The Wall

[dUSt]

You guys wanna talk about Trump and the wall?

[Anomaly]

Sure.   I support a strong wall with a well used gate. 

I also ask if the US has a moral obligation to take in refugees, do we have any moral responsibility to aid them in fixing their country so the can remain with family, culture, in peaceful prosperity as the logical application of the moral principle?

[dUSt]

I don't think crossing borders is a crime, so I don't agree with having a wall at all.

People should be free to come and go as they please. If they want to take advantage of the full U.S. welfare system, then they should become U.S. citizens.

If they don't become U.S. citizens, they should be identified, given a non-citizen ID and provided basic human needs (minimal welfare).

If they do a crime, they do the time (I also think the criminal system needs an overhaul to better turn criminals into productive people, instead of turning criminals into worse criminals).

And yes, I also think the U.S. should be a better neighbor.

[Anomaly]

What is being a better neighbor?    What should the US do, or not do that would actually affect the quality of the government in our neighbor country?

[dUSt]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

What is being a better neighbor?    What should the US do, or not do that would actually affect the quality of the government in our neighbor country?

They should invest and support Mexico to make it become a great nation where people want to live. This solves the border crisis, and I'd think it would eventually strengthen our economy as well--even though I admittedly don't know a lot about world economics.

[Anomaly]

Did you know the one of the top ten richest person in the world is from Mexico?    It’s not about investing in Mexico. It is problem with their economic system, their culture, how their society really freezes out the lower class.  Mexico has similar resources as the US and Canada, and their oil is easier to obtain  

Do you know that Haiti and the Dominican Republic are the same island?  Why are the two governments and living conditions so drastically different?   That is a serious question.  

[dUSt]

Maybe the answer is to do more to help or influence their government then?

[Anomaly]

I really don’t know what to do. 

I don’t think merely opening the borders is a real, long term  solution any more than an impenetrable  wall without a gate.  

The Haiti and D.R. question really intrigues me.   It shows how it’s not just natural resources.  They share much the same resources.   But what all went wrong, and how to fix it?   The world sends billions in aid, but the people are barely better off.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t send aid, but also do something to repair their government, economy, and society  

I feel that humanity and societies aren’t necessarily asking the right questions or trying to solve the right problems.   Discussion of the many aspects instead of arguing two opposing opinions. 

What is with Honduras that a mom will take one of her children, leaving her family and village, to travel to an insecure existence in the US?  Do they have to lose their roots  to try to exist elsewhere?   How can the world help them have the freedom and opportunity we have here, (some form of democracy and some form of fair and empathetic capitalism), there in their country? 

[dUSt]

Would could just try to help Trump take over the world. #MakeTheWorldGreatAgain

[GreenScapularedHuman]

The wall doesn't make sense. It would cost a lot of money both to build and maintain. It would anger Mexico, a major trade partner for the United States, and perhaps not too obviously a neighbor to the United States. The wall is based in xenophobic and anti-latin sentiment. The wall wouldn't stop the majority of unauthorized crossings as most crossing attempts are in major urban areas for the obvious reason that its safer and easier to disappear once across, there are major natural barriers that would defeat the purpose of a wall, a wall would be an environmental and ecological disaster in the making. Not to mention the problems in building a wall like crossing cemeteries, diving towns/cities (because it wouldn't be built directly on the border), it would require taking peoples land/homes potentially destroying communities along the border, in the test run by Congress of building a wall the legal complications could last decades even going at full speed and have the side effect of not paying the right people for land and not giving people fair advise on such land confiscation (sometimes people found out their land had been bought and was being taken same day, meaning they woke up one morning to bulldozers and cops telling them to get out)... civil rights and legal protections were glossed over in the test run process just to keep on schedule and the government used a little known tool of expediting land buying by submitting it as basically 'we are getting the land, we are taking it now, we can work out the costs later'. Meaning that people were displaced with no compensation and people who were poorer thus not having access to lawyers received fractional amounts for land compared to their counterparts who did get lawyers.

And that isn't going into that most undocumented Americans are visa overstays (meaning they came in, typically by plane, and then just didn't leave), are a reasonably non-violent and non-criminal demographic, who work hard and have made America there home for years if not decades working jobs vital to the American economy and that many other Americans simply dont want to work. Its almost like traveling hundreds to thousands of miles risking your life to make it to America kinda inherently makes people highly motivated and wanting to love America...

It also ignores that most undocumented Americans are not from Latin American nations... the whole idea that they are or that this is the most major area of concern is rooted in anti-catholic sentiment and anti-latin sentiment that is very longstanding in the United States. Including fears that this influx of Latins will change the American political landscape... before it was the Italians, Irish, literal Spanish...

But the more major issue is that many of the people coming to the border now aren't migrants but are likely refugees under international and national law... refugees have the right to flee under international law without being obstructed criminalized or prosecuted till they reach safety.

I think the far more sensible policies would be sending national guard troops to assist in anti-crime and anti-trafficking efforts in these nations to help stabilize them, apply coordinated international pressure/sanctions to force reforms, invest in measures that would both stop and protect those who are trying to make their way to America (including minors and children, many of whom dont make it and end up in worse situations). Increasing funding to immigration judges and legal representation, making immigration courts more independent, making detention facilities more humane, and reforming the law that makes people coming think that going through the legal process and showing up to that legal process is far more worthwhile than not.

But most simply on the wall... Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall. Unless Mexico offers to pay for it I am not even willing to consider it.

Edited June 29, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[GreenScapularedHuman]

Addendum: Since Trump's little tirade on separating families and detaining families, trying to blame Democrats for this, and with the admitted purpose of trying to force a way to build his wall... I am just even a bit more not even willing to consider even reasonable border security measures that were even pushed for under Obama like replacing/upgrading already existing infrastructure/equipment,  use of various technological assets like drones/sensors/cameras, possibly hiring more agents, and where advisable building fencing and/or walls...

With Trump's unhinged deceptive and abusive malignant narcissism utterly unchecked by anyone now... I am candidly getting to the point that if Democrats wanted to say they wont do a thing one at all... I would be happy with that. Cira 2017 that would of upset and offended me. But Trump's trusting that Democrats will be the grownups and be more reasonable than him to enable his abuse has gone too far. Candidly I am starting to think that Democrats should obstruct everything like Republicans tried to under Obama.

[Anomaly]

I don’t think sending national guard troops into other countries is even remotely politically possible in US politics, other country politics, regional politics.  

What do you think is more likely to irritate Mexico?   Building a wall and deporting illegals, or sending in foreign troops to address crime and corruption?

Every nation has immigration and citizenship laws.   The US is not unique and it is not immoral to regulate immigration.  

[GreenScapularedHuman]

The United States already uses the military to support police forces throughout the world including in Africa, West Asia, and South America.... The FBI also has international joint operations worldwide... and the United Nations has UNPOL which is an international peacekeeping police force.

So the whole idea of sending the US military in one capacity or another to assist local police there is actually a pretty tried and true path. The devil in details isn't if it could be done... its how it would be done. Past US interventions has had a stabilizing impact on the host nations, like in Columbia, but deincentivized the people/government from making meaningful reforms to handle the crisis themselves, it also lead to the imagining it as a new humanitarian colonialism that bolstered corrupt status quos rather than forcing the people/governments to cope with very real realities within their nations.

But... with the choice of having thousands of refugees trying to flee to America and the risk of not being superexcellent in how such a mission to stabilize and pressure Latin American nations forms.... I choose to go. I think America's role as Pax Americana is very critical in the world order that has existed since WWII... and I think it can and should continue to be a force for net progress and good.

I think the problem in past interventions in Latin America is that not enough was done to address the root causes of why the US military showed up in the first place... that is where international pressure and sanctions... or things much lighter like investment into training overseeing and assisting police forces... might work a lot better.

[Laurie]

My thoughts are a tangent to the other discussions here.

I’m only for a wall if it could be demonstrated before building it that it would effectively curtail at least some of the drugs pouring into this country. But if it were to be effective in the south, it also should be implemented in the north, because the drug cartels are wily and have plenty of money to reroute themselves through Canada. So…for the purposes of curbing the drug trade, one in the south alone seems pointless.

And, until & unless there is also going to be a clamp down on the cargo in various ships in all the ports, especially along the massive coastlines in the east & west, I’m not sure trying to seal the northern & southern borders will help that much.

I do wonder why there are not more canine units in the domestic parts of our airports to search for drugs. I’ve seen them only in international & not often.

I’m also very concerned with the trafficking in persons, but that’s a tougher nut to crack. Heroin is heroin and can be tracked down and called what it is. It is incredibly difficult to discover and identify trafficked victims as being victims.

Those are my (rough) thoughts.

[Seven77]

 Building a wall necessitates effacing a national monument, specifically the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Also, building a wall means confiscating private property. So much for freedom.