Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by walkabout 4 years, 11 months ago
    The difference is -- to address your question -- the Berlin wall was built to keep the "citizens" of East Germany "in." A wall along the US/Mexico border is to keep non-citizens w/o proper, positive reason for being here, "out."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
      A wall is a wall. What you have described is only the difference in which way the guns are pointed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 11 months ago
        And your point is? That difference is significant. On protests while the other imprisons. To imply there is no difference or argue as such would be laugh more than sophistry.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 11 months ago
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 11 months ago
    The Berlin Wall was a prison wall. Its purpose: to keep people in. The residents of East Berlin were not free residents at all, but inmates.

    The proposed border fence would be a fortress wall. Its purpose: to keep would-be burglars and robbers out. You might as well ask why the Gulch had its own defense, such as it was (chiefly concealment), and why John Galt qualified his statement about "opening the gates" with the phrase "all who deserve to enter." Deserve. That's the key verb.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
      Building a wall on the Mexican border is a fool's errand. It is a huge Crony project that can never accomplish the advertised and ballyhooed intent.

      To think that our government has the operational expertise to build and efficiently manage (without massive waste, corruption, cost overruns, and destruction of property rights) is, at best, irrational. One might as well agree with the insanity that the fedgov has a successful track record on other major projects it has undertaken.

      'Wall believers' are being played in the name of protection. They should remember how these ideas historically manifest themselves in reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 11 months ago
        The First Cavalry Division is based in TX. I'm sure that they could do the job, even without a fence. If not, throw in the 101st Airborne.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
          I live within a short drive of The First Cav; they are quite a capable force. We're not at war with Mexico, and the same security issues exist on all our borders. A project to build a wall on one border, after a failed 'fence', screams cronyist corruption. It has nothing to do with security, immigration, or national defense.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
            "We're not at war with Mexico"

            I'm not so sure about that.

            Who runs Mexico? The drug lords and the oil barons - not the people.
            Who is encouraging their people to break the laws of the US by going there illegally? The Mexican government.
            And who is further encouraging this lawless behavior? Our very own President of the United States.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 11 months ago
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
        All of that is a side issue to the central questions. Why would a country not protect it's borders, itself and it's citizens? Is a country that cannot protect itself a country? What torch are you burning to want a country, any country to render itself defenseless. From the state of and style of your remarks I would assume that you and a few of the usual new and temporary would be in favor of a country whose government can't or won't protect itself and it's citizens so iyou might answer that question. Nor would I expect you to want to improve or replace such a government. Another question to answer. Explain in some detail with cites your last sentence. Define wall believers, how are they b eing played. How many of them as a percentage of population? How do these ideas historically manifest themselves? And don't forget the flip side of those discussion points you put on the table.

        I'll enjoy reading but as for now...Where's the beef?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 11 months ago
          Michael, your assumptions could not be further from what I am in "favor of". You're usually better at underlying premises.

          My rationale was clear. Nothing I said precludes a proper national defense. History? Look at all the money wasted on the "Fence". We were promised back then that it would do all the things the "Wall" is supposed to do. Giving the government a second chance for a more expensive, screwed up, ineffective solution is stupidity, at best,...look at their track record in recent decades.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
      And you would not feel like a prisoner? Maybe not until the guns turn.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
        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."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
          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?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
                "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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
                    "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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
                      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.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
                        "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.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 11 months ago
        What's your solution?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
          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."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 11 months ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Vegasrenie 4 years, 11 months ago
    Germany was two halves of one country, the two countries being created at the end of World War II. The United States and Mexico are two separate countries. I don't understand why that's a question.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 4 years, 11 months ago
      Mexico/US border and territory History is more like:
      Native American nations -> all Spanish -> Mexican independence battles and some US territory claims and grabs during Mexico/Spanish fighting.

      The US ended up with large Spanish claims that look very similar to the East/West Germany split - but about a 100 years earlier.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Itheliving 4 years, 11 months ago
    Do you have a door at your residence? Do you close and lock it and if so why?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
      I didn't lock them but I do now. But if those doors were too costly I would need to find another way of keeping people out. Would a wall be effective and also cost effective is a question to be answered prior to building. And what about the other borders? Not looking to argue. Looking for answers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
        How much is your safety and security worth?

        And I would point out that the construction of the wall on the Southern Border has been held up by first the Democratically-controlled Congress (who wouldn't give them the funds) under Bush and now a President who won't authorize the work to continue. I wouldn't argue that the thing has been too expensive because it hasn't even really been completed yet!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
          First I am not saying we should or should not build a fence/wall but there are many unanswered questions.

