Being a citizen of both the United States and Mexico, I find myself on the proverbial horns of a dilemma.Mexico´s economy is propped up to a great degree by cash sent down by gate crashers in the United States.
On the other hand, a porous border with Mexico is culturally, economically and politically damaging to the United States.
The following is from a column by Charles Krauthammer, a journalist-physician-commentator and smart guy:
"A barrier is a very simple thing to do. The technology is well tested. The Chinese had success with it, as did Hadrian.
In our time, the barrier Israel has built has been so effective in keeping out intruders that suicide attacks are down more than 90 percent.
Fences work. That's why people have them around their houses -- not because homeowners are unwelcoming but because they insist that those who wish to come into their domain knock at the front door.
Fences are simple. They don't require much upkeep. Two fences with a patrol road between them along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border would be relatively cheap, easy to build and simple to maintain.
The final argument against fences is, of course, the symbolism. We don't want a fence that announces to the world that America is closed.
But this is entirely irrational. The fact is that under our law, America is indeed closed -- to all but those who, after elaborate procedures, are deemed worthy of joining the American family.
A fence announces to the world that America is closed to . . . illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that? Is not every country in the world the same? The only reason others don't need such a barrier is that they are not half as attractive as America, not because we are more oppressive or less welcoming.
Fences are ugly, I grant you that. But not as ugly as 12 million people living in the shadows in a country that has forfeited control of its borders."
(Note: Those who equate a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border with the Berlin Wall are disingenuous. The Berlin Wall kept people in. It was a prison wall. A wall along the U.S. border would keep people out, those who would enter illegally. There is no similarity.)
3 comments:
There are environmental reasons not to have a wall/fence. It would disrupt the migration of animals that need to move freely across the border.
Regards,
Kim G
Boston, MA
P.S. I think you must have deleted some of my older comments on this blog. I could swear I commented on the traffic cops.
In my judgment, the US needs workers who are not too proud to wash dishes, take care of our kids, pick vegetables and fruit, put up drywall, work in urban sweatshops, etc.
We should issue 800,000 temporary visas a year good for 18 months, provided the background check comes up clean. Then, they go back home and apply for a new visa.
The wall at the border is not a good idea. As the son of a Danish immigrant, I believe that a steady supply of immigrants has made us a prosperous country and it certainly helps with our demographics and birth rate. In Europe and Japan, a low birth rate is endangering their pensions and social security.
Sounds okay to me. With visas, which is to say, legally.
Post a Comment