.45acp
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
As opposed to the interests of construction companies who stand to benefit from the construction of a giant fence, which would cost as much to maintain as any other solution (except all the maintenance dollars go to back to the construction sector instead of elsewhere) due to the fact that, without constant patrolling, such a fence will be easily spot-demolished wherever a border crossing is otherwise convenient. To say nothing about its utter inefficacy against smuggling which occurs A: through tunnels B: across border checkpoints thanks to corruption (still exists, you know) or the plain chance of being undetected, and C: smuggling across water routes.
A fence will not change the fundamental market force which is driving immigration. All it will do is move migrants around the fence (they don't bother for now because it remains the most convenient), or encourage them to bring inexpensive supplies sufficient to demolish the fence enough to enable the easy surmounting of the remaining concrete structure.
Seriously, government can't beat markets. It's virtually impossible. There is more money (thus incentive) in markets than ever will be wielded by government, since government wealth must necessarily be a subset of total wealth, as government cannot create wealth and must instead appropriate it.
I can tell that you know little about the engineering and construction business. But that aside. You are right, we will not stop ALL illegals or ALL smuggling....but a properly designed fence would stop 95 % of overland routes. Air and water routes are used now, as are tunnels but the majority is overland traffic. Does it not make sense to shut that down as much as possiable?
I do not disagree with your market driven immigration. We need to place fines and jail time for employers that hire illegals.
Steve
marshaul wrote:
As opposed to the interests of construction companies who stand to benefit from the construction of a giant fence, which would cost as much to maintain as any other solution (except all the maintenance dollars go to back to the construction sector instead of elsewhere) due to the fact that, without constant patrolling, such a fence will be easily spot-demolished wherever a border crossing is otherwise convenient. To say nothing about its utter inefficacy against smuggling which occurs A: through tunnels B: across border checkpoints thanks to corruption (still exists, you know) or the plain chance of being undetected, and C: smuggling across water routes.
A fence will not change the fundamental market force which is driving immigration. All it will do is move migrants around the fence (they don't bother for now because it remains the most convenient), or encourage them to bring inexpensive supplies sufficient to demolish the fence enough to enable the easy surmounting of the remaining concrete structure.
Seriously, government can't beat markets. It's virtually impossible. There is more money (thus incentive) in markets than ever will be wielded by government, since government wealth must necessarily be a subset of total wealth, as government cannot create wealth and must instead appropriate it.
I can tell that you know little about the engineering and construction business. But that aside. You are right, we will not stop ALL illegals or ALL smuggling....but a properly designed fence would stop 95 % of overland routes. Air and water routes are used now, as are tunnels but the majority is overland traffic. Does it not make sense to shut that down as much as possiable?
I do not disagree with your market driven immigration. We need to place fines and jail time for employers that hire illegals.
Steve