Why would a wall be so bad?

Why would a wall be so bad?

Oh, you mean Mexico? That place American elites and petite-bourgeoisie go to for extravagant vacations? Where American money is basically worth double and has all the really good food and many of their industries are nationalized so the people are far less exploited than in America?

It's not dreams, it's porky trafficking in humans so the banks can lease out their money (it's called debt) and then collect interest in the form of mortgages and credit cards. It's stealing Mexico's most precious natural resource: it's children, who are Mexico's future.

All bought and paid for by corporate greed and the international banks.

Other urls found in this thread:




How is it useless?

There plenty of ways to cross the border that the wall won't stop. Tunnels and the ports are just a few. Most of the people who'd get stopped are the regular working folks - the proverbial "some, I assume, are good people." The slavers cartels have other ways to get in. The tunnels have already been there for years. A wall won't do shit about those.

This is like how the anti-gun law people argue. "Oh it won't stop criminals from getting guns."

Obviously other things are needed to fight human trafficking and slavery, in addition to the wall, but it would be an obvious starting point. Imagine if the Great Plains Native Americans had put up a wall west of the Mississippi, how different the West would be today.

A: It's expensive as fuck, a wall is being built solely because muricans don't want a wussy fence they want a big strong concrete wall
B: It won't run the length of the border, treaties and geographic limitations prevent large sections from being built
C: Traffickers can still use sea routes, which are *more* vulnerable since the Trump admin has let funding for the coast guard stagnate
D: Did you forget about us Canadians? Mexicans don't need visas to travel up here, and the Canada-US border is even larger and harder to patrol

My guess is that the wall will slow illegal migration but, like most big walls built, will be an expensive band-aid slapped on a much larger problem

Are you seriously implying that the US wouldn't fucking blast through that shit

The great wall of china becomes obsolete once dynamite is discovered, dumbass.

That's a lot of words to say "I want more cops"

It's a shovel-ready job which will stimulate the economy while putting people to work. Also many countries, such as Israel, have more expensive border control systems.

You mean existing natural barriers already doing the job the rest of the wall will do.

Yeah, that's why the wall is just phase one.

Of course, everyone forgets about Canada.

NASA is expensive. CENTCOM is expensive. Bush Jr gave $1 trillion in aid to Africa… that was expensive. A few billion on a wall is nothing.

An yet there's now no more pure-blooded Mongolians, as they have all been intermixed with Chinese. China built the wall to keep Mongolians out, and ended up taking them over, and the wall still stands today, despite the Far East using gunpowder for about 1000 years now.

I'm assuming this is bait considering none of your strawmen come even close to actual arguments made here. I'm still fuckin' biting.

Anti-neither. NAFTA is a trade agreement, the wall doesn't stop jobs getting shipped out of the country. Likewise, as others have pointed out, those who are involved in illegal activities like dodgy human trafficking have connections within the US and other ways (tunnels, for instance) to get into the country. While I'm at it, Mexican crime lords also have boats and planes.

Meanwhile, the incentive to come into the country will still exist because the rich will still be ready and willing (and, importantly, able) to skirt labor laws - workers are expected to take all of the risk all of the time.

The problem with that argument isn't that it necessarily would - it's that there are many sources of gun violence from people who are otherwise uninvolved in criminal activity and were basically just nuts with guns until they shot a bunch of people.

Nobody just loses it one day and decides they'll go mow lawns in America.

Not that many people, and it's mostly going to line a few pockets.

Mexico and the US are allies. In fact, in case of an invasion, Mexico is a strategic ally due to proximity. The US and Mexico exchange cash, while Israel and Palestine exchange rockets. The wall fails at its basic objective, does not end shitty free trade agreements, and sours relations between the US and an ally on its border. Say what you will about Israel, at least their wall serves an actual purpose.

Phase two: wall off the sea.

Your country's crumbling roads, bridges, dams, etc. are just as shovel-ready (I'd argue they're shovel-desperate) and would have a greater impact in improving the quality of life of the average American.
Israel has much less border to patrol and still has a quasi-apartheid state to manage what they've built. Is this what you admire?
I mean the Colorado River, on or near which the US is bound by treaty to not build any major structure.
The US imports thousands of tonnes of cargo every day and receives vessels (foreign and domestic) into thousands of ports. It is physically impossible to screen all of this without turning the US into a police state.
It's your largest border and you don't seem to care that, even with all of the attention to your southern border, migrants can just fly into Canada and then wander into New York or Vermont without much attention. I've visited the border myself, it's just a ditch that runs through the woods.
Both provide much more lasting material benefit to the world than a concrete slab in the desert.
I've googled for this and can't find a source showing that the Bush Jr. admin spent $1 trillion in foreign aid just to Africa.
Like I said, it's expensive in the sense that it's a bandaid solution that's not going to do much. the wall will wind up being a concrete monument to an incompetent regime grasping for quick solutions, rather than working to fix the root causes of crossborder exploitation. Or a testament to a failing empire that eventually regressed into official campaigns of ethnic cleansing (which is what the deportation of millions of people will be recognized in the history books as)

I would much rather be in Mexico when the wall is built. Healthier food, better drinking water (no fluoride), better wages, lower standard of living, better weather, better entertainments, more purchasing power, nationalized banks and oil companies.

Most of the Great Wall was built in the 14th and 15th Century.

Walls were built as early as the Qin and Han dynasties, and the wall building of the Ming was a drain on imperial finances and wasn't even that effective in keeping the Ming from getting their asses wrecked by the Manchus.

Are you saying Mexicans are an invading horde?

Nope. If I wanted to use the proper imperial Chinese metaphor, I'd bring up the Willow Pallisades of the Qing, which were used exclusively to curb illegal migration within the empire. And even those broke down due to the costs of maintaining thousands of miles of earth dikes and tree hedges.

I was just pointing out to OP that he's remembering the example wrong and using it wrong, since the Great Wall was primarily a military structure.

Well I'd suggest boiling tap water if so and finding employment at a regular prole job is probably difficult
I know anecdotal evidence is garbage but I've heard rural people say they get paid so little a month.
Rural people get so little money and Coca-Cola™® products are more easily available than water.
Or you could buy gallons of water to be delivered to you, like here.

If the stories are true, and Mexico as a state cannot provide for its own people the basics of a job, drinking water, and enough cash to live on, then the solution is to liberate the Mexican people from the Mexican government with old fashioned regime change, brought to by the USMC, as America has done for dozens of other failed governments all over the world.

Open borders and one world governemnt is a good long term goal, but leftists are way too impatient about bringing them about. They aren’t concpets that will be realized any time soon, definately not in our lifetimes.

Sure, let's make the problem even worse
Why not have no states at all