One difference is that "we" don't live next to either side of that wall.

"since it is your intent that I question."

If you can't take me at my word even though I disagree with you, nothing further need be said. I haven't once questioned your passion or dedication, nor have I accused you of having hidden motives. I have simply questioned your conclusions because they rest on only a single argument. The cardinal rule of logic is to check one's premises, because the underpinning of every argument is either substantiated or undone at that point.

"you have rejected the real solutions in other posts that would respect the rights of other human beings in favor of a pragmatic "solution" that will solve very little and at great expense. "

What rights get trampled on by the building of a wall? Please name one. Next, please quantify the "great expense" you think this would undertake. A quick search estimates the cost of completing the wall at $4 billion. With ~360 million people in the US, that means your individual burden is about $1.11. Compare that expense to the costs of supporting the welfare, hospital, and education needs of all the illegal immigrants at about $113 billion per year (http://www.fairus.org/publications/th.... And that doesn't count the costs of the crimes committed by illegals in rapes, murder, and more, nor does it address the issues of acknowledged terrorists crossing that very border (FBI). It seems to me a positive ROI even if all the wall does is prevent that $113 billion from climbing still higher! Think what it would be if there were actually any reduction in service costs! Or if the wall prevented a 9/11, which cost the economy over a trillion dollars. (There are a couple of hypotheticals I throw out just to show I am fully capable of considering them.)

"While at the same time discounting my concerns as unimportant and hypothetical"

First, your concern is a hypothetical, is it not? I acknowledged your concern in prior posts - whether you want to admit it or not. But in order to evaluate the severity of your claim, I did some simple math to gauge the real effects of your proposed hypothetical. The numbers I generated went without dispute from you, even though they showed a fairly insignificant real effect. If you wish to present different numbers that bolster your evaluation, please bring them out. Mine were quick and dirty and based only on my personal experience. If you have more authoritative sources or background, please bring that to light for my consideration.

"You are far better at hiding your little jabs then I am and pointing them out would just look like I'm whining."

Don't let me stop you from pointing out fallacies in my arguments. If you don't, who will? I can't reconsider my arguments, however, unless I have good reason to. If your argument is as solid as your passion, it should be a simple matter to bring those arguments out for discussion. A well-reasoned argument is its own merit. Appeal to emotions such as pity or sympathy, however, are logical fallacies best left to the looters.

You are partially correct. Those were not objective statements. But I have no doubts about your reasoning capacity. Perhaps my wording is inappropriate since it is your intent that I question. The idea was proposed as one more possible strike against building a wall on the southern border. That subject has been hashed out over and over again in other posts. You appear to want to bring the whole thing out again. I know that I cannot convince you, you have rejected the real solutions in other posts that would respect the rights of other human beings in favor of a pragmatic "solution" that will solve very little and at great expense. And at my expense. While at the same time discounting my concerns as unimportant and hypothetical compared to the supposed "real" benefits of the wall. I am going to have to let you have this one. You are far better at hiding your little jabs then I am and pointing them out would just look like I'm whining.

"And you still don't get the idea."

On the contrary: I remain unconvinced by your arguments. There is a substantial difference. You choose to see it only from the perspective that I don't comprehend your argument. Please allow me to disabuse you of this notion. I understand your argument, I simply place less weight on its validity and potential than you do. It is a matter of individual evaluation, not comprehension.

"Yet you still want to build the wall."

You don't have to agree with me, but there is no call to keep treating me like I am incompetent of arriving at a logical conclusion simply because it differs from yours. You don't see value in a wall - only a potential threat. That's your viewpoint, but I don't share it. To you, the only consideration is the potential threat of the wall being used to hem in American citizens and prevent them from running to Mexico.

My response was my belief that you are overestimating the desire for people to want to leave in the first place, and their ability in the second. Thus my evaluation of the potential threat is limited #1 to those living in very close proximity to the border and #2 who would value living in Mexico higher than living in the United States. I estimate that combined population to be extremely small - probably measured at most in the thousands even by generous accounts. I compare that to the millions of illegals coming in every year and simple math overwhelmingly tilts the scale. I did not say your argument wasn't a valid reason. I simply looked at more than one criterion. I also looked at the potential problems a wall would solve. Real solutions vs hypothetical problems and the real solutions carry substantially more weight to me.

"I made a suggestion as to why a wall is a bad idea. You, then, twisted my suggestion into something else and then proceeded to make an argument (some good points, btw) against YOUR conclusion. Strawman. Yet, somehow, I've "overplayed my hand"? And the personal attack was mine?"

Please be very specific about what part of your argument I twisted and which part you believe is a strawman. I agreed with your observation that our government is becoming more authoritarian, but I also believe that part of the voting base which makes that possible is due to the constant influx of illegals. Building the wall halts the increasing tilt of the voting populace more and more in favor of the looters who seek power.

