? You seem intent on looking stupid and needlessly foolish.

I said nothing that inferred that answer. Just because someone asks a question does not mean there is a sarcastic implication underneath it. A question is requesting information.

LOL! You clearly mentioned cost (and what to do with Canada) as objections. And you did it in the same paragraph where you totally mischaracterized my views about "any immigration" and my views about "no amnesty". The very tone of that paragraph was "snark" on your part, so don't expect me to infer you were just "requesting information". Especially since I'd already clearly addressed the issue of cost … another portion of the thread that you simply ignored.

What about the many Canadians seeping south across your northern border (which is much longer incidentally), taking jobs illegally and sending the money back to Canada, HMQE2, etc? Any idea of the scale there?

First, your attempt to change this into a discussion of Canada is a derail given that, as already pointed out, the scale of illegal immigration from Canada to the US is minor compared to that from Mexico to the US (this is widely known, even in Australia) and the two borders are a separable problem.

But just for your edification, under 100,000 Canadians are thought to be in the US, compared to 10-20 million illegals from south of the border. And while Canadian illegals do take jobs, most of those people are likely skilled and well educated, and actually benefit the US when all is said and done. Afterall, Canada ranks near the US in per capita GDP. So most Canadian illegals are not nearly the hardship to this country that illegals crossing the southern border tend to be. Certainly, the Canadian problem is manageable and not out of control. Not so the southern problem. Now if you want to talk about Canadian illegal immigration further and what to do about it, I suggest you start your own thread. This one is about the southern border and how to protect it.

Where did I say it was a total ban?

In post #155 you made this statement:

You are seriously saying that without a 30ft fence and machine-gun towers every one hundred yards along the entire US border, ANY immigration should be considered illegal regardless.

Apparently Australians don't define "any" the same as the rest of the English speaking world. Or perhaps they don't define "immigration" the same. Because I certainly took that to mean you were accusing me of being against "any" (i.e., all) "immigration" (both legal and illegal). And you even confirmed that interpretation when in post #171 you stated this:

You certainly don't seem in favour of it (BAC - "it" being "immigration", not "illegal immigration"), particularly from Mexico.

in response to my complaint about you accusing me of being against "ANY immigration". So yes, I think you were clearly and dishonestly accusing me of wanting a "total ban".

Many US posters (from the broad spectrum of politics) are perfectly capable of imitating a lot of styles and dialects.

That may be true, but you've repeatedly shown you don't seem to understand how we define terms, and shown yourself unable to comprehend very clear statements by me as to my views. The only other possibility is that you did understand what I said but then chose to dishonestly characterize my position.

It's because they are respectful, listen carefully, think deeply and learn well. You would do well to emulate them…

Why are you so intent on looking stupid and needlessly foolish?

 

[BeAChooser]

So, BeAChooser, are you going to explain why I should value US citizenship or not?

I wouldn't think an American citizen would need to have that explained.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum
So, BeAChooser, are you going to explain why I should value US citizenship or not? It seems to be very crucial to your argument.

BaC does, so it follows (to him) that everyone else in the world should too

No, Zep, I'd just think that an American citizen would. Apparently not the case in IATS' case. And when an American citizen doesn't, odds are they are indeed "lefties".

 

[BeAChooser]

The issue at point here is that there does not seem to be any great alarm or push to build a stalag fence from the Great Lakes to Vancouver to stop Canadian illegals.

Do Australians understand the difference between 1 and 100 (the relative scale of the two border problems)?

Do Australians understand the difference between poor/uneducated/unskilled and wealthy/educated/skilled (the terms that describe most southern border illegals versus most northern border illegals)?

Do Australians understand the difference between a border owned by drug cartels and one that is not?

Do Austrialians understand the difference between a border where both countries are cooperating vis a vis immigration and one where they are not?

Or is it just you, Zep, who doesn't understand?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I am left to conclude that your question of the value of citizenship is nothing but a derail in order to deflect attention away from your vacuous argument by way of painting those who disagree with you as some sort of radicals. This has no place in intellectual discourse, which is probably why you've focused your argument away from the discussion that requires people to use their heads.

So, you don't want to tell me why I should value citizenship, possibly because you're a dishonest coward. That's fine. I'll just ask you this simple question:

Why do you value citizenship?

 

[BeAChooser]

Unless the coastlines are equally well protected the prospective illegals would simply go around it.

Going around the fence will not be nearly as easy as you think. And the point isn't to stop all illegals from crossing, but reduce the number to a much more manageable level ... say by a factor of 100. Most southern illegals are not going to have the money to finance an extended, covert boat trip (which entalis great risks and costs on the part of those operating the boats). It won't be as simple as just rowing around the edge of the fence since obviously the US will watch the end of the fence with radar, boats and other surveillance, just waiting for someone to try.

In other words, this argument against the fence is just desperation on the part of those who suddenly find themselves with no "virtual fence" to use as their *solution* to the problem (not that they really want a solution since most of them see illegals as more democrat votes) and who apparently can't argue against a real fence system being effective at stopping most illegal crossings.

 

[BeAChooser]

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I am left to conclude that your question of the value of citizenship is nothing but a derail

LOL!

You entered this thread by saying "I don't see why citizenship is meaningful." I think that is all that needs be noted in response to you, regardless of whether your posting from the US means that you are a poorly educated, unappreciative US citizen or an illegal who is just here to work (which might be the case, given that attitude).

In any case, the OBVIOUS fact is that allowing tens of millions of illegal aliens to flow into the country (such that their numbers now comprise 6% of the total population and as much as 10% in many regions) and obtain the benefits of being a citizen (health care, driver's licenses, free education, legal protections, etc) without being a citizen and without paying the taxes that come with being a citizen, dilutes the value of being a citizen. Pardon me if I resent this *redistribution* of citizenship.

If you need more ways to assess the value of citizenship, I would suggest these:

Visit a few National Cemeteries. Those people paid quite a price to defend YOUR citizenship.

Ask yourself how much would you pay to keep your citizenship? I know that I'd be willing to pay a lot … even defend it with my life. And, believe me, my life is worth a lot to me. But what about you?

Perhaps looking at the number of people willing to risk their lives to get here is a way for you to measure it's potential value? That number is rather large and some of the dangers quite serious. Which is why I don't blame the illegals for the illegal immigration. They are doing what is in their interest. Now we have to do what is in our interest.

Or consider this …

http://www.eb5-visa.net/

You and your immediate family can now obtain green cards and permanent US residency with an EB5 visa by investing $500,000 into a government designated Regional Center. It will give each of you the security of permanent US residency without repeated visa applications. Citizenship may be obtained after five years.

Is your citizenship worth half a million dollars? Maybe it's worth at least million dollars (http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelo...native-to-obama’s-proposal-on-immigration.php ).

Maybe your not being willing to defend the value of US citizenship is the result of programs that give that citizenship away to almost anyone as if there is nothing special about it? Are you not feeling special?

 

[I Am The Scum]

In any case, the OBVIOUS fact is that allowing tens of millions of illegal aliens to flow into the country (such that their numbers now comprise 6% of the total population and as much as 10% in many regions) and obtain the benefits of being a citizen (health care, driver's licenses, free education, legal protections, etc) without being a citizen and without paying the taxes that come with being a citizen, dilutes the value of being a citizen. Pardon me if I resent this *redistribution* of citizenship.

Now wait a minute. I asked you about citizenship, and instead you frame this as tax evasion. Why is that? Does being a citizen make it more difficult to dodge taxes? If that's the case, shouldn't we grant citizenship as much as possible?

By the way, is there a "citizens tax" I've been paying at the check-out line all this time? It doesn't show up on my receipt. How do the cashiers know that I'm a citizen?

 

[BeAChooser]

Does being a citizen make it more difficult to dodge taxes? If that's the case, shouldn't we grant citizenship as much as possible?

Oh believe me, the left wants to do that as much as possible.

By the way, is there a "citizens tax" I've been paying at the check-out line all this time?

Curious. You don't deny the assertion that you might be an illegal in this country.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Oh believe me, the left wants to do that as much as possible.

Are you going to have this discussion, or not? I'm asking some serious questions and all that you can fathom is a method by which you can spin it towards an attack against your boogeyman of choice.

Curious. You don't deny the assertion that you might be an illegal in this country.

Nor have you denied the allegation that you are a serial child rapist.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm asking some serious questions

Nor have you denied the allegation that you are a serial child rapist.

Is that your way of asking me? No, I'm not.

Now are you actually a US citizen who thinks US citizenship is meaningless?

 

[Zep]

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between 1 and 100 (the relative scale of the two border problems)?

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between poor/uneducated/unskilled and wealthy/educated/skilled (the terms that describe most southern border illegals versus most northern border illegals)?

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between a border owned by drug cartels and one that is not?

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between a border where both countries are cooperating vis a vis immigration and one where they are not?

Or is it just you, Zep, who doesn't understand?

ftfy

Now, please stick to your own topic.

NB. Seconded what IATS said: Try not to spin your comments in a ridiculous and failing effort to perperate your own personal hatreds.

 

[BeAChooser]

Try not to spin your comments in a ridiculous and failing effort to perperate your own personal hatreds.

I don't hate Australians (or Mexicans, for that matter) at all, Zep.

I just feel sorry for people who insist on looking "stupid" and "needlessly foolish".

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal remark

 

[quadraginta]

Going around the fence will not be nearly as easy as you think. And the point isn't to stop all illegals from crossing, but reduce the number to a much more manageable level ... say by a factor of 100. Most southern illegals are not going to have the money to finance an extended, covert boat trip (which entalis great risks and costs on the part of those operating the boats). It won't be as simple as just rowing around the edge of the fence since obviously the US will watch the end of the fence with radar, boats and other surveillance, just waiting for someone to try.
<snip>

I think this reflects a rather simplistic response to the issue, as well as a lack of understanding of the real difficulties involved in effectively patrolling the thousands of miles of coastline.

I have to think that you have not spent a great deal of time in small boats on deep water or around the coasts of our ocean borders. Or spent much time reflecting on the history of blockades and smuggling, and the problems involved in patrolling coastlines.

Yes, the land routes are more attractive ... now ... while they are easier. Once we take steps (if that is possible in any cost -effective or socially acceptable fashion) to render those routes non-porous then the other routes will become more attractive.

They will not be nearly as easy to interdict as you seem to believe.

The only practical way to make any significant inroads to discourage illegal immigration into a continent sized country situated as the U.S. is would be to make that immigration less attractive. If you want to do that you need to go after the Americans who are offering employment to those illegals. Then you won't need a fence. When the jails start filling up with restaurant, agribusiness and factory owners, and the people who hire the nannies, housekeepers and gardeners ... that's when we'll make real progress.

Fences won't work, no matter how well built they are.

 

[I Am The Scum]

BeAChooser, I am a United States citizen. You are a person who doesn't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I think an understanding of the latter is more important and has more of an effect on my daily life than the former.

I asked you once why you value citizenship and you gave me some response about why you're worried about Mexicans and something else about taxes. If you have no argument, just say so.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think this reflects a rather simplistic response to the issue, as well as a lack of understanding of the real difficulties involved in effectively patrolling the thousands of miles of coastline.

No, it reflects an understanding of the economics involved in getting smuggled into the US by sea. It costs at a minimum twice as much to get smuggled in by sea than by land. Remember, the purpose of the fence is not stop every illegal from getting into the country. It someone wants to charter a boat and sail out to sea and then dart in along the coast somewhere, they may be able to do it. But it will be costly, especially since when such boats are caught, they are impounded and the operators arrested. The purpose of the fence is to stop say 95% of them. That alone would be a tremendous improvement on the current situation. Would more than pay for the fence system. And most likely the number who would be able to enter by tunneling or by ship would be well under 1% of the current illegal flow.

They will not be nearly as easy to interdict as you seem to believe.

Put a naval vessel or two off the coast near the end of the fence and you'll interdict 90% of any traffic that might come from Mexico without a very long, involved and expensive journey to avoid detection by those vessels. The US coast guard stops boats all the time already trying to get in. Build the fence, and maybe that number will double or triple. But it will still be a tiny number compared to the MILLIONS that currently walk across the southern border every year.

The only practical way to make any significant inroads to discourage illegal immigration into a continent sized country situated as the U.S. is would be to make that immigration less attractive.

Nonsense. We've heard this argument for 20 years (by people who don't really want to solve the problem) and we yet here we are today still seeing millions flow illegally across the border. If that were "practical" to do, it would have been done long ago. The reason it hasn't been is clearly explained in my posts earlier in this thread. The foremost being that it depends on people ... people who in many cases can be subborned or who have agendas that don't involve solving the illegal immigration problem. A fence/wall system has no such problem. It can't be bribed and it has no agenda other than making it difficult to cross the border.

Fences won't work, no matter how well built they are.

Yeah, tell that to the Israelis and Moroccans.

 

[Corsair 115]

It's a long, open border and I know "incursions" happen each way every day. So I'm more than happy to accept your figures (although that would appear to me to be on the larger end of "quite small").

30,000 into a population of 300 million is insignificant.

The issue at point here is that there does not seem to be any great alarm or push to build a stalag fence from the Great Lakes to Vancouver to stop Canadian illegals. That would seem to be just...stoopid, no?

It would be foolish to spend resources to curtail a problem which does not actually exist, yes? That said, there are some in Congress (Joe Lieberman just recently, Peter King a couple of years ago, to name two) who do want more strict controls over the U.S.-Canada border due to (unfounded) fears of Canada being some sort of haven for terrorists.

Any time there is noise in the U.S. about tightening up the U.S.-Canada border, Canadian businesses and the government sit up, take notice, and get nervous. An enormous amount of trade flows across that border (an average of nearly $1.2 billion per day), and with over 75% of Canadian exports going to the U.S., anything which threatens to seriously impede that trade becomes a big issue. It should concern Americans as well—Canada purchases more U.S. exports than any other nation (about 20% of the total dollar value of all U.S. exports), and Canada is the #1 supplier of crude oil to the United States (providing some 20% of its imports).

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Yeah, tell that to the Israelis and Moroccans.

The Israelis have built a little bit over 300 miles of fenced border at a cost of around $3,300,000 per mile. A significant percentage of that is devoted to enclosing towns. Presumably this does not include maintenance and staffing of the "underground and long-range sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, trenches, landmines and guard paths." Not to mention the checkpoints.

They're not done yet, either. They have around 200 miles still planned.

How does this scale up compared with the U.S. border with Mexico?

Or with the cost of catching the people who decide to go around it after we're done?

Wouldn't it cost less to go after the Americans who encourage and bankroll the illegal immigration? After all, the Israelis don't even have to deal with other Israelis actively encouraging the border violations.

ETA: Well, in one direction, at least.

 

[Zep]

30,000 into a population of 300 million is insignificant.

I guess so. Although 30,000 is the best part of a baseball stadium full. Or something.

It would be foolish to spend resources to curtail a problem which does not actually exist, yes? That said, there are some in Congress (Joe Lieberman just recently, Peter King a couple of years ago, to name two) who do want more strict controls over the U.S.-Canada border due to (unfounded) fears of Canada being some sort of haven for terrorists.

Any time there is noise in the U.S. about tightening up the U.S.-Canada border, Canadian businesses and the government sit up, take notice, and get nervous. An enormous amount of trade flows across that border (an average of nearly $1.2 billion per day), and with over 75% of Canadian exports going to the U.S., anything which threatens to seriously impede that trade becomes a big issue. It should concern Americans as well—Canada purchases more U.S. exports than any other nation (about 20% of the total dollar value of all U.S. exports), and Canada is the #1 supplier of crude oil to the United States (providing some 20% of its imports).

Nicely put.

It would seem to me that that particular border is far less important as a topographical entity than it is an important economic one. Which applies similarly (admittedly with different parameters) to the Mexico border. The pressure to swim the Rio Grande is purely economic - there's plenty of dollars in the US if you can get there. To the extent that the penalty for breaching the legality of the border crossing is considered less than the reward of doing so. So even if a stalag fence was to be built, if the economic drivers continue to exist, the Mexicans will find other ways over (I'm betting on light aircraft, btw).

As QG noted above, stopping the economic demand for Mexican labour is key to controlling the influx. How that is addressed is considerably different than these nebulous issues of "citizenship" and "Fortress Amerika" that BaC is on about. Surely there's some bright sparks in the USA who can come up with a better way.

PS. LOL @ Canadian terrorists!

 

[Corsair 115]

As QG noted above, stopping the economic demand for Mexican labour is key to controlling the influx.

The best way of all would be to turn Mexico from a second-world country into a first-world country. If its citizens had plenty of opportunities at home they wouldn't be seeking them elsewhere. Of course, achieving that transition is no easy task.

PS. LOL @ Canadian terrorists!

It's no LOL here when someone in Congress stands up and starts saying Canada has open doors to terrorists via its immigration system, or says the border must be tightened due to the 9/11 hijackers having entered the U.S. from Canada. (That pernicious myth was even repeated by the head of Homeland Security last year.)