In Texas, Little Support for Putting Up Fences

[Rose Siding]

snip>
"That's just a big waste of money," said Vickers, a Texas Republican activist who heads a group opposed to illegal immigration that until recently was the state branch of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
...
Many expressed shock that a proposal they considered a pipe dream by pandering Washington politicians had been approved, and that a fence they likened to the Berlin Wall could soon separate them from their neighbors.

"For so many years, we talked about tearing down that wall. Now we want to build a wall between us and Mexico? It makes us look like hypocrites," said Denise Carreon, 21, who like many border residents still had family members to the south.

Many others expressed outrage that the Rio Grande, a near-mystical river in the Texas imagination and one of the most prized bird-watching spots in North America, could soon be blocked from view.

"Zero — that's how many people I know who support this. People are opposed from Brownsville to El Paso," said Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, head of a group of frontier leaders called the Texas Border Coalition.
...
Ray M. Keck III, the president of Texas A&M International University in Laredo, said the idea of building a wall to deter immigrants ignored the lessons of history, which clearly showed that such barriers do not work unless they are patrolled by soldiers willing to kill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-border1oct01,0,2480408.story?coll=la-home-nation

[babylonsister]

1. I'm with those Texans. This huge, expensive band-aid

isn't going to fix the problem.

[rodeodance]

9. hey---you soft on terror?

just joking. it was a stupid idea when it first came up and is more stupid now.

[Joanne98]

2. Well. Republicans are ALWAYS the ones letting them in MIHOP!

Something the stupid conservative voters NEVER figure out. Republicans MAKE MONEY off SLAVE LABOR! Of course they don't want a wall. They just want to PRETEND they're against illegal immigration. Just like Foley fighting child molesters. They're all FRAUDS!

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Absolutely. Texas benefits more than any other state... n/t

[aquart]

4. Texas crops will die in the fields.

Geniuses.

[acmejack]

5. What crops?

We need some rain, the lake we use as our reservoir is down 20 feet..

[rodeodance]

6. good, I hope they put all out and fight this!

[rodeodance]

7. "Are we really so terrified of what might come from Mexico," he asked,

"Are we really so terrified of what might come from Mexico," he asked, "that we must spend billions to construct this wall, then billions to maintain it, at a time when healthcare and education so desperately need better funding?"

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

"It is just so sad that the relationships we have worked years to build are being torn down by politicians in Washington, who quite frankly don't have any idea what they are doing," Allen said.

"I'll say it: It's the browning of America, and people are afraid of that. That's what this is all about. I have lived on the border most of my life. I'm not scared."

[rodeodance]

8. "The Rio Grande is a very historic and scenic place,

..."The Rio Grande is a very historic and scenic place, one of the natural treasures of Texas. We're going to wall it off?"

As Congress approved building the fence, it was hard to find a South Texas politician, merchant, economic analyst or academic who believed a wall would work — and who did not consider it an insult to the people of Mexico, with whom the region shares a strong social and economic bond, especially since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"I am reminded of when Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross and he said, 'Father, forgive them because they know not what they do,' " said Richard Cortez, the mayor of McAllen, which became one of the fastest-growing areas in America after NAFTA.

[rodeodance]

10. I would love to see a HUGE crowd oppose this fense!

[bluestateguy]

11. Rich Texans like exploiting illegal immigrant labor

so anti-immigrant sentiment is not real strong there. At least they are consistent.

[Bridget Burke]

31. Most of the Texans opposing the Wall are not "rich"....

But what do I know? I don't live in Michigan.

[bluestateguy]

32. I lived in Texas for 8 years

1998-2006. I just moved here a month and a half ago.

[VegasWolf]

12. "Mr. Bush, tear down that WALL!" nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. The majority of our 40% of Dems here are in South Texas

South Texas is very blue. My family there are not pleased and say that their friends feel the same way.

[Cleita]

14. The Great Wall of China didn't keep out the Mongols.

Neither the Iron Curtain, nor the Berlin Wall kept in those who wanted to escape. The cyclopean walls of Troy didn't keep out the Greeks. If you want a parable from mythology this is it.

It's a baaad, baaad idea all along and is only as effective as putting a band aid on an oozing wound. We need to get to the root of the problem and come up with some common sense non-racist solutions that will benefit all on both sides of the issue.

[aquart]

20. I forget. Did Hadrian's Wall intimidate the Scots?

[Cleita]

25. There's a rumor that Hadrian built the wall to keep his legions

stationed in Britain busy and because he really didn't want to conquer Scotland.

[happyslug]

41. Some people compare Hadrian's wall to the Berlin Wall

I.e. that the purpose was to keep Britons IN Britain and outside of the land of the Picts (The Scots did not move into right is now Scotland till AFTER the Withdraw of the Roman Legions in 410 AD).

In fact the construction of the wall implies such a use, a barrier to prevent people climbing over the wall. In fact along the land SOUTH of the Wall ran a series of trenches with what we would all booby traps and an access road to direct all traffic to the Forts along the Wall.

The Berlin wall was similar, the tall wall we all remember was actually the LAST line of defense behind a series of other barriers that restricted travel to the wall. In fact no one was along near the wall, and in the rural areas of East Germany, only people with security clearance were aloud within miles of the fence between East Germany and West Germany.

Now Pius Wall (Build about a generation later 20 miles to the north of Hadrian's Wall) seems to have performed a similar function, but retaining Hadrian's wall as SOUTHERN border of the Border Area. After Pius's death the Legions reverted back to Hadrian's wall, but they are indications that Pius's wall was maintained but this time as a final barrier to anyone moving NORTH. People in the area between the Walls had to have special permits to be they, i.e. people of known loyalty to the Roman Army, just like the people living next to the Berlin Wall in Berlin and the West of East Germany.

South of Hadrian wall seems to have been an area forbidden to anyone not tied in with the Roman Legions manning the Wall, again like the Berlin Wall. Thus Hadrian's Wall seems to have been a Barrier to keep people IN as opposed to keeping people out.

[kineneb]

21. It will be another Maginot Line

and probably as effective. End run, anyone.

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

[Cleita]

23. Of course. There is still a way to enter by sea and by air.

I worked with undocumented aliens who entered by air on visitor's visas.

[w4rma]

22. Horrible example. The Great Wall did keep out the Mongols, but it worked

through deterrence rather than the most obvious way. The Mongols would be able to easily enter China and pillage a village or two, but the Great Wall kept them from escaping back to Mongolia with their loot.

They would pillage a village and Chinese soldiers would find out and then be waiting for the raiding party at the Great Wall. So the raids dropped in number drastically because the raiders knew that they would probably not be able to leave China with their pillaged loot.

Our illegal immigration problem should be handled through deterrence, also. The government needs to quit looking the other way when buisnesses hire illegals for cheap labor.

[Cleita]

24. So does this explain how the Kublai Kahn a relative of Genghis,

who were both Mongols with hordes, conquered China and became it's emperor? Remember Kublai? He was the emperor of China when Marco Polo voyaged there. I think this was more than pillaging a few villages.

[w4rma]

26. Because Kublai Kahn didn't leave with his loot. He overran and stayed.(nt)

[Cleita]

27. Yes, but the point is that he breeched the wall and was

only one of many who did.

[w4rma]

28. As I said before. Raiding parties were always able to "breach" the wall.

It's getting back to Mongolia, past the wall in the other direction with their pillaged loot, that was the problem.

[Cleita]

35. There is no point in having a wall then. Is there?

My post was about the ineffectiveness of walls and I think I proved my point. You say a wall works even if it can be breached. (btw Thanks for the spelling lesson. We all know how smart you are.) If a wall can be breached in either direction coming or going, it's ineffective and today there are other ways of avoiding the wall altogether, especially by sea and by air not to mention tunneling. Did you see in the news the tunnel they found that the drug cartels had built? Even though that one is out of commission, I'm sure there are many more in use and even being dug as I type this.

[happyslug]

43. The wall was EFFECTIVE in keeping people in

Which is seems was the purpose of the wall. Remember Walls do NOT keep Armies out, that is NEVER their intentions when walls are built on the border. Walls are built on the border to restrict PEOPLE as opposed to ARMIES from crossing the Border. Most times to keep people in, but also to keep people out.

[w4rma]

46. I'm not convinced the Great Wall of China didn't help against raids.

By keeping the raiding parties inside China, during the years that Northern China wasn't controlled by the "barbarians".

happyslug brought up some interesting information in his post that intrigues me. I'm going to keep an open mind about the subject and do some research.

Btw, I didn't mean for that to appear that I was correcting your spelling. I actually didn't notice that you had misspelled breach. I had used the quotes to emphasize its context and continue the use of the word from your post to mine.

Thanks.

[happyslug]

42. Actually the Mongols conquered China from the West.

The Mongols, under Kabul Khan (Great Khan, 1261-1294), did cross the Wall and it was not much of a barrier, but the final conquest of China by the Mongols involved first taking Xizang (Tibet) and Xinjiang and then sending the Mongol Armies down the Huang He, Chang Jiang (Yangtze) and XI (Pearl) River. Thus the Great Wall was bypassed, but only after the Mongols already controlled BOTH Sides of the wall. The wall was just NOT a factor in the Conquest of China. Previous to Kabul Khan's Conquest, other Barbarians had conquered Northern China but Never Southern China (And this include Genghis Khan who was the first "Great Khan" and lived from 1162 to 1227 AD).

Furthermore when the Mongols first invaded under Genghis Khan, previous invaders were ruling North China and the Wall was in Dis-repair for the invading barbarians did not need the wall. The wall was last re-built by the Ming Dynasty in the 1600s after the Ming had driven out the Mongols. The Manchus succeeded the Ming and maintained the Wall claiming decedent from the last Ming Emperor. Under the Manchus the wall again fell into disrepair for the Manchus ruled NORTH of the wall (Through some efforts seems to have maintained it).

Remember this act, a wall can be designed for two things, to keep people out, and to keep people in. When a country fears in invasion it builds walls forts to protect its troops, but these tend to be 20-30 miles behind the border (Following Napoleon's famous observation, troops on the border can keep down smuggling, but the worse way to defend from an invasion). On the other hand if you want to keep people IN, a wall can be effective barrier, if it is the LAST thing people have to climb to get OUT of the Country. The first Great Wall was built by the First Emperor, supposedly to keep barbarians OUT, but given his crudity that seems to be more of an excuse than the reason. The real reason seems to have been to keep people IN and like Hadrian's wall in the Roman Empire this seems to have been its main function.

More on the Mongols and the Conquest of China:
http://www.enotes.com/china-text/72507
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/history/yuan.htm

Great Mongol Empire:
1162 The child Temujin, later to become Chinggis Khan, is born
1189 Temujin takes the title of Chinggis Khan(Universal King)
1189 to 1205 Chinggis Khan unites Mongols
1206 Chinggis Khan proclaims himself ruler Of the Mongol Empire
1211 Chinggis Khan launches attacks to China
1215 Khanbalik (Beijing) falls to the Mongols
1227 Chinggis Khan dies
1129 Ogedei Khan, Chinggis’s third and favourite son, proclaimed the second khan
1231 Korea invaded
1235 Karakorum built by Ogedei Khan
Marco Polo arrives in Karakorum

1236 to 1240 Campaigns against Russia by Bat Khan, little son of Chinggis Khan, with his Golden Horde
1237 Start of campaigns to Russia and Europe (battle of the river Kalka) that was halted at Vienna with death of Ogedei
1240 to 1480 Suzerainty over Russia established by Golden Horde
Conquest of Song China

1241 Dead of Ogedei
1241 to 1242 Poland and Hungarn invaded
1246 Guyuk, son of Ogedei, becomes Khan, he dies that year
1251 Mongke (Monkh) from another wing of the family becomes Khan
1251 Iran invaded
1259 Dead of Mongke, his brother Kublai becomes Khan
1260 Mongols defeated by Egyptian Mamluks

1261 Khubilai becomes great khan
1264 Capital moved from Karakorum to Khanbalik (Beijing)
1274 and 1281 Unsuccessful attempts at invasion of Japan
1275 Marco Polo arrives in China
1276 Hangzhou, capital of Song China falls to the Mongols
1279 Kublai Khan, Chinggis Khan’s grandson, completes the conquest of China
1294 Kublai Khan dies
1299 Mongol invasion of Syria
1368 Mongols driven out of China ,Yuan Dynasty destroyed
http://www.e-mongol.com/mongolia_history.htm#great%20mongolian%20empire

[Cleita]

47. This does not negate the fact that walls neither keep people in

or out. Of course there is always a way around a wall, which is why they are a stupid expense to begin with. The reason I threw the legend of Troy into this mix is because the tale shows that no wall will keep out a determined and clever foe. My point is that none of those walls really fulfilled their purpose in the end.

Also, walls were originally built around settlements in the past to keep out wild animals in order to protect the livestock. None of those ancient wall builders had any illusions that they would keep out armies or even common variety pillagers.

[happyslug]

44. The Berlin Wall kept most people in.

The Berlin wall was NOT design to keep everyone in, that would be impossible, but after the wall went out the number of people crossing from East to West went from a daily average measured in the Thousands to be measured in single digits per month and even per year. Thus the Berlin wall did what its builders wanted it to do (at least till the fall of the Soviet Union when such movement was again permitted).

[struggle4progress]

15. The border is beautiful, arid, and fragile. Building this wall will do ..

.. enormous damage, not only to the aesthetics of the landscape but also to the desert flora which will certainly not recover for hundreds of years ...

[Gman]

16. No thought has gone into this beyond politics

Perfect example of how Congress has accomplished absolutely nothing this year.

[juajen]

17. It was either build a fence, or

address the real problem; that is, the fat cat corporatists who make billions on the backs of illegal immigrants and people who could do the job for a fair wage. Fine the *holes in the millions and their huge profits are busted.

[w4rma]

29. Exactly. The fence is just for show. The GOP didn't even fund it. (nt)

[UTUSN]

18. K&R for UNsmart investment a BILLION DOWN PAYMENT?? n/t

[depakid]

19. Yet another sell out

I wonder what the DINO count was this time?

[fleabert]

30. see? Texans can be real smart sometimes, even republican ones!

but I ain't a republican...

;-)

that wall will NEVER get built in TX, that is for sure. If they don't want it, it wont happen. They'll just secede like the state constitution says...

[Javaman]

33. Simple solution to the illegals...

Impose very heavy fines on the people who hire them and enforce them with the same zeal that is going into this stupid ass fence.

With the way things are going, is the fence to keep illegals out or to keep us in?

[pampango]

34. I am in favor of maintaining the current flow of immigrants,

and just making it legal. I know that will never happen.

Many here want a crackdown on employers that will eliminate the demand for immigrant labor. This will never happen either, even under a Democratic president, for obvious political reasons (courting the Hispanic vote, paying off employers who are campaign contributors).

Maybe I am the last to figure this out, but I starting to understand that arguing for a crackdown on employers, but not border enforcement, is the best way to maintain the status quo which I favor for humanitarian reasons.

[Javaman]

36. I'm not saying it's an either or sort of thing...

I just think that enforcing fines on employers should go hand in hand with more effective border security. Under Clinton there were over 700 fines to employers that hired illegals, under morons* reign of terror there have been 3.

[pampango]

38. I see what you mean.

This fence will never work, if it even built in the first place.

There was plenty of illegal immigration under Clinton and an "amnesty" (which I was and still am in favor of). I just don't see there being any consensus, even among DU'ers, in favor of a great crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants. There is a lot of sympathy for them, both on humanitarian grounds and in terms of their contributions to the US economy.

Unless and until there is great progress in Mexico (how long will that take?), I really don't see much changing in the level of illegal immigration into the US. As I mentioned, for tactical reasons so it looks like I am in favor of doing "something" about illegal immigration, I am leaning towards a public stance of "Crack down on the employers and leave the poor immigrants alone."

[Javaman]

39. I agree, fences, walls, barriers are a perceived solution to a

deeper issue that actually requires thought and diplomacy.

I prescribe to "mending fences" by Robert Frost. :)

[primavera]

40. Well said

Like so many other public policy issues, immigration is inextricably interwined with about a bazillion other issues. What so frustrates me about the immigration debate is not so much that there's a restrictionist aspect to it - reasonable people can, after all, differ on how big a priority regulating migration is - but the childish expectation that the whole problem can be solved simply by just sealing the borders and political corruption and lack of will are the only things standing between us and the obvious solution to the whole problem. Such simplistic notions haven't even begun to take into account the far-reaching implications of such a step, to the rule of law, to the global human rights climate, to the economy, to our trade balance, to our foreign relations with the rest of the world, to the enviroment, the ripple effects would go on endlessly. It seems so irresponsible to clamour for a response that would not only not solve the problem, but would make so many other problems worse.

[Cleita]

37. Fining the employers was a rhetorical solution put forth by those

of us who were trying to get the "round 'em up and deport 'em" mentality that has defined this complicated issue a new idea to think about. It's really not a solution. The employers will not suffer from this because they can afford to hire the lawyers that will keep them out of trouble and the politicians who will write loopholes in the laws addressing this.

The real solution is to legalize these immigrants so that they don't lower wages and live in the shadows without any rights. This is how the employers like it especially the ones who hire domestic help. If they have to hire these people on the same basis and under the same laws that they have to hire American workers, you will see fewer jobs going to the immigrants and therefore fewer immigrants.

This is the solution, but the xenophobia of the anti-immigration crowd won't let them see that this is the solution.

[happyslug]

45. Can we build an effective wall?

The answer is YES, but will we? How would I design such a wall? First get the the Mexican states along the Southern Border of the US to Declare themselves independent of Mexico (The Rio Grande Valley did this right after the Battle of San Jacito, but Sam Houston sent his Texas Rangers to re-take the Rio Grande as the Souther Border of Texas). These include the Mexican States of:
Baja California Norte (South of California)
Baja California Sur (South of Baja California Norte)
Sonora (South of Arizona)
Chihuahua (South of New Mexico)
Coahuila (South of El Paso and West Texas)
Nuevo Leon (between Chihuahua and Tamaulipas).
Tamaulipas (South of Brownsville along the Gulf of Mexico).

Once these states declare themselves Independent, you divide them into two states, One the Nation of the Rio Grande, consisting of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas. To show US opposition to just taking this land from Mexico leave the new nation the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas and New Mexico up to but not including Albuquerque(Unless we can get the people of New Mexico to agree to going to the new Nation, but the Navajos might object)). This new Country can be justified on the need to have local control of the waters of the Rio Grande.

The Second State would Baja California Norte, Baja California Sur and Sonora. Again to show this was not an attempt to annex the territory the US could provide them with Arizona including the Grande Canyon and maybe even Las Vegas. All of this can be justified on the need for the waters of the Colorado River to be under local Control.

Now that the excuse for taking over these Mexican States been stated (and notice I use the term excuse, the real reason will be to control the border) by giving the new Countries US land, US can demand protection of its former Citizens in these New Nations. What type of Protections? Strong Wall ot the SOuth of these former Mexican States where NO one without a Written pass is permitted in from Mexico. Anyone with a fake Pass are subject to immediate Arrest and deportation and since these will be Independent Nations any Appeal will be to their Courts, which do to the "Criss" with Mexico over their Independence will be Military Tribunal type courts. Anyone in the area will be subject to random searches, the bill of Rights will not apply so searches can occur anywhere as could arrests.

North of these areas will be another fence line, and only people with another set of IDs could pass. Both Borders will be maned by US Personnel with order to shoot to kill (remember this will be granted by the new Nations of the Colorado and Rio Grande NOT the US thus any action for unlawful conduct will be by the new laws of these New Nations). Anyone in the area will have to show that they have a job in the area or own land in the area (or otherwise belong in the area) anyone without such ID will be subject ot deportation without trial. Thus the purpose of this area quickly will become a Border area which will be hard to get into, hard to travel across and hard to exit.

Why will the people in the Area agree to this treatment. First you give them control over the water, this will get all the farmers in the area to support this new system, the local Government will be the one who will divide up the Waters of these two Rivers.

Second, you permit anyone who is is "native" to these new states to be able to come into the US for Education AND for 30 day periods. Thus even people from the old Mexican States will be able to come to the US and then go back home to their own "Country".

Third, make the area not subject to US Income Tax, thus many of the middle and upper class people int he area will support this new tyranny just do to being given lower taxes.

Fourth, any one helping someone going across either new nation will be declared a "non-Citizen" and shipped off to Mexico. The purpose of this is to put fear in the Native Poor Mexicans in the Area.

Firth, Make sure all the Television stations in the New Nation show nothing but programs about the problems in Mexico and what can happen to anyone living in these two new nations who is expelled to Mexico.

Sixth, anyone living in the area must be determined to be a loyal citizen of the new Nation, if not expelled to Mexico as a citizen of Mexico.

Seventh, reward people who turn in illegals, by giving the capturers the right to use the prisoners as labor till they paid off they debt to society (i.e. anyone caught is made a de factor Slave for years on end).

Eighth, presence of Border Patrol Agents paid for by the US Government, but technically employed by these two new nations. With no Bill of Rights to Worry about, this new Border Patrol will be able to arrest anyone for anything and detain them for any length of time. Total Security.

The above Carrot and Stick plan will keep most people in the new States from helping anyone crossing the new nations to get to the US. The Walls will add to the problem in that crossing one just gets you into an area where check points will be everyone, fences everywhere and people looking for new cheap labor (And wanting to avoid any accusations that they are helping the illegals). The above will work, but notice it requires the complete lack of Civil Liberties in both new nations, but that may be want people will accept in both areas just to get Cheap Labor, low taxes and high Security (Given the huge number of US border patrol people in the area with authority not only from the US Government but the Governments of these two new nations.

The above plan will work, but at the cost of any concept of Civil Liberty and Civil Rights.