I also look at the wall from a security perspective and compare it to the success of the Israelis in their self-defense since they built the wall. I see a strong correlation there. Security + vote stability, both with a substantially higher probability of success than a potential for the wall to be used as incarceration, IMO.

Again, the words "you still don't get the idea." are condescending and rude and gained you the -1. They are not objective statements: they are your opinions of my reasoning capacity. So yes, that very much constitutes a personal attack. My opinion that you had overplayed your hand was an evaluation from my side as to the strengths of the relative arguments on the table. If you took it as a sideways cut at your ability to evaluate, I apologize. I simply looked at the matter as if we were playing poker and you were betting on a single ace when I was betting on three-of-a-kind.

Apparently the link was broken

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Copied from the linked comment. (just in case)

"Of course we will have eliminated the income tax so that everybody will be included in the system, including immigrants. We will have put a stop to the war on drugs so that the criminal element is not drawn so heavily to us and we don't make criminals out of those already here. We will have eliminated welfare so they must support themselves when they come here. We will have eliminated the minimum wage so that the young and/or uneducated can get a job and get a start in life. We will welcome their hard work, productiveness and innovation. And we will have beaten the ever-lovin shit out of our enemies so badly that they will be afraid to show their heads out from under their rocks."

And you still don't get the idea.
Your words; "Why did the people of East Berlin want to get out? Because the government there was repressive."
Your next sentence; "Is our government sliding towards being one of repression? I fear that may be the case, especially considering who is in charge."
Yet you still want to build the wall.
And you compared the Russia of 1980 to a current America. "And unlike the Soviet Union, our citizens are still individually armed." You ignored the fact that before the Bolshevik revolution Russians also were well armed, thus allowing yourself to evade the similarities of the current US and the pre 1918 Russia that I was hinting at. And the outcome.

I made a suggestion as to why a wall is a bad idea. You, then, twisted my suggestion into something else and then proceeded to make an argument (some good points, btw) against YOUR conclusion. Strawman. Yet, somehow, I've "overplayed my hand"? And the personal attack was mine?

Our government is growing more and more repressive. We obviously agree on that. Laws concerning our firearms ownership are growing more and more restrictive. Our privacy is more and more invaded. Our travel is more and more of a hassle. We are more and more regulated in every aspect of our lives. We are racing headlong into an economic collapse. All this is being done by our federal government. And it is being voted in by the citizens of our country.

Yet you still trust them enough to have them build a wall.

"Ideas are lost on you aren't they?"

I disagree with your viewpoint so that means I'm not thinking about this? -1 for the personal attack. Such arguments are the hallmark of someone who is so caught up with the emotion of their argument that they fail to remain impersonal and rational.

"It's just one of the many possible unintended consequences of building a wall"

And I pointed out that there are significant differences between the Russia of 1918 and the America of a century later, among which is the fact that most Americans are themselves armed. You presented an argument, I counter-argued. If your argument is as sound as you think, you should be able to come back with another supporting argument for your viewpoint. Instead, all I see is the same one over and over. Broaden your scope and you might persuade me. But what-if's without evidence of correlation aren't particularly convincing.

As someone who served next to them at Hood, I can vouch for them being a fine force. They are not, however, what people want on the border and would not be given the proper rules of engagement to do so. The only way to stand a chance at "securing" that border is to go the IGB route and allow the military to shoot anyone and everyone attempting an illegal crossing. While that wouldn't eliminate it completely it would dramatically reduce it and nothing short of it would suffice.

However, as we see today the drug gangs have found a way around even that: tunnels. The amount of technology, resources, and sheer manpower it would take to prevent all of the avenues is far greater than virtually anyone will admit to.

Nor did I say it surrounded East Berlin. The IGB was the primary point of exfiltration. However the OP was about Berlin and it's wall, which has no sea coast. However, as I pointed out in a separate reply the IGB is a better comparison in virtually every way.

The Wall did not surround East Berlin (though there was a wall on at least part of the Inter-German border too). It surrounded West Berlin. If an East Berliner wanted to go to the coast and try to buy or steal a boat, the way there was open. It was mainly the East German coast guard that blocked that way of escape.

Ideas are lost on you aren't they? It's just one of the many possible unintended consequences of building a wall, especially in the current political climate. More specifically, a government building a wall. And I was referring to a time frame that could be years, decades even. It's an example, an idea. But I never really intended it to be argued literally.

The events you describe after a large scale emergency are probably completely accurate and require a completely different preparedness. The economic collapse that we are headed for, by vote I might add, could be a slow, painful process that some people see coming sooner than others. Oh, wait... Some already have.

And where are those people going to go? To Mexico with its drug cartels and even more corrupt government than ours - and no potable drinking water systems? I'm not worried about a wall keeping people in - even in an emergency. Unless you're within a hundred miles (ie a single gas tank) that border might as well be China for all people are going to consider it. I think you're overplaying your hand here.


Here's what's really going to happen in an emergency of the size that would make people consider leaving the country:
The 1% of 1% are going to hole up in their gated communities with armed guards and wait it out. Those with private jets and private island retreats in the Caribbean might try to make a run for it.
The big cities are going to turn into death traps. They depend on huge, daily influxes of food deliveries to stay running. When the food runs out in 2-3 days (supermarkets will be out of everything in 4-6 hrs), you'll see rioting, looting, and gangs taking to the streets bent on taking anything they can find. They, too, will starve in a few more weeks. Mortality rates in the big cities will hit 99% after 2-3 months.
The small cities flanked by agricultural production will get invaded by people trying to leave the big cities. Many already have plans to blockade the main roads and turn people back by force, knowing that they can not sustain any size of population influx while caring for their own.
Small towns who don't have the forces to blockade the roads will get destroyed by the swarms of people passing through.

Where is the National Guard, you ask? In an emergency of the type of scale you are pontificating, those forces will be trying to guard and maintain critical infrastructure like dams and power plants and other high-profile political targets. And there aren't going to be enough to go around to patrol everything - especially in the big cities when they run out of food - let alone power or water. Army and Marine forces will really only be available in the immediate areas where they are stationed, leaving the majority of the United States clear.

I work with the FEMA team in my area preparing for emergencies. We're preparing right now for a scenario called Cascadia Rising, which is the rupture of a major fault and an earthquake between 9.4 and 10.6 just off the coast of Seattle which is 60% predicted to happen in the next 20 years. It's already overdue - the last such event taking place in 1700. That event predicts a loss of life of 90% or greater of everything west of the Rocky Mountains south until Southern California. Oh, and it wipes out Japan as well.

Even if the wall was successful in keeping out Mexicans it would do nothing to prevent the economic collapse except, maybe, a slight delay.

Some time between the wall going up and the economic collapse, a lot of people are going to want out. Then we'll see which way the guns are facing. Didn't the Bolsheviks win?

In a few years, it probably isn't going to matter whether a wall across our southern border gets finished or not (right now it's not even 1/2 done). Our burden of government (both regulatory and spending) is going to collapse the economy. Terrorist activity may hasten that fall. I'm not a pessimist, but it doesn't take a statistician to see that you can only kick the can down the road so many times before the road ends.

The Berlin Wall was not built to keep East Germans in. It was built to keep the "western fascists" out. Perhaps a bit of history is in order here because there us a fundamental misunderstanding of the Berlin Wall pervading this page.

The Berlin wall surrounded West Berlin. It did not surround East Germany or East Berlin. It surrounded West Berlin because Berlin was inside East Germany. It was built on the (false) assertion that the western governments were fascists and thus the wall was needed to protect the East Berlinians from the fascist governments which administered West Berlin. Specifically these were the U.S., England, and France. It should also be noted that the position of the western countries was that East Berlin was also under their control per the accord. Indeed, western soldiers patrolled in East Berlin as well as Eastern soldiers patrolling in West Berlin's three sectors as Berlin was still legally considered occupied territory.

The guns were always pointed out from the perspective of East Germany because West Berlin was not sovereign soil for East Germany. Nor was there a time when they were "turned in" toward East Berlin or East Germany. Indeed for years after the wall and checkpoints were built East Berlin citizens had free travel to West - it was West Berlinians who were limited.

I'm not saying the East Germans under Soviet rule were correct in their assertion of the governance of West Berlin being fascists, but that was their belief at the time and they faithfully acted on it. In that one regard the two walls share a common purpose: keeping outsiders out. Thus the comparison to a prison is not exactly apt. I know we in the west like to think the Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans in, and our political leadership certainly perpetuated that myth, but it is factually incorrect. Indeed, as many note it was not particularly effective in keeping East Germans in the country.

As to keeping emigration down, all the wall really did later was serve as a filter to East Germans getting into West Berlin where they could freely travel to the West w/o further

That isn't to say that those who fear the "conversion" of a Southern Wall to be one of keeping Americans in have any rational and objective basis, they frankly do not. For such a purpose the proposed Southern Wall is wholly ineffective and incomplete for it. The U.S. is geographically divided into three sections separated by rather vast distances. The southern border is one of the smallest ones we have - the only smaller one being Alaska <-> Canada.

As noted in another comment all that "converting" a southern wall to "point" the other way would accomplish is making undocumented/illegal U.S. -> Mexico crossings more difficult - which it will do anyway. Raising the bar for crossing an area is, after all, what a wall does. Would it be any different than Mexico building a wall to keep Americans out? Nope.

