Who Wants a Border Fence?

David Weigel | October 3, 2006

Not people on the American side of the border.

Mexican shoppers are a major source of money for Texas border towns. Between 1978 and 2001, Mexican shoppers made 26 percent of all retail purchases in Brownsville, 35 percent in McAllen and 51 percent in Laredo, according to economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Local officials said more recent estimates are higher.

"The fence is a knee-jerk reaction by Congress. No one really studied the economic impacts, the environmental impacts," said Eddie Aldrete, senior vice president for the Laredo-based IBC Bank.

To Mike Allen, a former Catholic priest who helped the poor in Texas' Hidalgo County, then became a leading economic booster for the border region, the fence is a manifestation of politics at its ugliest.

Not people on the Mexican side of the border.

"The Mexican government strongly opposes the building of walls in the border area between Mexico and the United States," President Vicente Fox's spokesman Ruben Aguilar told reporters.

"This decision hurts bilateral relations, goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security on the common border, creates a climate of tension in border communities," he said.

Aguilar said Mexico would send a diplomatic note to Washington on Monday urging Bush to veto the bill, which requires the president's signature to become law.

Actually, it's people who don't share a border with Mexico.

When respondents were asked if they favored building a wall along the southern border of the United States to stop illegal immigration, 85 percent said yes; 8 percent said no; and 7 percent were undecided.

Mexican officials have their own economic reasons for opposing a border wall. But it's not surprising the strong support for an ugly wall plunked into the middle of a desert rises the further one gets from said ugly wall.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|10.3.06 @ 9:10AM|#

I don't have a link handy, but I recall seeing a couple of studies that show that opposition to immigration is negatively correlated with the % of immigrants in the respondant's area.

This news really isn't surprising.

|10.3.06 @ 9:26AM|#

but, but, but, but, but, but,

I only have a problem with illegal immigation.

The fact that there's no reason for this immigration to be illegal is not relevent.

|10.3.06 @ 10:06AM|#

Who Wants a Border Fence?
Not people on the American side of the border.

Yet another unsubstantiated, and probably false, claim.

http://www.smartbusinesspractices.com/polls.php

Eighty percent on Arizona voters favor penalizing businesses that hire illegal aliens.
KAET-TV and Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication poll, January 19-22, 2006

Eighty-six percent of Texans believe that U.S. businesses are contributing to the surge of illegal immigration by hiring undocumented workers.
Scripps Howard Texas poll, December 11, 2005

Eighty-three percent of Texans believe that businesses should identify and report undocumented immigrants.
Scripps Howard Texas poll, December 11, 2005

69 percent of Texans say the federal government is not doing enough to stop illegal immigration.
Scripps Howard Texas Poll, March 2004

Not people on the Mexican side of the border.
Just the Mexican people on the Mexican side of the border with Guatemala.

Reportero_|10.3.06 @ 10:07AM|#

A rather interesting newspaper column in Milenio (Mexico City) last Saturday figured coyotes would benefit most from the border wall. Every time the border becomes tougher to cross, the price human smugglers command jumps.

The fence also won't deter would be migrants from decamping rural Mexico, where opportunities are scant and the minimum wage in the formal economy is 45 pesos per day. Many workers in the countryside don't even earn that much.

|10.3.06 @ 10:13AM|#

Wow Le Mur, for someone that accusses reason of an unsubstansiated claim you threw out a whole lot of polls that don't say anything about a fence.

|10.3.06 @ 10:33AM|#

F Le Mur:
Obviously your post fails to list any polls asking questions about fences, so that's strike one. More importantly, I'm curious as to why Mexico's immigration policy with respect to Guatemala should guide our immigration policy. I suspect that if you flesh out your ideas on this issue, you'll realize that they are stupid as hell.

|10.3.06 @ 10:36AM|#

It makes economic sense that people away from the border are pro-fence. Those close to the border are receiving economic benefits from the border jumpers. This fact overshadows the negative effects for them.

And I suspect this effect only occurs in areas which are making money off the illegals. If you polled ranchers and landowners along the border you would probably get a different result.

Folks away from the border only perceive the negative effects and don�t see any economic benefits. Thus it makes perfect sense for them to be opposed to the border jumpers.

|10.3.06 @ 10:47AM|#

There is a difference between illegal immigration and routine border economic and social activity, but the poorly thought out reactions to the former are disrupting the latter. The towns mentioned in the study at least have designated border crossings in them. Smaller towns along the border where the governments have not placed official crossings have suffered since crackdowns on illegal immigration began in the late 90s and especially since 2001. Towns along the border used to share fire equipment; people shopped on both sides of the border, and people even worked legally on either side. Of course if your commute goes from ten minutes to four hours because your town doesn't have an official border crossing all that activity is gone. Even the world's only international golf hole (the Rio Grande was the water hazard) is defunct now.

Timothy|10.3.06 @ 11:21AM|#

There are two things in this world Mr. F. Lemur hates: employed brown people and unemployed brown people.

|10.3.06 @ 11:29AM|#

So now they're stealing my parking space at Walmart???

There are some basic necessities in life, such as American air, American water, American parking spaces at Walmart, and American screen-names, that when stolen by illegals, erode the moral fabric on which this country was built.

It is interesting that the closer something is to your 'backyard' the more opposed you are to it. For example , wind power along the east coast . Would seem to be good in that it would decrease demand for fossil fuel energy. But those who live there fight it tooth and nail even if it might be an overall good for America and it's citizens.

I'm not making a value judgement on a border fence, but proximity to the 'infrastructure' certainly biases a person's view as to whether a project is valuable and to be persued.

|10.3.06 @ 11:52AM|#

In other words, it's the people who hve never actually met a Mexican (or at least have never actually lnown a living, breathing, human being from that part of the world) are are most outspoken about keeping "those people" out of here.
Ya know, straw man-ish as it sounds, it makes perfect sense; bigotry works sooooooo much better from a distance.

|10.3.06 @ 12:17PM|#

No one is realy thinking this through. You could spend billions building an almost worthless piece of crap. It will be very expensive to maintain, finding and repairing the holes made by smugglers.

You can put all kinds of expensive sensors on it but then you need enough manpower to get to where the sensor is triggered in a respectable time. Arriving at the scene four hours after the sensor is triggered is useless, except to repair the hole they just cut to get through.

The bottom line, fence or no fence it's going to boil down to how many border guards are available to deal with the attempted crossings.

Even fences around prisons are only as good as the guards watching and the reaction force to stop the breakout.

Nothing but a big waste of money. But hey, that's what Congress does best.

|10.3.06 @ 12:18PM|#

I think the fence is a great ideal. Should have built it around 1960. Beter late than never.

|10.3.06 @ 12:40PM|#

test

|10.3.06 @ 12:41PM|#

"In other words, it's the people who hve never actually met a Mexican (or at least have never actually lnown a living, breathing, human being from that part of the world) are are most outspoken about keeping "those people" out of here."

Are you kidding? It's not "those people", it's generally- let's keep those hicks out.

I actually live in an immigrant community. Yesterday I stopped where an alley crossed a sidewalk. The hick behind me laid on her horn. When I flipped her off she rammed my car. When I got out of the car she started screaming cracker and go home you don't belong here- of course her kids were in the car. Three weeks ago I had a similar incident happen when I was on my bike. Unless you actually line in a community of immigrants (and not along the border- where the communities have a long history) you have no idea what you're talking about.

By the way- I'm part Portuguese, my grandfather was one of those brown people referenced so often here. Unfortunately he married a German woman and I didn't end up with the correct skin color.

|10.3.06 @ 12:48PM|#

So we're supposed to curb our national security because of what a small percentage of people with a financial interest have to say? I don't think so.

I think exactly the wrong people were interviewed.

|10.3.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Did you ever notice that flemur never responds to rebuttals? He takes the name of the blog very seriously.

|10.3.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Stupendous Man,

WTF are you talking about?

What is this community of immigrants in which you live? How is it different than border communities with a long history? How is Portuguese related to the issue?

Really, I am very confused about your points.

|10.3.06 @ 1:23PM|#

The community is different from border communities because there wasn't an large existing immigrant community- these are the people who are coming in currently. My point is that the community isn't a pleasant one.

I bring up the Portuguese because I'm tired of hearing the "You don't like brown people" rants. I come from brown people and still have issues with an open border policy.

|10.3.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Portuguese people are not brown.

|10.3.06 @ 1:47PM|#

"Portuguese people are not brown."

I guess my grandfather was from somewhere else? My father and his sisters will be overjoyed to learn that they don't have to carry the shame of a Portuguese heritage any longer. Thanks.

|10.3.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Yep all these people look lilly white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_Americans

|10.3.06 @ 2:42PM|#

why why why do people equate opposition to illegal immigration to bigotry?

yes this country was built by immigrants - while we were busy with a genocide against the native inhabitants. as we are currently done with the genocide we no longer need endless supplies of people to fill up the country.

the illegal immigrants are used as a tool of the capitalist elite to weaken the power of the underclasses who generally only have their labor to bargain with.

anyone that is middle class or lower should be strongly opposed to illegal immigration, as well as opposing the huge number of visas aportioned to the technology sector - there are plenty of unemployed american software engineers, we don't need to bring in more from outside the country.

supply and demand. increase the supply of labor and wages are depressed. its about as simple as it gets.

oh - yes i have been around illegal immigrants. i've worked the same jobs, and seen wages get depressed as more and more of them entered the labor market (PNW - tree planting). they were generally really good people. and i have no problems with them on a personal level. they are doing what they can to get ahead - just like me. however, our country can not be responsible for helping everybody.

ImmigrationMarchOrganizersHave|10.3.06 @ 2:50PM|#

Did we really need even more proof that you can't trust Reason and Dave Weigel? First, these articles are more or less simply ProIllegalImmigrationPropaganda. Try reading them with a critical eye next time.

And, the threat that Mexico made just seems to have gone right over their heads. Mexico says we need to have a "spirit of cooperation" in order to "guarantee security on the common border".

If you want lightweight open borders cheerleading, come here. If you want real analysis, try another site.

|10.3.06 @ 2:54PM|#

Wow. I never realized how much Ray Bolger looked like an emaciated Emeril Lagasse.

Yep all these people look lilly white.

You're right - they do look very white. So, stop saying things like (I'm paraphrasing here) "I feel the brown peoples' pain. I may not look it, but I AM ONE OF THEM, so it's cool to say they are dirty ignorant a-holes."
Have you ever lived anywhere where you did get along with your neighbors?

|10.3.06 @ 2:58PM|#

I live in California and share a border with Mexico and support building a wall. Out here in California people been screaming about the problems of illegals for at least a full decade before it became a fashionable political subject in 2005.

But I know that having a wall is not 100%. I don't think you will ever be at 100%. But you need to make movements in securing our border and having a wall up in place is more of a deterant to illegals than not having one up at all.

But it shouldn't stop at just building a wall, we do need better monitoring of our borders, we need to financially punish people who hire illegal to the point that they will think twice about it, and we need to change the 14th Amendment.

|10.3.06 @ 3:02PM|#

I agree with both Z and LoneWacko. We should build a 30 foot high concrete wall across all of the desert southwest. Then, to make products at a more cost effective rate, companies should export both our agriculture and our manufacturing to Mexico. Sure, it will mean hundreds of millions of American's without jobs but at least a T-shirt will ony cost them a buck!

|10.3.06 @ 3:08PM|#

StupendousMan,

I want to add that I do not mean to accuse you of racism. I just found your comments sort of silly.

Sincerely,

|10.3.06 @ 3:34PM|#

why why why do people equate opposition to illegal immigration to bigotry?

Because what makes someone an immigrant or not with respect to the United States is a complete accident of birth: on which side of a line on a map they were born. It's exactly like all those other accidents of birth such as race, creed, sex, or religion.

Yet while discrimination is discouraged -- if not legally prohibited! -- on those other circumstances of birth, it is mandated in the case of where one was born.

When black South Africans were used as "a tool of the capitalist elite to weaken the power of the underclasses who generally only have their labor to bargain with," the reaction by white labor resulted in Apartheid.

Making immigration illegal or controlled by quota is nothing but apartheid on a larger stage.

|10.3.06 @ 4:00PM|#

mikep states : "Making immigration illegal or controlled by quota is nothing but apartheid on a larger stage."

Allowing anyone in who just shows up is anarchy. Why have any rules or regulations at all? Why do you feel a nations sovereignty means nothing and can be ignored?

|10.3.06 @ 4:07PM|#

mikep states : "Making immigration illegal or controlled by quota is nothing but apartheid on a larger stage."

Allowing anyone in who just shows up is anarchy. Why have any rules or regulations at all? What right do you have to ignore/castigate a nations sovereignty?

|10.3.06 @ 4:09PM|#

supply and demand. increase the supply of labor and wages are depressed. its about as simple as it gets.

The supply of labor in the US increased by a factor of three in the last century. Yet the mass of workers in the US today are living far better than the mass of workers a hundred years ago.

So apparently that's not about as simple as it gets. The economy is not a zero-sum place...

|10.3.06 @ 4:18PM|#

I just don't like line-jumping cheaters and don't care what color they are. Let them get in line behind the millions of poeple all over world that are trying to get into the USA legally.

I'm not the guy you want to have around if you try to cut in line at the movies - I literally scream for the management. I think that line-jumpers are kicked out at Disney World.

|10.3.06 @ 4:29PM|#

mikep : "The supply of labor in the US increased by a factor of three in the last century. Yet the mass of workers in the US today are living far better than the mass of workers a hundred years ago."

That would be because they are more productive? To say that an increase in labor won't decrease wages shows a severe lack of economic sense.

The good news being is that I can ignore the bleatings of those who say American labor is held down under the boot of capitalist pigs huh?

|10.3.06 @ 4:38PM|#

To say that an increase in labor won't decrease wages shows a severe lack of economic sense.

Uh-oh! Get ready. Here it comes! Economist pile-on!!

The good news being is that I can ignore the bleatings of those who say American labor is held down under the boot of capitalist pigs huh?

Well, duh!

|10.3.06 @ 6:02PM|#

Wow Le Mur, for someone that accusses reason of an unsubstansiated claim you threw out a whole lot of polls that don't say anything about a fence.
Obviously your post fails to list any polls asking questions about fences, so that's strike one.

I guess I have to fill in the details for the slower students.

1 - Weigal's[sic] original post didn't even say anything about a poll except one Georgia, supposedly representing the entire non-border US; as for border dwellers, apparently he thinks his sample of a couple of peoples' opinions is statistically meaningful. I beg to differ.

2 - The polls about other illegal immigration issues (employers, welfare and such) don't vary much according to geographic region. Why should opinions about a fence be different?

If someone has polling information regarding fences vs geographic location, I'd be happy to see it. (If it has more than two or three samples, anyway.)

FWIW, I don't favor a border wall, but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing fools imply that the opinions of a couple of people are indicative of any national or geographic trends.

There are two things in this world Mr. F. Lemur hates: employed brown people and unemployed brown people.

Timothy made me laff! 'Tards are sometimes amusing in their own special way.

More importantly, I'm curious as to why Mexico's immigration policy with respect to Guatemala should guide our immigration policy.

I didn't say that it should. Mexico doesn't support any sort of open-borders policy when they share a border with a poorer country, but they do support it when they share a border with a wealthier country.
IOW, "This decision hurts bilateral relations ... blah blah blah" only applies in one direction, so quoting Mexico's official 'n' hypocritical opinions on im/(e)migration is rather silly, isn't it?

Also FWIW, a couple of months ago I was in the nasty little pit known as Juarez, and there were plenty of shoppers carrying bags of groceries from the US into Mexico. They just walk or drive right across the bridges.

|10.3.06 @ 6:03PM|#

What right do you have to ignore/castigate a nations sovereignty?

A state has the legitimate authority to control immigration for reasons of compelling state interest. Examples of those who might legitimately not be allowed to cross the border are armies, terrorists, foreign agents, felons, and carriers of communicable diseases.

However, those looking for a job or a place to live -- who, not incidentally, constitute approximately 100% of the immigrants and illegal immigrants today -- cannot legitimately be denied their rights to labor or to travel. And citizens and residents within the United States who want to live or trade with these potential immigrants cannot legitimately be denied their rights to free association.

Open borders are not a threat to national sovereignty ...unless national sovereignty is defined as, "Can trample individual rights with impunity."

|10.3.06 @ 6:05PM|#

"Have you ever lived anywhere where you did get along with your neighbors?"

Actually I'm quite friendly with many of the older folks in my neighborhood and non-screaming people of all ages.

I outlined my ancestry to show that I'm aware of the evils of racism. In fact immediate family members have felt it's sting.

"so it's cool to say they are dirty ignorant a-holes"

You obviously have no idea how most people in the world operate.

|10.3.06 @ 6:06PM|#

Why all the fuss? They voted for a fence, but so what, they didn?t vote any money to pay for it.

So why all the fuss?

Anyway, don?t we need chicken cutter-uppers so KFC can keep us in McNuggets.

I live in Vermont, and I?m not worried nearly as much about illegal Messican immigrants as I am about the New Orleans blacks moving in and running prices up with all the free Katrina money.

I saw my first one yesterday, and by golly they really are black, aren?t they? What will our kids do if they have to go to school with them?

Does that make me a rasist, or just admitting to being worried about losing my freedoms in the name of diversity by somebody else's definition?

|10.3.06 @ 6:07PM|#

To say that an increase in labor won't decrease wages shows a severe lack of economic sense.

What you say may hold strictly within one job. And by 'strictly', I mean strictly: no opportunities for leverage with an increased number of workers to use different skills productively or to mechanize some of the work.

However, in anything but this trivially basic economy, new supplies of labor means greater division of labor, resulting in higher productivity and higher wages. Granted, the economy must be free enough to be able to allocate its capital to employ the new labor productively. But examples of the things that make an economy free are free labor and free migration.

Interestingly, immigration is even better than other mechanisms for increasing the labor supply. If the economy is depressed and is unable to employ new labor, immigrants don't immigrate. You can't say the same for children growing to adulthood.

|10.3.06 @ 6:48PM|#

You obviously have no idea how most people in the world operate.

Do you mean they operate as "dirty ignorant a-holes"? Seriously, what do you mean? The anecdote you related about stopping your car in the alley makes you sound like a bit of a jerk. I'm not defending the lady who rammed you and called you a cracker, but the first thing you do when someone honks their car horn at you is flip them off? Why not just brush it off and drive off on your very cautious way? I just got honked at when pulling out of an alley the other day. The other driver was driving past me on the street I was pulling onto. When pulling out of the alley, I always stop once at the sidewalk, then pull out past the sidewalk where I can see the street traffic better and stop again. Caution is good for you & me, kids. Anyway, the dip in the minivan must have thought I was going to pull out without seeing him. I thought, "Hey, dumbass, I see you. No need to honk. You're annoying me," but I didn't flip him off or yell. If you are ready to toss out obscene gestures at the slightest provocation, maybe that's why you don't get along with so many of your neighbors.
Why must such a StupendousMan be filled with so much anger? Is it the Portuguese blood?

|10.3.06 @ 7:07PM|#

"I saw my first one yesterday, and by golly they really are black, aren?t they? What will our kids do if they have to go to school with them?

Does that make me a rasist, or just admitting to being worried about losing my freedoms in the name of diversity by somebody else's definition?"

You need to confab with stupendousMan.

This has to be the strangest set of posts on this topic I have ever seen. Do people not see how it sounds to others when they talk this way? How does having people move to your town threaten your freedom?

Pinche Pendejos are not in short supply in our fine country.

|10.3.06 @ 7:22PM|#

Well, it seems that ideas here are like the people here. All sizes and shapes, and just as fixed as fenced posts.

Here's something different. It's from a military blogsite. It looks good, , , , until . . . . .

>>>>>Bring all our troops home from Iraq to guard our Southern border. When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a canteen, rifle, and some ammo and ship him to Iraq.

Tell him if he wants to come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it. After his tour, he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country. He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot. This option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for themselves.

If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway without the canteen, rifle, or ammo. Problem solved. (It's a longer hike back to the border from over there than from Mexico.)>>>>>

|10.3.06 @ 8:39PM|#

Neu Mejican -

I'm not positive, but I think Green Mountaineer was attempting a joke.

|10.3.06 @ 9:50PM|#

Actually, I heard a small businessman on the Texas-Mexico border talking about how business is going there. In one word, terrible. Why? Because all of the whites have fled, shopping at malls farther north. So yes, Mexicans and illegals make a lot of the purchases along the border, but that doesn't mean the shopkeepers are better off.

|10.3.06 @ 11:10PM|#

I am forced to retract my earlier comment regarding flemur. I would also like to say that, in his rebuttal, for the first time he sounds like a reasonable person.

Mr. F. Le Mur,
Did you find love today? or did it find you?

|10.4.06 @ 8:40AM|#

"However, those looking for a job or a place to live -- who, not incidentally, constitute approximately 100% of the immigrants and illegal immigrants today -- cannot legitimately be denied their rights to labor or to travel. And citizens and residents within the United States who want to live or trade with these potential immigrants cannot legitimately be denied their rights to free association."

Sure they can, in fact they are denied the "right" to travel by the law. You might pine for a place where there are no international borders, but your fantasy is just, well, a fantasy.

You can't go down to Old Mexico and work, or send your kids to the public school, or be treated at the public health clinic.

What racists those Mexicans are. They are denying us our right to go south of the border and help ourselves to their goodies. They seem to hate two things down there, employeed whities and unemployed whities.

|10.4.06 @ 10:34AM|#

I think that line-jumpers are kicked out at Disney World.

When you think of INS "lines" , don't think of Disney World, think of the worst DMV experience you have ever had and multiply by ten. You will still not have gotten to how terrible the experience is for even the most preferred class of immigrant; ie, the spouse of an American citizen. That class has no quota but it can still take years for such a person to get a visa after applying.

The quota for unskilled labor is 5000 per year and that is for the entire world. This country absorbs tens of thousands of unskilled immigrants a year and the major problem they have is because of the arbitrary illegality of their situation*. This illegality leaves them open to exploitation by both employers and the government. Not to mention tha fact that it makes any meaningful assimilation impossible. And also makes return to their homelands more difficult, hence making them stay for longer times**.

The pitifully small quota means that there are not even any lines to jump in any meaningful sense.

*A condition they share with drug users.

**A significant number of immigrants have no real desire to become permanent residents. They would just as soon return home after making some money. It would probably be far better if they could do so openly with access to meaningful social networks that would mitigate many of the problems that come with itinerant populations.

|10.4.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Sure they can, in fact they are denied the "right" to travel by the law.

Well, yes. Of course they "can". Governments can do lots of things. They can imprison you and take away your children because you consume an unapproved substance. They can enforce slavery in pre-Thirteenth Amendment America. They can impose apartheid and make it illegal for members of certain classes of residents to work or travel without a permit. They can even round up everyone whose last name begins with the letter 'C' and deport them, with due process of law of course.

That's why I included the modifier "legitimately". One hopes that there is some normative control on what governments can do. Securing the unalienable rights of individuals, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is a pretty good delineation of the legitimate powers of government.

|10.4.06 @ 11:24AM|#

"How does having people move to your town threaten your freedom?"

I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I'm moved to THEIR town. Get it? I'm not welcome. You won't be either. I doesn't matter where you come from or what you look like, group identity has a strong pull. If you're not part of the group you're other. I'm waiting for that much talked about assimilation with baited breath.

"If you are ready to toss out obscene gestures at the slightest provocation"

Um... These are common occurrences- and she had been on the horn behind me the whole alley. I stopped because there were kids walking to school on that sidewalk.

Not responding to boorish and/or aggressive behavior only emboldens those who act in those ways. Your meekness adds to the very climate you dislike.

|10.4.06 @ 11:34AM|#

My earlier posts were meant to illustrate that we're not all going to be one big happy family. Predicted economic growth is only one of many factors that should be considered when looking at opening the boreders.

|10.4.06 @ 11:54AM|#

"Securing the unalienable rights of individuals, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is a pretty good delineation of the legitimate powers of government."

So, you think Jefferson believed that states had no right to regulate their borders? Even if Jeffeson did believe such, which I doubt that is no reason to open US borders today. The world and the budding US were a very different place in Jefferson's time.

|10.4.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Of course states have the legitimate power (not the right) to regulate their borders. The comment of mine that you first responded to says exactly that.

As for what Jefferson thought, he told us in that very same document, though I grant that his enthusiasm for immigration was likely a product of his time...

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

You should also note that the federal government is not even empowered by the Constitution to control immigration or residence. Its only power in this regard is "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization".

|10.4.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Not responding to boorish and/or aggressive behavior only emboldens those who act in those ways. Your meekness adds to the very climate you dislike.

So we should follow her example of how to behave? She honks. You make obscene gesture. She rams you. I think it follows that you should have stabbed her. Escalate, escalate, escalate. Have you considered applying for a job with the DOD?

I have found that ignoring boorish behavior or responding by being firmly civil is the best response.

|10.4.06 @ 10:15PM|#

A lot of people keep saying that a fence won't work. That it's a waste of money. Well, what proof do they have that a fence won't work? Are they just parroting what those who are afraid that a fence WILL work are saying?

The facts are that there are only about 83 miles of fence on the southern border. About 69 miles are in disrepair and can be easily breached. The 14 mile Duncan Hunter 15' multi layer tightly woven mesh fence, with a 2 lane BP highway between layers, built near San Diego is a different story. This new fence is extremely tough, and resists cutting. Attacking the fence would have to be done right out in the open, in full view of cameras. This type of fence will give the USBP a barrier to patrol, instead of forcing them to chase illegals around 100,000 square miles of wide-open country, which is a fool's errand. This modern multiple fence system built near San Diego has caused CROSSINGS BY ILLEGALS TO DROP TO ALMOST NIL.

It takes fewer BP to guard this fence leaving more BP to guard the open areas. Illegals will have difficulty going over, through and under the fence. They will more likely go around the fence where the BP will be waiting.

Fences do work.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements