4 ms·

Seriously? A border fence? I didn't think many people actually took that serious as a deterrent. Have you seen the Penn and Teller show where they pay (legally

Seriously? A border fence? I didn't think many people actually took that serious as a deterrent. Have you seen the Penn and Teller show where they pay (legally questionable) immigrants to build a length of fence using the same specs as the border fence - then pay them to go over, under, and through it? I just remember they were on the other side pretty quick. Then there's the cost to build and maintain... it's just such a ridiculous idea to me.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Do you really believe that securing a border is impossible? Or are you simply suggesting that the US military is less capable of securing a border than the Indian, Chinese, Israeli or South Korean military?
- ryanelkins 16y ago
  There is a difference between "securing a border" and "building a 2,000 mile long fence". A fence by itself does pretty much nothing but slow people down slightly. I made no suggestions about the US military's capabilities - although the fact that this discussion exists seems to make some implications.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Many people make the argument that it's impossible to secure our border, I thought you were doing the same. My mistake, I misinterpreted your post. If you were simply discussing the tactic of building a fence with no other guard measures, I agree with you; a fence is not sufficient.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Ok, so how many guard measures do we need to be sufficient? How many deployed forces, with what orders in regards to violence? How much will it cost? Are we suspending Habeus Corpus for this?
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Are we suspending Habeus Corpus for this? Folks in Mexico are not entitled to US habeas corpus. Border control is not like ordinary law enforcement.
        jbooth 16y ago
        If a soldier has one foot planted on US soil, then Habeus Corpus does in fact apply. If a human being has both feet planted on US soil, the military have no right to detain them or do anything besides make polite suggestions, regardless of any suspicions about the person's nationality, probable cause or any of that. This is one of the most fundamental constitutional issues in the US. I'd think about it a lot less lightly if you're going to claim to support things like "liberty" and "rights".
        anigbrowl 16y ago
        You'd think that, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong. Don't feel bad - I was pretty surprised as I learned more about the subject too (IANAL but am planning on a law career, and already having an interest in this I figured I might as well learn it properly). The law and administration of immigration have been patched and reorganized so many times that the subject is an elective on most law school courses. Unlike most other branches of law, the scope and administration of which are constitutionally limited, immigration is plenary law - an area in which the government has absolute power and its actions are not subject to judicial review unless otherwise stated (going back to the Supreme court's decision in the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, holding that where aliens are concerned, only property rights are constitutionally protected and others may be revoked as the government sees fit). So the ability of the courts to entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus in immigration cases is quite limited (and defined by statute), and other kinds of legal action (eg certification of class action suits) are off-limits altogether. In cases where the jurisdiction of federal courts is at issue, the government often argues that the terms of a visa or similar document an agreement or bargain (but not a contract) between the US and the alien, formed outside the US for legal purposes. It is thus asserted to be a private matter between the government and the individual, outside the scope of judicial review. The Attorney General or the Director of Homeland Security has more or less absolute discretion in such cases. This leads to some odd outcomes. For example, if someone sneaks across the border and is later arrested and tried, they have full constitutional rights. If at any point they are handed over to DHS, they have the right to a hearing in front of an immigration judge (part of the DoJ) to determine their legal status, and can appeal any decisions to either a special immigration appeals court in DC and/or the federal courts (depending on exactly what the situation is). The same is approximately true of someone who overstays or commits a crime violating the terms of their visa. On the other hand, some 30 million people visit the US every year without a visa as tourists. If a DHS officer determines such a person has violated their conditions of entry they can be arrested and deported or detained pretty much at will, with no opportunity for a hearing at all (unless they claim asylum, which of course happens all the time as a result). The government's current view is that such persons have no constitutionally protected liberty interest, putting them outside Habeas Corpus altogether.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Well...South Korea is a narrow peninsula with a huge demilitarized zone between it and North Korea. Israel is also a small country and they have had some PR problems with their militaristic enforcement policies. India and China have a border dispute but are separated by the Himalayas, and also they both have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir is the cause of frequent violence. These are not good models for a ~2000 mile border with a basically friendly neighbor. Economic theory suggests that free trade works best if it includes labor markets.
- GFischer 16y ago
  I remember a National Geographic article about Israel's "fence": http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/12/bethlehem/finkel-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/12/bethlehem/finkel-t... during the discussion, Jewish coworkers who had lived in Israel at the time recalled that it was far from perfect.
hugh3 16y ago
So build a better fence! Ever heard of the Berlin Wall? OK, that was only through Berlin, but the East/West Germany border was apparently pretty successful. One thing that's way better than a fence: two fences, half a mile apart, with a minefield in between.
- ryanelkins 16y ago
  The Great Wall of China would be a better example. It's even twice as long as the fence that would be needed to cover the US-Mexico border. As effective as your idea is for trying to kill or maim people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves would be, I think it would run afoul of human rights issues.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves I'm not sure how the fact that they're attempting to provide a better life for themselves is supposed to be an excuse. Bank robbers are also attempting to provide a better life for themselves, too.
    - rationalbeaver 16y ago
      There is a difference between stealing money to fuel your greed and stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving. Or speeding for the thrill vs. speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital. His assertion is that illegal immigration often follows a similar pattern.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      Yeah, people should put some land-mines in front of that safe-deposit box.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I don't see a human rights problem with a well marked minefield between two fences. Anyone who wishes to avoid being blown up can pay attention to the "Warning: land mines" sign and not climb over the fence topped with barbed wire. Similarly, the zoo isn't violating your human rights if you ignore the "warning: bears" sign, swim through the moat, and then get eaten by the bears.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Do you really believe that securing a border is impossible? Or are you simply suggesting that the US military is less capable of securing a border than the Indian, Chinese, Israeli or South Korean military?

ryanelkins 16y ago
There is a difference between "securing a border" and "building a 2,000 mile long fence". A fence by itself does pretty much nothing but slow people down slightly. I made no suggestions about the US military's capabilities - although the fact that this discussion exists seems to make some implications.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Many people make the argument that it's impossible to secure our border, I thought you were doing the same. My mistake, I misinterpreted your post. If you were simply discussing the tactic of building a fence with no other guard measures, I agree with you; a fence is not sufficient.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Ok, so how many guard measures do we need to be sufficient? How many deployed forces, with what orders in regards to violence? How much will it cost? Are we suspending Habeus Corpus for this?
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Are we suspending Habeus Corpus for this? Folks in Mexico are not entitled to US habeas corpus. Border control is not like ordinary law enforcement.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        If a soldier has one foot planted on US soil, then Habeus Corpus does in fact apply. If a human being has both feet planted on US soil, the military have no right to detain them or do anything besides make polite suggestions, regardless of any suspicions about the person's nationality, probable cause or any of that. This is one of the most fundamental constitutional issues in the US. I'd think about it a lot less lightly if you're going to claim to support things like "liberty" and "rights".
        anigbrowl 16y ago
        You'd think that, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong. Don't feel bad - I was pretty surprised as I learned more about the subject too (IANAL but am planning on a law career, and already having an interest in this I figured I might as well learn it properly). The law and administration of immigration have been patched and reorganized so many times that the subject is an elective on most law school courses. Unlike most other branches of law, the scope and administration of which are constitutionally limited, immigration is plenary law - an area in which the government has absolute power and its actions are not subject to judicial review unless otherwise stated (going back to the Supreme court's decision in the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, holding that where aliens are concerned, only property rights are constitutionally protected and others may be revoked as the government sees fit). So the ability of the courts to entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus in immigration cases is quite limited (and defined by statute), and other kinds of legal action (eg certification of class action suits) are off-limits altogether. In cases where the jurisdiction of federal courts is at issue, the government often argues that the terms of a visa or similar document an agreement or bargain (but not a contract) between the US and the alien, formed outside the US for legal purposes. It is thus asserted to be a private matter between the government and the individual, outside the scope of judicial review. The Attorney General or the Director of Homeland Security has more or less absolute discretion in such cases. This leads to some odd outcomes. For example, if someone sneaks across the border and is later arrested and tried, they have full constitutional rights. If at any point they are handed over to DHS, they have the right to a hearing in front of an immigration judge (part of the DoJ) to determine their legal status, and can appeal any decisions to either a special immigration appeals court in DC and/or the federal courts (depending on exactly what the situation is). The same is approximately true of someone who overstays or commits a crime violating the terms of their visa. On the other hand, some 30 million people visit the US every year without a visa as tourists. If a DHS officer determines such a person has violated their conditions of entry they can be arrested and deported or detained pretty much at will, with no opportunity for a hearing at all (unless they claim asylum, which of course happens all the time as a result). The government's current view is that such persons have no constitutionally protected liberty interest, putting them outside Habeas Corpus altogether.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Well...South Korea is a narrow peninsula with a huge demilitarized zone between it and North Korea. Israel is also a small country and they have had some PR problems with their militaristic enforcement policies. India and China have a border dispute but are separated by the Himalayas, and also they both have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir is the cause of frequent violence. These are not good models for a ~2000 mile border with a basically friendly neighbor. Economic theory suggests that free trade works best if it includes labor markets.
GFischer 16y ago
I remember a National Geographic article about Israel's "fence": http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/12/bethlehem/finkel-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/12/bethlehem/finkel-t... during the discussion, Jewish coworkers who had lived in Israel at the time recalled that it was far from perfect.

hugh3 16y ago

So build a better fence! Ever heard of the Berlin Wall? OK, that was only through Berlin, but the East/West Germany border was apparently pretty successful. One thing that's way better than a fence: two fences, half a mile apart, with a minefield in between.

ryanelkins 16y ago
The Great Wall of China would be a better example. It's even twice as long as the fence that would be needed to cover the US-Mexico border. As effective as your idea is for trying to kill or maim people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves would be, I think it would run afoul of human rights issues.
- hugh3 16y ago
  people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves I'm not sure how the fact that they're attempting to provide a better life for themselves is supposed to be an excuse. Bank robbers are also attempting to provide a better life for themselves, too.
  - rationalbeaver 16y ago
    There is a difference between stealing money to fuel your greed and stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving. Or speeding for the thrill vs. speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital. His assertion is that illegal immigration often follows a similar pattern.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    Yeah, people should put some land-mines in front of that safe-deposit box.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I don't see a human rights problem with a well marked minefield between two fences. Anyone who wishes to avoid being blown up can pay attention to the "Warning: land mines" sign and not climb over the fence topped with barbed wire. Similarly, the zoo isn't violating your human rights if you ignore the "warning: bears" sign, swim through the moat, and then get eaten by the bears.