The fence
Paying way too much for substandard products is often associated with the Soviet Union and contributed to that thing called its downfall. Now we learn that the government contracts with Boeing to build a border fence have exceeded $1 billion. This fence does not work (for fun, google "border fence problems" and see what pops up) and, of course, the government is also circumventing a wide range of laws that would block it.
New definition of "recession resistant": "any company claiming to keep Latin Americans out of the United States."
23 comments:
"any company claiming to keep Latin Americans out of the United States."
That's a rather cheap shot, Greg. I know some Latin Americans who want border security. Are they racist against themselves?
Two points:
1. "Latin America" is not a race.
2. The border fence is meant to keep out Latin Americans.
Well of course! Just standard operating proceedure for our government.
This is a good topic though, because government "waste" hardly ever gets talked about when it involves security or defense, only welfare, and social security, etc.
The same thing goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend billions on "reconstruction" and then find out that many jobs are never completed or finished substandard. Or that products such as towels, water, etc are over-charged.
Eliminating waste in security spending is hard though, because opponents will paint you as weak on defense, and because spending is often off budget (such as only using emergency funding for the Iraq war) or shrouded by varying levels of secrecy in the DOD and other state security apparatus.
But back to the border fence issue: building a fence is a shallow and ineffective approach to dealing with border immigration. However it is highly symbolic...in the same way that say, spraying coca-fields with poison is symbolic but ultimately ineffective at controlling coca production.
"Latin America" is not a race."
Cute. Your implication is that those who want a border fence are racist against Latin Americans, is it not?
"The border fence is meant to keep out Latin Americans."
The border fence is meant to keep out illegal immigrants. Latin Americans aren't the only ones trying to cross the border.
Also, Mexico, using your broad sweeping rhetoric, is also keeping out Latin Americans.
Race is not relevant to my argument.
Keeping Latin Americans out is the only reason the fence is being built.
And yes, Mexico has done the same to the rest of Latin America, obviously focusing on Guatemala, often with the same rhetoric and even worse abuse.
"Race is not relevant to my argument."
Oh, come on. It sure is pregnant in your choice of words. You purposely use "Latin American" rather than the more accurate "illegal immigrant" because of the implication. It's a bully tactic to shame people who want border security.
"Keeping Latin Americans out is the only reason the fence is being built."
I'd say keeping drugs and fissionable material out are two rather obvious other reasons, besides illegal immigrants.
Again, my wife is Colombian. She'd love for more Colombians to be admitted to the US legally. She's not keen on illegal immigrants crossing the southern border, almost none of whom are Colombian.
Race is, of course, an important issue, but I feel it is only one of many different factors in understanding why a wall is being built.
"Race is, of course, an important issue, but I feel it is only one of many different factors in understanding why a wall is being built."
While there are other factors, I dont think its necessary to play down the impact of race when talking about our southern border security. Race is a powerful part of the equation in that it forms the base of the concept of "the other". Different, therefore potentially dangerous and to be viewed with suspicion.
This is evident when looking at the hypocrisy concerning differences in attitudes between our southern and northern borders. Particularly the way the border argument is framed...there isnt the "us vs them" mentality attached to a nation that shares a western european heritage and a common language (excluding Quebec).
http://www.latimes.com/travel/lat-puerto_k1uz5jnc20080603130929,0,4778258.photo
Paul,
The only terrorist to try to get in the US over land in recent years and get nabbed was coming from Canada.
As for keeping fissionable material out, the money wasted on the fence would be better used in inspecting cargo containers. Do you know of anyone who is stupid enough to try to cross the Sonoran Desert with plutonium or other fissionable material?
Randinho,
I've heard that alot about "only" Canada's border. It isn't true. Google "terrorists" and "southern border" and you will come across quite a bit of disturbing info. Also, go here and read the House Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security report.
As for fissionable material, you may be right. So let's reinforce all exposed flanks. And there are lots of people "stupid enough" to carry in large quantities of drugs.
You are also assuming the courier always knows what is in his cargo load.
I was at a dinner party awhile ago and the host was ranting on about how Bush was a "communist" for building the border fence. Dude had the highest walls surrounding his gated community(with guards) I'd ever seen.
Greg,
"I feel it is only one of many different factors in understanding why a wall is being built."
Ok, I agree race plays a part for some people, but that totally contradicts your "Keeping Latin Americans out is the only reason the fence is being built" statement.
No contradiction. The government is building the wall to keep Latin Americans out. Race is one factor regarding why people support doing so.
Paul,
I googled. A lot of heavy breathing, but the only person who has been arrested and convicted of entering the US over a land border to commit an act of terrorism was caught in Port Angeles, WA.
With regard to fissionable material, the ports are being underserved, period.
"No contradiction. The government is building the wall to keep Latin Americans out. Race is one factor regarding why people support doing so."