          Could we afford the door to our house if it cost, $10,000, $20,000, $100,000? Does a locked door stop all intruders? Would they find another way in if they really wanted in?

          Since Congress already allocated funds for a wall, I may argue that the fence has already cost us allot of money and it has yet to begin. How much more will we spend for something that likely will not solve the problem?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
            I agree that it is a stop-gap measure and that entitlements are the true key. I'm just pointing out that actually a lot less money than people think has actually been spent on the wall. Most has never been spent, but in fact diverted to other projects. Railing about the money wasted on the wall is a diversion.

            That being said, I support the completion of the wall, simply because it could and would stem the tide until the other could be worked out. It wouldn't keep all of them out, but if it were manned, it would slow the influx to a mere trickle.

            I am good friends with a Border Patrol agent. His first stint was in El Paso, TX and his second was Shelby, Montana. He's hugely frustrated by the Administration because they won't let the Border Patrol do their jobs - with or without a wall.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
              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. :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 11 months ago
    If all entitlements were restricted to native born and naturalized citizens, a wall would not matter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 11 months ago
      Do you mean ALL social benefits like work, school, medical care (other than emergency), etc., not just entitlements?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
        Work is not a benefit. Benefits are provided by taxpayers through government, They bring things like a series of Great Depressions and value less retirement funds. Schools? Ha ha ha ...the level of value outside the hard sciences is so low I would recommend the Zappa solution in their place. If you want an education go to the library - read a book. If you want to get laid go to university or any Democrat function. I added that last part from personal experience. Medical? Welll well well we are seeing that disaster up close and personal aren't we...Students... they would do well and better if issued a McGuffeys Readers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 11 months ago
        I mean all benefits. I want the country that my grandparents came to in the first decade of the twentieth century. The only thing that was given to them was the right to earn a living.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
          That particular time was followed by a President who personally instituted Socialism and it's been political ways down hill ever since.Changes made by a single judge have a way of being both devastating and non-permanent. Suits people who are moving left on purpose just fine. Changes made by Constitutional Amendment take more effort and take longer but are more permanent. Old sheet of music. It's not rap a second and just as meaningless.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 4 years, 11 months ago
    these invasions amount to a process of "welcoming" intruders
    who are completely capable of ruining your country.

    shouldn't we be more selective in our admission of
    new members to the team??? -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 4 years, 11 months ago
      absolutely, no muslims allowed!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 4 years, 11 months ago
        well, I had thought "no terrorists allowed" and maybe "only
        producers allowed" -- no negative-value types!!! -- j
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 11 months ago
          Apparently, you haven't heard of tribalism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
            still putting words in people's mouths? I'd rather hear you emulate JohnPE1 and speak for yourself.Actually he has a very good point. If you are moving to get away from you don't bring from with you except those with a California mentality. They did a rare old job of Californicating Oregon. But then that mentality is something I would leave behind along with that of New Amsterdam.

            noun
            noun: tribalism

            the state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.
            derogatory
            the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.
            "a society motivated by cultural tribalism"
            synonyms: sectarianism, chauvinism; esprit de corps
            "the latest waves of violence were blamed on tribalism"
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 4 years, 11 months ago
    The difference is that Mexico will not become like the US in the way that East Germany was expected to be like the Capitalistic West. Rather, the US would become more like Mexico.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years, 11 months ago
      It's already happening. And 20 million of them are already here legally, so it's a little late to try to lock the barn door even if it were moral.

      All our immigration laws accomplish is to ensure that any bad guys (criminals, terrorists) who want to get in will have an easy time of it, because the border patrol isn't looking for them in particular but for everybody who wants to enter. The real crooks get lost in the noise.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
    Whether it is to keep people in or to keep them out of course. I doubt we'd have been concerned about the wall if it was so that they could control who immigrated to their country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
      Once upon a time when the time was ripe an entrepreneur in Texas contacted a college friend in Berlin, Germany and offered to buy cases of chips from the original Berlin Wall. The German friend called his friends and they invested in some sledge hammers. At the time the East German guards had been withdrawn. They started banging away and loaded truck after truck shipping the chips with provenance and photos where they were sold much as pet rocks ot the somewhat gullible public.

      A few others passed by and thinking it a fun idea chipped in the chip making business until an entire prefab concrete section fell over. The only concern was the possibility of land mines. There weren't any left at that point.