In my opinion, if you want to make a comparison the more appropriate German border would be the Inner German Border (IGB). It was essentially what is being proposed for the southern U.S. Border: a series of fences and/or walls to stop the unchecked flow of border crossings between two countries. In it's entire existence the Berlin Wall had barely five thousand crossing attempts. In less than one year early on the IGB had over a million crossings from East to West, and nearly a million more over the rest of it's official lifetime. Any of these make the crossing attempts of the Berlin wall pale in comparison.

The similarities between the IGB and the US/Mexico border - ranging from the various proposals to "secure" it to the economic drivers and direction of migration are quite eerie, IMO. If you want to get a good idea of what the southern wall would be like if it were actually implemented, dig up the history of the IGB.

You pretty much summed up what my feelings were on the subject but I had no expertise (other than logic) to back up my thoughts.

Entitlements have been a problem for us longer than any immigration issue or devaluation of American culture.

Building a wall on our southern border is idiocy that is blind to the real situation on the ground. We were promised "border security" with the Fence...that worked out well....

Our government doesn't have the practical skills, budget, or 'intelligence' to build and maintain (!) a wall project as is being tossed around like building a backyard fence. I've spent enough time in the back country along the Texas border to have perspective on the issue.

Are we going to shoot down every helicopter or plane that flies over the wall? What about those that overstay their visa and disappear? Texas has a big coastline...places along the border are so remote that a myriad of ways to go over it, through it, or under it are possible.

The first year all the political elite get their photo ops beside the new wall. (Cheese!) Any problems are swept under the cactus, and in 5 years, lack of maintenance and budget cuts have rendered it the monumental folly it always was. But, we're still paying for it, and a lot of cronies made a fortune off the construction.

The 'up side' would be a monument to our own national stupidity. Any of our true border issues can be solved by other less expensive, more effective means.

And here is the crux of the issue: the differences between the two ruling governments' ideals. Why did the people of East Berlin want to get out? Because the government there was repressive.

Is our government sliding towards being one of repression? I fear that may be the case, especially considering who is in charge. However, we saw that economic collapse forces people to re-think government. And unlike the Soviet Union, our citizens are still individually armed.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Berlin did not have a seacoast however.

Please re-read. I said "is Only The difference". Completely different meaning.

The wall is just one more component in the cage that I'd rather not help build.

If I were a Boarder Patrol agent, I would be frustrated too. In fact I'm frustrated that they cannot do their job since I believe we would not be discussing a wall if they could do their job. And that is the reason I don't support the wall. It smells to much of more cronyism. :)

I'm not sure that it says any such thing. All I did was point out contributing factors to the need for a wall in the first place.

Could a wall address the issues of security/national defense and immigration? It certainly could be a part of the solution, yes. The bigger issue, however, is that our nation - and especially our politicians must have the will to deal with the real cause of the problems, which I believe are two-fold.

1. Entitlements.
2. The belief that America's culture and values should be no better than any others.

In my opinion, #1 stems from #2.

We are facing a cultural crisis in the United States - a movement that challenges the notion of American Exceptionalism and the founding principles of this nation: a nation that tolerates freedom of thought and ensconces personal liberty and personal responsibility as the primary principles encouraging not only a free people, but a robust economy and place of scientific advancement. A nation can not have economic prosperity without personal liberty and personal responsibility. Scientific advancement and industry come when there is money to invest in solving the problems of others and offering solutions for fair remuneration. Both profit. Our current society, however, has decided that some need to profit at others' expense. They have turned both notions of personal liberty and personal responsibility on their heads, because in refuting personal responsibility they enslave others to provide their needs.

The second part is national security, and I believe a wall is a prudent measure. We already know that the FBI has identified our porous southern border as a known avenue for terrorists to infiltrate this nation. Their motives don't revolve around welfare at all, but on making war with the idea of personal liberty itself.

When you write "the only difference is" that pretty much says there are no other differences, so yes, you did say that.

It is specious reasoning without support to assert that someday the alleged southern wall will someday be used to keep us in. And so what if they did? All it would do is prevent crossing from the U.S. into Mexico via land. That is hardly the stuff of grave fears. What stops Mexico from building it's own wall and keeping us out today? Only the same thing which has kept us from doing it: money.

Your reply points out the very reasons that a "wall" is irrational. Obviously, we're not at war with Mexico; however, the same Crony Corruption you point to there, exists here.

There certainly is a war of ideas going on Here. If the same effort to build a "wall" was put into stopping the Cronyism and "entitlements" HERE, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not sure of your meaning. Did I say there was no difference?
My point is the guns start out pointing away from us, but the way things are going, they will turn. They can and they will.