Greg, this is a game you are playing so you can keep insinuating border security advocates are racists.
Again, the Mexicans, using your own vernacular, also want to keep Latin Americans out.
Barack Obama is against trade agreements with Panama and Colombia, and wants to renegotiate NAFTA. I'm sure you will agree he just doesn't want to trade with Latin Americans. Right?
Anyway, whatever, no point in continuing to play rhetorical whack-a-mole.
Randinho,
"..the only person who has been arrested and convicted of entering the US over a land border to commit an act of terrorism was caught in Port Angeles, WA."
Ok, that's a refinement(is that a word?) of your earlier statement. I can't fathom, however, how you can be so nonchalant about the threat to our border if you spend any time at all researching it. I live in Texas where it's more front and center issue.
"With regard to fissionable material, the ports are being underserved, period."
Agreed. So let's beef up our ports.
I never argued otherwise.
You may, if you want, believe that those who oppose the fence believe supporters do so out of racism. I do not. You are also free to believe that I am lying.
The Feds are not building the wall to keep anyone or anything out of the country. They (or, more specifically, the elected representatives who have voted or spoken in favor of the wall) are building it to win votes, plain and simple. And the appeal for those votes, more often than not, is unspoken racism. If anyone thinks a wall is going to keep out cocaine, or plutonium, or Mexican day laborers, they are kidding themselves. Have you seen the elaborate tunnels that have been built between Tijuana and San Ysidro? Where there are drugs and terrorism, there is also money, which can be spent to circumvent things such as walls. Whenthere is no money, there is desperate poverty, and the desire to come to the US outweighs whatever 10 foot wall that a potential illegal immigrant is figuring out how to cross.
Satellite monitoring of these areas would be far more effective. So would expanding NAFTA so that the LatAm general population becomes more prosperous and less interested in coming to the US. For comparison purposes, the last time I checked, there is no fence between Canada and the US, and we're not being overrun by Canadian day laborers (unless you count Mike Myers, Pamela Anderson, and Alanis Morrissette).
"If anyone thinks a wall is going to keep out cocaine, or plutonium, or Mexican day laborers, they are kidding themselves. "
Tell that to the Israelis. They built a wall and reduced suicide bombings by over 90%. Anyway, a wall on our southern border doesn't have to be 100% to be effective.
"Have you seen the elaborate tunnels that have been built between Tijuana and San Ysidro?"
Yep. It will be easier to reallocate resources towards finding them once the wall is built.
I'm all for expanding NAFTA, satellites, and increased illegal immigration. I'm not up for importing more poverty, drugs, terrorists, exploding hospital costs, and basically being Mexico's release valve so they don't have to get their shit together while they ruthlessly guard their own southern border.
That doesn't make me a racist/someone who just wants to keep out "Latin Americans."
"Tell that to the Israelis. They built a wall and reduced suicide bombings by over 90%. Anyway, a wall on our southern border doesn't have to be 100% to be effective."
Yeah, because those Mexican suicide bombers sure are a problem.
You are not going to stop drugs, or weapons, or fissionable material from entering the US by building a wall. I agree that there needs to be and can be better security procedures put in place, but a wall is a superficial attempt to solve a complicated problem.
And NAFTA does not decrease immigration. That much is clear now. Evidence is beginning to suggest that if anything it INCREASES immigration. Despite US-Mexico trade increases, these increases have not created jobs. This is because NAFTA a) destroyed large numbers of jobs in the Mexican agricultural sector and b) hasnt created the jobs it was supposed to in Mexico to absorb this labor dislocation. Underemployment and unemployment has spiked.
Ironically, illegal immigration is probably one of the few things keeping NAFTA alive. Without the support of remittances, the Mexican economy would really tank, political pressure would increase and someone anti-NAFTA like Obrador would have been or will be elected.
I have to disagree. This is one where the Republicans (I am a Republican, in case you were wondering) are way, way off base. Building a wall serves no purpose, and it sends the wrong message to the world. We spent 40 years bitching about a wall in Berlin, and now we want to build our own wall?
Even funnier, Mike is a Republican with a Colombian wife (which Paul has cited himself numerous times).
The way to secure the ports, Paul, is to not blow money on a lame fence. Your comparison with the Israeli wall is beyond apples and oranges in its irrelevance. The areas being covered are not even remotely similar in size, thus the manpower being expended to cover possible intrusions in Israel is much more manageable than along the several hundred miles they are talking about for this fence.
You also ignore the geography. If a terrorist wants to slip into this country, why would they want to slip in across a border with brutally inhospitable terrain or face the possibility of being whacked by drug gangs in places like the Juarez/El Paso crossing, when there is a less dangerous way to cross in the north?
Mike A and Greg have got this dead on.
Besides, look at horrible things the fence is being used for!
Post a Comment