      Bascally it was a n export import souvenir business. By then more sections were broken up and toppled. By then our entrepreneurial University students come to think of it had made enough to pay tuition through graduation. We did not take down the wall nor did Mr. Gorbachov. Kennedy said Ich bin ein Berliner if I have it correctly. Reagan said " Take down this wall." We didn't extend very far.

      Well.. urban myth of reality. Who knows. The photos could have been faked. Maybe.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
    A wall on our southern border is a government solution to a government created "problem". And it will mean we have already lost.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ richrobinson 4 years, 11 months ago
    My first thought was that we are protecting an existing border and the Berlin wall was an arbitrary political border that divided Germany and Berlin after WWII. Then I thought that East Berlin was ruled by a bunch of power hungry Communists hell bent on holding power at all costs. I guess we have more in common than I originally thought.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
      I'm simply not sure. I've spent much time thinking about a wall and I wonder how good it would be even if it was erected. Would it stop people from getting in? Would we be able to pay for the cost by keeping people out? Or would it be just like throwing money at (non-existing) global warming. A complete and total waste. Seems to me it may be another crony capitalist scheme to construct a wall that likely would have no affect. I'm interested to hear people thoughts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ richrobinson 4 years, 11 months ago
        Denying Government handouts to illegals and automatic Citizenship would stop more people than a wall. I have been concerned that a terrorist could enter the country easily but then I wonder why they haven't already.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 11 months ago
          After the attack France got to work sealing their borders. But not just for keeping people out, their main objective was to keep people in. Of course they were trying to contain the terrorists but it still shows that a sealed border works both ways.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
          I agree. I believe arresting and instantly shipping them back along with no handouts would do more to stop the flow of people. Even if it was manned I doubt if it would stop people. Maybe just slow them down. When we consider the tunnels that were dug to get the drug guy out of a Mexican prison, I simply don't see how a wall works with any cost effectiveness at all. Of course money is not important to our government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years, 11 months ago
            You have described pretty much the current policy regarding those caught coming across the border without permission. They are arrested and either returned immediately or, in some cases, charged with a misdemeanor, sentenced to a short term of imprisonment (like a matter of a few days) and then sent back. It is, as you suggest, enormously expensive and inefficient. It does not seem to deter any significant number of crossers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 11 months ago
    Big difference.
    The Berlin wall existed to repress freedom. An American wall would exist to maintain freedom. A wall won't stop all the evils from entering, but it would slow them down. That, and using a military force, be it national guard, or paramilitary specially trained border guards, would keep the majority of illegals out. And.. they would need to be tough. The illegals need to know that resistance means death. Back across the border they go, there and then.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
      Not arguing but we have a border patrol now that I understand has not been allowed to do their job. Would we need a wall if they could do their job??
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Madanthonywayne 4 years, 11 months ago
        Would you rather guard a 2,000 mile border that was wide open, or a 2,000 mile border with a wall? Prisons have plenty of guards, but they also,have walls. Forts might be stuffed to the brim with soldiers with guns, but they always had walls. What did the pioneers do when the Indians attacked? They circled the wagons to create........wait for it......walls!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 4 years, 11 months ago
          Walls like that have been built twice -- in China, and in Britain (Hadrian's Wall). Neither produced any result other than to waste the money and effort spent to build them. If you can't man the entire wall when the horde approaches, they'll simply knock holes in it and you can play Whack-a-mole until you get tired of it, without accomplishing anything.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Sesabatka 4 years, 11 months ago
    I was attempting to differentiate between immigration which to me implies legal movement between counties and migration which is more of movement disregarding "legal/man made" lines. Sorry I didn't clarify better that I was talking about groups rather than an indivudual.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
      Migrate with it's companion words immigration and emigrate may be legal or illegal, permanent or temporary, extra or intra territorial. So a farm worker such as combine operator or lettuce picker migrating in the agricultural states of the US is one kind migrating from the lack of work parts of Mexico to the previously lack of workers at least at certain levels and for certain slave labor businesses both apply. Emigrate means to leave immigrate to arrive and usually for purposes of permanency. at least to some degree. One of my local friends emigrated from Irkutsk Russia, through France, to USA and now to Mexico. Permanency was intended int he USA but the thriving and growing reminders of a Soviet style police state is pushing many of them elsewhere. Never mind the current extent of that situation. They see it as a warning sign and have no wish to repeat the experience of a socialist style government. kind of makes you think doesn't it. It should. You are getting ready to vote for one of two candidates both of whom belong that trend.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 11 months ago
    Instead of a wall, we should allow free access across the border with work cards so they can work here. BUT, that doesnt get citizenship and gets NO welfare and social benefits, and does NOT get minimum wage protection or automatic anchor baby status for their children. Lets see how many come across then...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 4 years, 11 months ago
    The difference is that, in Germany, the wall was to keep skilled workers from leaving the country.
    Our wall is to prevent unskilled workers from entering.
    Simple?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nvrnvrlnd 4 years, 11 months ago
    The Mexicans don't shoot to kill, heck, they don't shoot. It's hard to build a wall on the border and since it's a navigable river, The Army Corps of Engineers would have to approve it and that's not likely to happen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 11 months ago
    The wall in Germany was to keep the people on the communist side in; where as, a wall between us a Mexico is to keep mexican's out...but nothin stoppin them from going any where else!?!?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 4 years, 11 months ago
    East Germany's wall was built to keep people in. Our wall, at least to start, is to keep people out. We can never tell what a benevolent dictator in the future would make of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by commonsenseisneeded 4 years, 11 months ago
    It seems that many people misunderstand the concept and problems that come with a wall on our southern border.

    Building the wall is certainly possible for a nation that was the first to land a man on the moon.

    The problem is not building, but electing a president and a Congress that is capable of understanding the problems of murder and mayhem being committed by ISIS and other jihadist movements. When they finally and honestly are willing to deal with these jihadist, then and only then can these problems be dealt with.

    The same honesty and willingness to solve the problems of illegal immigrants can then be dealt with. The key words being "honest," a concept totally foreign to most of our politicians.

    While I'm not a devotee of Trump, I must admit that he does have his finger on the pulse of our problems and I also have little doubt that he is fully capable of building the needed wall and the needed legislation, not to mention enforcement of our laws. Unfortunately, he also has many problems including being a megalomaniac that would force me to ignore his candidacy as I can't bring myself to trust a man that has been on all sides of these issues, not to mention being a previous supporter of the Clinton's.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 4 years, 11 months ago
    Indonesia is considering using crocodiles to guard their prisons arguing "They can't be bribed." How about a moat filled with hungry crocodiles along the US-Mexico border? At the very least it would provide the drug runners and coyotes with some new and difficult challenges. The prospect of being eaten alive by a mindless beast should provide a degree of discouragement. And now the latest word is that they may add piranhas and tigers. Hmm, is this a form of animal cruelty?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
      Most of it is desert. The rest is desert like mountains. All of Texas, all of New Mexico, All of Arizona and all of California. Let me see... one two three four yup that's most of it. Already populated with all kinds of bugs, insects, snakes, and other critters. no extra charge.Besides why discuss it to death. We're in a reverse or negative immigration posture meaning more going back than coming up. Why? Because there aren't any jobs regardless what the pinheads in the M2F Media spin.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Sesabatka 4 years, 11 months ago
    In addition a wall helps with immigration and limits migration. There is a difference.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
      English lesson time. A migrant is one who is leaving a country. An immigrant is one who is entering a country. They are the same individual. Let's rephrase a wall helps with criminal aliens entering without any documentation.
      BUT what wall? Once away from easy viewing i'ts just a fence and ha ha the Border Patrol is too busy doing paperwork to accomplish their stated mission.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ johnrobert2 4 years, 11 months ago
        Actually, one leaving a country is an 'emigrant'. So speaks the word nazi of days past.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
          Just to make sure I had a three way comparison made. Didn't want someone to mistake your for a California protest leader...

          criminate.

          All three words trace their origin to the Latin verb migrare, “to remove from one place to another.” This common ancestor gives English four verbs:

          migrate: to move, either temporarily or permanently, from one place, area, or country of residence to another

          emigrate: (e, “out” + migrate) to remove out of country for the purpose of settling in another.

          immigrate: (im, “in, into” + migrate) to come to settle in a country not one’s own; to pass into a new place of residence.

          I'm supposing a migrant in one sense is first an emigrant then a an immigrant. however remembering Steinbeck and Migrant labors they never seemed to arrive just kept going. As in migrant farm workers. One of my cousins does that on a regular basis moving combine harvesters south to north to maintenance and begin again. His machine is Finnegan.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ johnrobert2 4 years, 11 months ago
            You are essentially correct. You are, first, an emigrant (leaving) migrating (traveling) and, finally, becoming an immigrant (coming in). The example of a migrant laborer is very personal. My parents performed the same work, traveling from ETx to CO to AZ to CA. They were at the top of the food chain, so to speak, in that they worked on the packing sheds packing tomatoes, peaches, pears, cantaloupes and honeydews. Until I started the 6th grade, I would always start school in CA and return to TX to finish the year. In time, I followed the same pattern, summers in CA, working where I could. Some of the best years of my life. I haven't done that work in 45 years but I still remember the people and places.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChestyPuller 4 years, 11 months ago
    The simple answer is the 'Berlin Wall' was designed and built to keep German citizens apart.

    This was because when WWII ended the agreement was to divide Germany; the west would 'watch' over Western Germany [& East Berlin] while Russia watched over Eastern Germany [& West Berlin]. This idea deteriorated to where Russia turned Eastern Germany from Fascism [what it was during the war] to straight up Communism while the West was a Democratic Republic [Free] the People of the East were moving to the West to be free. To stop this Russia placed military along the border, but in Berlin it wasn’t working because Building were half on the Eastern side and half on the Western side allowing people to climb through SO A WALL WAS BUILT, building closed down on the Western side to stop German’s from moving freely from GERMANY to GERMANY.

    Side note: notice how given a choice people chose the Democratic Republic over Communism.

    Now the Great Wall of China was built to keep other nations out in order to protect the people from crime, assault, murder as well to keep a stable government [which mostly worked until 1966 when Communism fully took over under Mao].

    The Walls built in Saudi Arabia, Norway and others are used for the same reason only in Saudi Arabia its used much like in Berlin; to keep Christian’s and Sunni muslim’s out of a Shia muslim land territory.

    So a Border Fence between Mexico and the several border nations of the Republic of the United States is much like the Famous Great Wall of China and the Fence’s built along European nations to keep foreigners from coming in without being medically cleared [protecting the people against disease or infestation] as well as checking to ensure criminals do not get in to harm the people of the Nation they protect.
    As we can see, France is hurting because they did not do this, Sweden is in Revolt because of a 1400% increase of assault’s [rape’s, stabbing, beatings] of Swedish people from muslim refugees as is Hungary and Germany.

    In the United States we have multiple cases of assault, rape, murder and the weakening of the economy from a lack of a Fence.

    So in closing; EVERY NATION OR FEDERATION [Federal Government] HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS AND SOCIETY FOR THE GOOD OF ALL ITS PEOPLE.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 11 months ago
      Sweden the bastion of non-involved peaceniks and pacificism....forgot when you are weak the whole world sees you as an easy target. Unlike Switzerland where every soldier keep his/her rifle at home or Israel where every citizen except the mega fundamentalists keep their weapon 'packing and ready' status'

      But as for the fence with Mexico it's getting to be less and less needed. Lack of work up north doing that and the migrant pattern is now to the south according to our own customs and immigration people. The sole remaining problem are very poor Mexicans mainly from the southeastern end of the country who do not understand the dangers of an illegal crossing starting with the terrain and climate and continuing through the coyote guides. Nor do they speak any English and many not much spanish using Nahuatl indian dialect. If there were jobs channeling them into a bracero situation would help immensely as long as the employers were monitored closely. the next big help would be lower prices on passports and visas IF there were jobs. That is the sole indicator I look at that explodes the myth of ObaNOmics big recovery. If it were true the migrant pattern would be to the north. Next thing to help other than bracero, green card, and immigration instead of using the slots for ISIS would be language training. One week in a Berlitz style school. It's not rocket science and it assimilates automatically insteads of divides and keeps them down worse than slave chains.

      That's it from my end....and oh yes...US gets the monkey off it's back. No monkey no cartels. I hold no hope for that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by roneida 4 years, 11 months ago
    to Ed Weaver.... what a silly, disingenuous question. Obviously by being so niaeve you show that you are too young to remember East Germany.

    They soviets shot their own citizens trying to escape. Their country was hell. If we built a wall on our border to keep illegals out, do you believe Mexico would execute their people leaving??? Give up on your silly, girlish moral relativism...there is no comparison between the communists of East Germany and the USA
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 11 months ago
      I find little reason for you to be so rude. This was a simple question to open a discussion and nothing more. If you can't be a productive member of a discussion please don't comment at all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by roneida 4 years, 11 months ago
        I'm not sure that you have been anointed moderator and I feel free to comment as long as I am not profane. You are entitled to your opinions and so am I. Your question was not "simple", it was comparing East Germany to the US and was obviously biased against the US.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo