At the end of her list of reasons why a wall is a bad idea, she says this:
"So what happened after I posted this conservative-sourced, fact-based list of why the wall is a bad idea?
Silence."
I can't see why that would be. Her points aren't at all beyond dispute. Unfortunately, I wasn't there, nor do I know the conservatives with whom she engaged. Nonetheless, I now present my rebuttal comments to her points as follows:
"1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls and simply driven over them. People find a way."
Well, yes they do. That is, though some people may or will find a way, walls do work nonetheless. The problem with this response is the assumption that anyone who supports a wall truly believes that they are impregnable. They also think supporters believe that erecting a wall is all that is needed and once done, nothing more is required. This is foolish, as no supporter thinks this way.
Of course walls work, as I explained two or three posts below. Border patrol agents were polled by their union and they overwhelmingly WANT a wall, and they testify that where walls exist they have indeed experienced fewer border crossings. Israel has had great results from their wall, and so many places within America have walls surrounding them.
As a side note, one of Trump's sons tweeted something about walls at zoos, to which leftist idiots, such as the Cuomo fool on CNN, pretended that meant Trump was calling immigrants animals! This guy is a complete and utter moron, or truly evil in trying to smear Trump in such a way. Of course the point was that the walls and fencing in zoos prevent the free roaming of the animals, not to mention keeping visitors away from them, thereby protecting both. Jeez!
"2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.”"While it is true that a percentage of illegals in this country are visa applicants who overstayed those visas, the wall isn't intended to address that problem. Said another way, while those who overstay won't be affected by the construction of a border wall, those who seek to cross the border apart from legitimate ports of entry will be. Which is the point. Thus, this comment has no bearing on whether or not a wall should be erected on the border. In fact, it's an absurd attempt in that regard.
"3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the U.S."
I can't see why that would be. Her points aren't at all beyond dispute. Unfortunately, I wasn't there, nor do I know the conservatives with whom she engaged. Nonetheless, I now present my rebuttal comments to her points as follows:
"1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls and simply driven over them. People find a way."
Well, yes they do. That is, though some people may or will find a way, walls do work nonetheless. The problem with this response is the assumption that anyone who supports a wall truly believes that they are impregnable. They also think supporters believe that erecting a wall is all that is needed and once done, nothing more is required. This is foolish, as no supporter thinks this way.
Of course walls work, as I explained two or three posts below. Border patrol agents were polled by their union and they overwhelmingly WANT a wall, and they testify that where walls exist they have indeed experienced fewer border crossings. Israel has had great results from their wall, and so many places within America have walls surrounding them.
As a side note, one of Trump's sons tweeted something about walls at zoos, to which leftist idiots, such as the Cuomo fool on CNN, pretended that meant Trump was calling immigrants animals! This guy is a complete and utter moron, or truly evil in trying to smear Trump in such a way. Of course the point was that the walls and fencing in zoos prevent the free roaming of the animals, not to mention keeping visitors away from them, thereby protecting both. Jeez!
"2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.”"While it is true that a percentage of illegals in this country are visa applicants who overstayed those visas, the wall isn't intended to address that problem. Said another way, while those who overstay won't be affected by the construction of a border wall, those who seek to cross the border apart from legitimate ports of entry will be. Which is the point. Thus, this comment has no bearing on whether or not a wall should be erected on the border. In fact, it's an absurd attempt in that regard.
"3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the U.S."
The problem with this item is that it is impossible to know for sure how much drugs make their way into the country in total. For one thing, to insist that most come through ports of entry, they can only speak in terms of drugs they've been able to detect as runners fail in their attempt to smuggle them in. How can they know how much they missed?
In the same way, and more so actually, how can they know how much is coming across other unregulated points along the rest of the border if people aren't being caught. Again, you can only count what is found, not what is not.
At the same time, in El Paso, agents insist that since the wall there went up, the amount of smugglers found with drugs has been cut in half. So who do we believe about how the wall would impact drug smuggling? What's more, tunnels are dug for the purpose of smuggling whatever the cartels want to smuggle. If they haven't become aware of a tunnel, how can they know how much comes through it compared with drugs coming through other avenues?
"4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of steel fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage."
In the same way, and more so actually, how can they know how much is coming across other unregulated points along the rest of the border if people aren't being caught. Again, you can only count what is found, not what is not.
At the same time, in El Paso, agents insist that since the wall there went up, the amount of smugglers found with drugs has been cut in half. So who do we believe about how the wall would impact drug smuggling? What's more, tunnels are dug for the purpose of smuggling whatever the cartels want to smuggle. If they haven't become aware of a tunnel, how can they know how much comes through it compared with drugs coming through other avenues?
"4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of steel fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage."
The moment I read this one, a very particular wall came to mind. It also comes into contact with water in a vast amount. Let's see...what's that wall called again? Oh, yeah...the Hoover Dam. That's one badass wall! Take a look at it. Would you say that it was constructed in rather rugged terrain? The point of bringing up the Hoover Dam is that it was well constructed for its purpose, which was to deal with both the terrain and the water it's meant to contain. Thus, and the example the article presents suggests it strongly, the location and everything related to it must be taken into account when designing a proper barrier in order that it serves its primary purpose.
I've also read a few stories that speak of other environmental challenges to the building of the wall. The first thing to remember is that when such stories are posted, they usually are posted by environmentalists and conservationists. They will always present their position from a rather extremist position. It's not unlike asking firemen about how many smoke alarms one should have. They'd prefer one in every room of the house. They go overboard. The environmentalists are more extreme than that. Some think the best thing for the planet and the animal world is that we all die.
They also assume that those who want the wall have no regard for such things. This is not the case. I would submit that while the protection of American life is the priority, the flora and fauna is not ignored. But for my part, inhibiting the movement of some Texas horned lizards or big horned sheep is not more important than inhibiting the movement of those who would ignore our laws.
"5. A wall would force the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles."
I've also read a few stories that speak of other environmental challenges to the building of the wall. The first thing to remember is that when such stories are posted, they usually are posted by environmentalists and conservationists. They will always present their position from a rather extremist position. It's not unlike asking firemen about how many smoke alarms one should have. They'd prefer one in every room of the house. They go overboard. The environmentalists are more extreme than that. Some think the best thing for the planet and the animal world is that we all die.
They also assume that those who want the wall have no regard for such things. This is not the case. I would submit that while the protection of American life is the priority, the flora and fauna is not ignored. But for my part, inhibiting the movement of some Texas horned lizards or big horned sheep is not more important than inhibiting the movement of those who would ignore our laws.
"5. A wall would force the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles."
I don't know why this would necessarily be so. Most border properties are rather large, and if they do not actually flow into what is actually Mexico (or vice versa for Mexicans), then what they would lose would be quite minimal. In very many cases, such property owners want a wall to inhibit border-crossers who traipse through their properties, leaving trash and often heisting items as they go. A quick search has failed to turn up the smallest privately owned parcel of land along the border. One article mentioned a 20 acre property, though I wonder if there are any that are significantly smaller.
Some speak of properties being in the family for generations and others speaking of the wall going right through the middle or leaving them unable to get to the other side without traveling to a gate. For these and other reasons, they are willing to fight the government if it wishes to get the land for a wall. I totally get it, especially if my family lived on the land for generations.
But this is what the concept of eminent domain is for. That is, if ever a reason existed that justified the government commandeering private property, illegal border crossing is it. It's a "needs of the many outweighing the desires of the few" kinda thing that is more than merely rhetoric. I think the key here is compensation. While eminent domain only calls for (generally) market value compensation, I think it is reasonable for the government to offer better...perhaps three times market value. It is, after all, a big ask. But there is a point when an individual has to consider the greater good. Imagine if you won a case against eminent domain, and then become aware that someone who crossed over your property murdered a Kate Steinle or Officer Singh or Jamiel Shaw, Jr.
All in all, if the government was forced to take the land, the reason justifies the taking...despite how bad it might be to be on the losing side.
"6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities."
Well, this isn't an argument against a wall so much as against a specific design. Border patrol wants a wall.
"7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them."
But this is what the concept of eminent domain is for. That is, if ever a reason existed that justified the government commandeering private property, illegal border crossing is it. It's a "needs of the many outweighing the desires of the few" kinda thing that is more than merely rhetoric. I think the key here is compensation. While eminent domain only calls for (generally) market value compensation, I think it is reasonable for the government to offer better...perhaps three times market value. It is, after all, a big ask. But there is a point when an individual has to consider the greater good. Imagine if you won a case against eminent domain, and then become aware that someone who crossed over your property murdered a Kate Steinle or Officer Singh or Jamiel Shaw, Jr.
All in all, if the government was forced to take the land, the reason justifies the taking...despite how bad it might be to be on the losing side.
"6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities."
Well, this isn't an argument against a wall so much as against a specific design. Border patrol wants a wall.
"7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them."
Fortunately, no one is arguing for a wall only. Certainly Trump isn't. But agents see the wall as the first order of business. Detection technology doesn't stop anyone, particularly if agents cannot get to where invaders are detected before the invaders can move out of range of the detection devices.
The most egregious aspect of this objection is the author's suggestion that the only workable solution is to model ourselves after communist East Berlin. Typical crap from a lefty. It's the type of willful lie Dan would say. They need to make it as bad as they can to sell the lefty position, so this type of hyperbole and metaphor is just what the Trump-hating doctor ordered.
The most egregious aspect of this objection is the author's suggestion that the only workable solution is to model ourselves after communist East Berlin. Typical crap from a lefty. It's the type of willful lie Dan would say. They need to make it as bad as they can to sell the lefty position, so this type of hyperbole and metaphor is just what the Trump-hating doctor ordered.
"8. Where barriers were built, there was little impact on the number of border crossers."
Good gosh, this is just so incredibly stupid, particularly since she provides why at the end of this objection: "They simply came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions preclude a wall."
Clearly the barrier had a great impact if it forced them to come it "elsewhere". The intention seeks to limit those "elsewhere" locations to the most difficult natural barriers which act as natural deterrents. Simply put, not everyone is willing to complete an arduous journey by negotiating a far more arduous last few miles. What's more, when limited to those "elsewhere" locations due to a wall everywhere else, it leaves fewer areas where patrolling is the only means of stopping invaders. In any case, it is clear then that the wall did have an impact of significance, particular right in the exact spot where the wall existed. And THAT demonstrates that a wall is effective. The DIDN'T come in there!
"9. A wall has unintended consequences on other industries: For example, it blocks farmworkers from exiting when their invaluable seasonal work is done."Without digging deeply into this one at all, it comes to mind that there are several problems with this objection:
---It assumes there is no means by which legal worker visa holders wouldn't be able to go to and from their jobs.
---It assumes that these seasonal workers even have worker visas that allow them to work in this country.
---It assumes that without these workers, legal or not, that wages wouldn't rise to attract Americans who need the seasonal work
Objections like this one compels me to believe that the objector doesn't expect the reader won't think about all the possible angles, or the objector isn't capable of doing so herself.
"10. Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would actually be needed."
This might be the only reasonable opinion, while not being necessarily a reasonable objection. There are any number of far less justified projects on which the federal government spends our dough. Few of them get accomplished for the projected cost, with most of them going way over budget. But this one IS justified. It also ignores how the existence of a wall would impact other costs associated with illegal immigration and other illegal border crossings, which are many. Even should the wall cost as much as is imagined in the article...and that's debatable...there is over $100billion per year net cost of illegal immigration that would greatly reduced. Some dispute this, but do so based on studies that combine ALL immigrants, legal or not. Rational and honest people focus on ILLEGAL border crossings.
"11. According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion."
This was put here simply to pad the list. It really falls under the previous objection and as such no more need be said about costs. Aside from maintenance and salaries, this is a one-time cost and again, the savings from reducing illegal crossings more than makes up for it.
The writer closes with a number of typical leftist tropes and misstatements. Such as:
"As the conservatives of the Cato Institute put it, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.” It would also create many “direct harms,” including “the spending, the taxes, the eminent domain abuse, and the decrease in immigrant’s freedoms of movement.”
First of all, Cato is libertarian. While there are many positions that are held by both libertarians and conservatives, as a conservative, I object to conflating the two as if they are synonymous. It's like "progressive Christians" objecting to being conflated with atheists, except that they are morally the same where libertarians and conservatives are morally distinct...conservatives being the moral of the two.
Secondly, as I've demonstrated, a wall will indeed have a great impact on illegal border crossing...even if nothing else is done along side having one. Just making crossing a bigger pain in the ass makes it true.
Thirdly, the "direct harms" are overstated as I've also demonstrated. Among them is one that isn't the least bit a concern, that being the "immigrant’s freedoms of movement." This is blatantly untrue. For those of us who abide the law, the mere acquisition of a passport infringes on our freedom of movement. So to insist that all who wish to enter also do so in accordance with the laws of a sovereign nation is an infringement indeed, but a most necessary, just and moral infringement for the sake of the citizens of that sovereign nation...the primary people one must consider. As citizens, we all endure various such legal infringements on our liberty, but we still enjoy the liberty to do the things in which the law injects itself. I have the liberty to drive, for example, but must obey the rules of the road. "Freedom of movement" does not mean one has the liberty to go absolutely anywhere strictly on one's own terms. It is a false dilemma.
"We must add, because conservative sources do not, that the environmental harms are likely to be severe."
Again, I'm sure they overstate the impact on the environment severely, but it remains to be seen. It assumes such considerations are not a part of constructing the wall, as if this particular public project is necessarily different than any other in that regard. This is no more than further demonizing of the conservative to assert that we are unconcerned about the world in which we live. Idiotic, in fact.
"In other words, the facts show that walls don’t work."
They don't show that at all. Not the facts she presented. She merely inappropriately attaches a fact to an outcome, with no proof one thing leads to the other.
"Instead, they create even bigger, more expensive problems."
Not generally, and not necessarily in any limited way. Lots of assumptions are required to make this statement and she did little to demonstrate that they're at all likely.
Look. No one wants a wall. Ever...anywhere. We put up fences or walls around our homes, but for specific purposes that walls and fences satisfy...not because we like walls and fences (not most of us). We want to keep our small children and pets in the yard, or we want to block the crappy looking property of our neighbors. It's sometimes a way to create our own little world because we can't have anything like that without having a wall or fence...or an island. But if the world around us was beautiful and safe, few of us would ever have a wall. The same is true of our national borders on a grander scale. Unlike this woman and others like her need to believe, it is not true that...
"The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in “extreme danger” and only a wall will make them “safe.”"
An honest woman she is not, the issue of increased border security and using such ideas such as a wall have been around far longer than Trump's first step into the political pool. And it wasn't Trump that convinced intelligent Americans of the need for a wall (and no, not "only" a wall...idiot), it was the deaths of so many of our fellow citizens from a variety of reasons resulting from the incursion of illegal aliens, as well as the economic impact of it. Trump merely promised to actually do something about it. THAT'S what compels support from his base.
And since when is it wrong to hate the criminal behavior of any individual? When is it wrong to hate that suffering has occurred when it could have been prevented or minimized years ago? The fears are rational and reasonable given what drives it. But before we can "grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it>", we need to prevent or reduce as much as possible the suffering that results from having such a wide open border exploited by so many without regard for the people of this country.
Yeah. I wish I was part of that Facebook conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment