# US-Mexico Border Wall as Infrastructure



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Northsider said:


> lol, this isn't Berlin circa 1955.


I know. What I mean is that solutions exist to keep people apart.

Moreover, the analogy is not a proper one. US and Mexico were not divided by foreign powers in aftermath of war, and the barrier is constructed by US to keep foreigners out, not by Mexico to keep nationals in.


----------



## FeänorBR (Jan 18, 2008)

That wall is ridiculous.

Mexico spread it's legs with NAFTA, became more dependent of the US and also got that pretty little wall across it's border as gift! making it clear, they're not welcome! that's sad, Mexicans deserve more respect!


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> There are hard options on the table, like field-mining all the border or, along the desert, unpopulated areas most crossings now occurs, put some "kill zones" within 1 mile of border in which everyone going over fences/barrier will be just shot.


Wow .. so violent. Wouldn't the NGO's and UN agencies like the UNHCR have something to say against that?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

FeänorBR said:


> That wall is ridiculous.
> 
> Mexico spread it's legs with NAFTA, became more dependent of the US and also got that pretty little wall across it's border as gift! making it clear, they're not welcome! that's sad, Mexicans deserve more respect!


Mexico got plenty of maquiladoras, much more cheaper food (Mexican agriculture was inefficient compared to that of US, but was protected by old-fashioned laws that kept corn, maize, pork, beef, dairy of US mostly out of Mexican market). It also got the opportunity to become an industrial powerhouse but instead of taking advantage passed the opportunity to China.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Holy shit, if anyone thought Suburbanist was sane, this thread proves otherwise.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

hoosier said:


> Holy shit, if anyone thought Suburbanist was sane, this thread proves otherwise.


It's typical ignorant American dribble. Rabble rousing from the uninformed, nothing more.

The problem is wider than he thinks, and much more complex. A wall will not solve it. What about people using a boat from Cuba? What about people from Ukraine overstaying their 'tourist visas'? What about the gangs that control the Mexican border? 

Humans are highly adaptable, it will simply shift the problem elsewhere. A wall simply provides a false sense of security that Americans so desperately crave. A physical presence that they can point to and say "see, we trying to 'solve' the problem". 



> US and Mexico were not divided by foreign powers in aftermath of war, and the barrier is constructed by US to keep foreigners out, not by Mexico to keep nationals in.


Nevertheless, a wall creates a division; us vs them. The last thing we want is to divide. We need to work together to solve the problem, not put multibilillion dollar bandaids on it. Don't you think we've ostracized enough countries over the past decade?


----------



## italiano_pellicano (Feb 22, 2010)

the border walk is a great project usa have big problems and mexico is very dangerous country


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

The Great Wall of Mexico has more than 930km by now.

It's weird those countries are not enemys but main commercial partners...

Hard to understand.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Unrelated issues. The wall is meant to deter the type of commerce you don't want, like people smuggling and drug smuggling.


----------



## red0eagle335 (Dec 30, 2010)

Don't be so dumb people... If the wall was torn down there would be a mass exodus of people from Mexico entering the US..


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

It's not even a wall in most places, just a fence and it's not even complete. Tunnelers just dig underneath it and the drugs, weapons and money keep flowing. Since the 2008 financial crisis iterdictions of illegal immigrants has plummeted since there are fewer jobs on this end. So the only stream of unwanted movement affected by this 'wall' is already dimminished while it's business as usual for the drug cartels.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Sometimes it appears some folks think US will ever get in a sort of Schengen agreement with Mexico and Canada.


----------



## Luis regio+tapatio (Oct 19, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> There are hard options on the table, like field-mining all the border or, along the desert, unpopulated areas most crossings now occurs, put some "kill zones" within 1 mile of border in which everyone going over fences/barrier will be just shot.


Anyone wich is been caught crossing the border more the 2 times would go to jail for around a year :bash:

The "kill zones" is just a brilliant idea of yours, Im also thinking American troops could shoot some .50 milimiters bullets to those people or even going to Mexican cities and and bombard those families so we would even prevent them from crossing before they intend to do it

After all this people will never have the money to deffend themselves legally, It make sense to kill this kind of second level people:banana:

Of course I wouldnt want that to happen to any of the people I personally knowhno:


----------



## Luis regio+tapatio (Oct 19, 2004)

Sure no one wants to see the USA full of people that looks like this



The Israeli-Palestinian border is an example of succes mabye USA should do something similar


----------



## radoner (Feb 18, 2006)

The ilegal crossing issue is extremely complex and far away of being solved with a single wall.

The drug smuggling problem has a very simple solution... Stop buying that drug shit to get high and the business is over.

As long as the United States keeps that enormous amount of junkies paying big bucks for drugs people from all around the world will try to make a profit of it and any wall will be capable of stopping it


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

Northsider said:


> What about people using a boat from Cuba? What about people from Ukraine overstaying their 'tourist visas'?


Cubans are legal, Ukrainian don't even count, plus they are "invisible inmigration".

the real problem is Mexico, look:

Country of origin Raw number Percent of total Percent change 2000 to 2009 
Mexico 6,650,000 62 42% 
El Salvador 530,000 5 25% 
Guatemala 480,000 4 65% 
Honduras 320,000 3 95% 
Philippines 270,000 2 33% 
India 200,000 2 64% 
Korea 200,000 2 14% 
Other (balance) 2,145,000 20 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf

Country of Birth of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population: January 2009 and 2000
Estimated population
in January Percent of total
Percent
change
Average annual
change
Country of birth 2009 2000 2009 2000 2000 to 2009 2000 to 2009
All countries . . . . . . . 10,750,000 8,460,000 100 100 27 250,000
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,650,000 4,680,000 62 55 42 220,000
El Salvador . . . . . . . . . 530,000 430,000 5 5 25 10,000
Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . 480,000 290,000 4 3 65 20,000
Honduras. . . . . . . . . . . 320,000 160,000 3 2 95 20,000
Philippines . . . . . . . . . . 270,000 200,000 2 2 33 10,000
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000 120,000 2 1 64 10,000
Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000 180,000 2 2 14 —-
Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,000 110,000 2 1 55 10,000
Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000 100,000 1 1 49 10,000
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,000 190,000 1 2 -37 (10,000)
Other countries . . . . . . 1,650,000 2,000,000 15 24 -17 (40,000)


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

> Cubans are legal


So are Mexicans, lol. What's your point?



> Ukrainian don't even count


Sorry _you_ don't feel so, but it's still relevant to the topic.



> plus they are "invisible inmigration"


_Wow_, ok then. So it really _DOES_ simply boil down to skin color. 



> the real problem is Mexico


Gee, you think? I never would have guessed our neighbor Mexico would have more immigrants than a country 8,000 miles away accessible only by plane.

I still fail to see what a wall will accomplish other than provide a false sense of security.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Because of the lack of jobs in the US most Mexicans/Central Americans (along with other nationalities) are staying put and the ones in the US are heading back. This wall is contributing nothing except more pork barrel spending.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Do you honestly think US would be a better place with less illegal immigrants if its Southern border was like its Northern border with Canada?


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Do you honestly think US would be a better place with less illegal immigrants if its Southern border was like its Northern border with Canada?


That is irrevalent. :nuts:

They like other people including many "legal" immigrants are coming to the US for higher paying jobs than what exist in their own country. If there are few such jobs available the incentive to come over here diminishes regardless.

Besides do you seriously believe that this "wall" is going to prevent people/drugs from crossing the border? If so then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that I am willing to sell to you. :|


----------



## sekelsenmat (May 20, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> But US should consider itself blessed: it has just only problematic bordering country to deal with, and most of the border is naturally uninviting for crossings. The Turkish-Greek border is much more of a nightmare for Europeans, together with people attempting boat crossing over the Mediterranean.


How does Spain deal with the problem? I don't hear much of illegal crossings from Morroco or Algeria into Spain, but it seams that it should be easier then trying Tunesia->Italy


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

sekelsenmat said:


> How does Spain deal with the problem? I don't hear much of illegal crossings from Morroco or Algeria into Spain, but it seams that it should be easier then trying Tunesia->Italy


The answer is simple: there are more Tunisians and Libyans catching boats and venturing out in the ocean than Moroccans. In the past, sometime 15 years ago, the situation was pretty much the opposite.

Spanish has a problem with West Africans heading to the Islas Canarias. And, in the case of Italy, Lampedusa is pretty close to African mainland in an area where currents are far less of a problem than around Gibraltar Strait, itself a quite dangerous place for regular small boats, let alone overloaded wooden boats.


----------



## TheEconomist72 (Dec 1, 2010)

I'm mexican, and after reviewing all opinions I ask u once again, do you really think this will stop iligal inmigration or drugs transport? of course not, there's millions involved on the inmigration and even do it would make it a little harder to cross the border, where there's money there will always be a way, but worst of all.......related to the drugs affairs. As long American people keep consuming them, but most of all, paying for them the amount they do, you won´t stop traffic, if you block Mexico, with that kind of market Canadians will start the traffic and after them anyone who can, it's pure economics (Supply-Demand). But if they would like to decrease traffic a little at least, they could prohibit the production and selling of guns, riffles, bazooka's, etc. that they sell to drug cartels as if they were Wall Mart. That drug cartels use to transport all that drug among Mexico heading the US. And by doing that perhaps we could attack the corruption that affect our police forces that simplify the already simple drugs transport by cartels.


----------



## toroloco (Jul 16, 2008)

oh right there is different point of view here is mine:

Mexico is not a developed country but is not a third World country either, if i tell americans that Mexico is the worlds 11th economy they wont believe it or if i said that Mexico is more important economically than Canada they wont believe it either/ Mexico is amoung the nations that grow the fastest with rapidlly decreasing poverty and getting a lot of international investment mainly from china, japan and the US a few years ago the US received 90% of Mexico's exports now a days is only around 40%. Mexico is growing at a 5% yearly and is expected to rise after the oil reform and energy reform passes congress along with the end of the DRug war, calculations go from 7- 10 % a few years ago statistics showed that Mexico's economy was going to surpass that of Italy the 10th largest economy now in 2020. the 2011 statistics revealed that Mexico will actually surpass Italy sooner than expected by 2016 Mexico will consolidate as 10th world power by 2020 with a 20,000 GDP per capita Mexico will be considered Developed, so if Mexico by 2030-40 will have a per capita similar to the US-canada, the WALL will be worthless or actually its gonna cost a lot for not purpose since now a days Mexicans stopped inmigrating to the US and returning to Mexico, Mexico for central Americans was call a way trough the US now a days is called a country with oportunities Mexico is actually becoming a country of inmmigrants and is more pobrably that Mexico build a wall with Central America than with the US.
BY THE TIME THE WALL IS FINISHED THERE WILL BE NO NEED ANYMORE FOR IT IT WILL BE WORTHLESS, WASTE OF AMERICAN MONEY, ADDITION TO GREAT AMERICAN DEBT TO THE WORLD, MORTAL FOR FLORA AND FAUNA SPEICES IN THE BORDER, ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICAN LOSS FOR SOTHERN US STATES and MEXICO, PIOLITICAL EFFECTS WITH AN IMPORTANT ALLY ( that makes their own military weaponry, ships, aircraft spend the money more on research and development than in buying weapons) AS Mexico is. And will spread antiamericanism in the world, if you havent heard is already starting in Mexico, even the Mexican President shows antiamericanism there is too much to lose and it will only work for maybe five years or so there is no more crossing of Mexicans to the US anymore no need for it.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Unless you have free transit agreements like within the Schengen area in Europe, people and good (legal ones) are supposed to cross borders in official checkpoints only. US-Mexico border has 18 of them alongside their land border, if I am not wrong (though some are not open 24/7 and others do not have facilities to process truck traffic, only cars/walking people).

So, why should a wall interfere with Mexican-American relations anyway? Whatever legal business or movement is there, it ought to flow through the checkpoints. And that is something applicable to any minimum established and controlled border.

Even in the Northern US border, although there is far less physic barrier deployment, people are still required to cross at specified points. 

So it appear to me that Mexican opposition to the wall is more on symbolic grounds than anything.


----------



## toroloco (Jul 16, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^

i meant ilegal immigrants now a days there is no ilegally crossing of people to the US the numbers stayed still scince last year there are 10 million Mexicans living in the US only 5 million are illegal and decreasing. but yes the Mexico-US border is the busiest legaly crossing border in the world and i think illegaly too.

to answer your question, a WALL is meant to SEPARATE and SEGREGATE people. if you dont see it as offense and as a indirect response from one country to reject another then i dont know what you think it is. And yes is very symbolic cause a Wall is to rival a country or al least that is how it seems and the World, specially in Europe are against it.

Canada is a developed country, so there is no poor people that need to inmmigrate, what i tried to say is that Mexico is becoming developed country now there is not Mexicans crossing Illegaly to the US (that is what wall was for, for Illegal crossing) may be from other countries but not from Mexico anymore.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I stand by my argument.

All board traffic is supposed to get through the proper channels, e.g., checkpoints. This is common throughout the World. If I had a private plane in Australia and wanted to fly it into New Zealand, I can't use any minor local strip without customs facilities. Cargo ships must use international ports, not a domestic marina.

Likewise, land crossings should occur only at designated points. If your assumptions are right, why would MExicans be bother if they only cross to US legally (and vice-versa)? It is illegal for anyone to make a trail in the desert and enter the other country without being processed by customs, and that works in both ways.

In urban areas, regardless of illegal immigration, it is important to keep some segregation as to avoid, in any foreseeable future, a situation that should not happen in North American: international metropolis sprawling over two countries. I don't think it would be of any good to have Detroit and Windsor functioning as a single city, let alone San Diego and Tijuana. So the wall serves other purposes also, like severing the territory and avoiding any kind of confusion about which country is sovereign on each area, and so on.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Edit, this is too stupid to continue "debating". I just hope to high hell my tax dollars aren't wasted on this idiotic boondoggle.


----------



## toroloco (Jul 16, 2008)

yes im sorry, but not only your taxes are going to be wasted on this, but your children's are gonna have a bigger debt in the future that is whay i said is watse of time, money and is worthless.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> In urban areas, regardless of illegal immigration, it is important to keep some segregation as to avoid, in any foreseeable future, a situation that should not happen in North American: international metropolis sprawling over two countries. I don't think it would be of any good to have Detroit and Windsor functioning as a single city, let alone San Diego and Tijuana. So the wall serves other purposes also, like severing the territory and avoiding any kind of confusion about which country is sovereign on each area, and so on.


:nuts:

You do realize that most border cities such as Tijuana are connected to their US counterparts since they were created correct? This is not some new phenomenon. In fact when US had prohibition on alcohol and gambling most Californians would head to Tijuana to do those things. Same scenario with Detroit and Windsor.



Northsider said:


> Edit, this is too stupid to continue "debating". I just hope to high hell my tax dollars aren't wasted on this idiotic boondoggle.


Not to mention it will violate the property rights of thousands of land owners along the border especially in South Texas.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

diablo234 said:


> You do realize that most border cities such as Tijuana are connected to their US counterparts since they were created correct? This is not some new phenomenon. In fact when US had prohibition on alcohol and gambling most Californians would head to Tijuana to do those things. Same scenario with Detroit and Windsor.


Suburby thinks somehow without a wall these border cities will forget that they are separate countries and magically begin to administrate themselves as one.


----------



## toroloco (Jul 16, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I stand by my argument.
> 
> All board traffic is supposed to get through the proper channels, e.g., checkpoints. This is common throughout the World. If I had a private plane in Australia and wanted to fly it into New Zealand, I can't use any minor local strip without customs facilities. Cargo ships must use international ports, not a domestic marina.
> 
> ...


if there is checkpionts, there is no need for Wall... as i said Mexico itself is becoming a developed country so the mess right now is gonna clear up in a few years and the wall that is very expensive is only work for a little... what im trying to say is that is a lot of waste of money, besides there is also illegal crossing from Canada to the US. thanks to the US, Mexico has to fulfill its inmmigration laws and force them, I think Mexico has the tougher inmmigration laws in North America. for the US is easy leting another country do the job they cant, because is easier to control a border that is 10 times smaller than the US-Mexico border, the Mexico is blamed for having bad ass inmmigration laws.... there is no needs for walls... besides if you are religious you know that god wants us to welcome the foreighner and not have borders, maybe you really good and if you have left overs why not giving them away to people that really need it, in the US there is a lot of jobs is just that Americans dont want to get paid 6-7 dollars an hour and Illegal inmigrants dont care how much they get. that makes the economy larger, if the US didnt needed inmigrants the would've just make a law where illegal inmmigrants go to jail but no The goverment need us, is helping the economy and everything i dont see how inmmigration can be bad... plus in a near future Mexico-Canada and The US become the North American Union, may be they waiting for Mexico to be developed and that is not gonna take long. so why the border..


----------



## kemet1984 (Jun 22, 2008)

Would legalizing drugs help end the drug war/make the border safe?


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

kemet1984 said:


> Would legalizing drugs help end the drug war/make the border safe?


Banning the sale of weapons that are fuelling the Mexican drug war might also help.


----------



## atariboy15 (Sep 11, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> There are hard options on the table, like field-mining all the border or, along the desert, unpopulated areas most crossings now occurs, put some "kill zones" within 1 mile of border in which everyone going over fences/barrier will be just shot.


THAT is NOT an option that is on any fucking table; what are you blathering on about now? ? ? 



Suburbanist said:


> Sometimes it appears some folks think US will ever get in a sort of Schengen agreement with Mexico and Canada.


Correct; we never will. Only a FOREIGNER contemplating US politics and conspiracy theorists "think" otherwise. 



Suburbanist said:


> Many who wouldn't think twice about overstaying a visa with their families will think twice if their route involved a 2-day stroll in the desert before the border and dozens of coyotes, thugs and other criminals south of the border with a high risk of death, robbery etc.


What the hell are you trying to say? Either this is your lack of command of the English language, or your point is so convoluted that it makes no sense. *An individual who chooses to ignore or overstay their visa is not going to face any risk involved with desert crossing. They have already been admitted to the USA through legal channels (if they have a Visa) and are already within the USA* it can not be assumed that such an individual would ever consider a clandestine repatriation through the desert in the same way as those entering undocumented would. It just makes no sense. So again, I ask; What the hell are you trying to say? 

AND -
This all goes without mentioning the catastrophic environmental affect a "fence" or "wall" would have along the US-Mexico border


----------



## kemet1984 (Jun 22, 2008)

atariboy15 said:


> This all goes without mentioning the catastrophic environmental affect a "fence" or "wall" would have along the US-Mexico border


I don't know about the environmental impact yet, but I do know that politically there would be problems. I don't think it's what a border is so much as what it represents. It does make sense though if there HAS to be a border in the first place it may as well serve a better purpose than shutting people out of economic opportunity.


----------

