Illegal Immigration - ITT: We discuss Wall-Might

[Manwithn0n0men]

So I am more neutral on the whole Illegal immigration thing then most center right people [and I am sick of it as a political/cultural problem]

The Wall at best slows the problem down.

# 1 Latin America is sending us our trash/using us as a pressure release valve (Europeans replace Latin America with Africa and the Middle East)

Beyond the fundamental cultural change/war aspects of that this means something much more serious

>The Status remains unchanged and by accepting the flood of illegal immigrants (and even encouraging it) we become complicit in the corruption and violence in those system that lead to civil unrest
> It leads to perpetuation of the status quo and corruption in our own labor markets

# 2 It stifles improvement in those countries and innovations [which american businesses are optimized to take advantage of] thus reducing potential economic growth
# 3 it created a (not entirely false) perception that the global economic and political system is rigged on both ends of the pipeline.
# 4 It allows countries to avoid quality of life investments (see point 1)
#5 Far to many people make money on the problem on both sides of the pipeline.

At best the Wall is a negotiation piece in a broader political conversation (Domestically and Internationally). So my question is how do we start the political conversation on the next steps after the wall (and the political challenges involved)

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

Hundreds of people literally run across the border every day ... a physical barrier makes it much harder to 'make the dash' .

If you are neutral on the impact of unchecked immigration - move to Sweden, the per-capita rape and murder capitol of the European Union.

No I am neutral on the wall because I know far more people enter our border illegally by other means [Tunnels, being packed into a semi truck like sardines, etc]. The Wall will not reduce a significant portion of that flow. But it will slow the flow which we can use as part of a broader political solution to the problem.

I am more interested in the broad solution

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

I like having illegal immigrants around.
It's the next best thing to having slaves.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

I like having illegal immigrants around.
It's the next best thing to having slaves.

Thats another political issue we need to touch on to fix the problem

 

[Marco Fucko]

I have a really effective solution to illegal immigration.

Spoiler

 

[heyilikeyourmom]

I don’t think we should just accept illegal immigration, but I do empathize with people fleeing Mexico. It’s a dangerous place, and I recognize our part as Americans in keeping it that way by continuing to purchase drugs from there. Our antiquated marijuanaphobia is our own worst enemy in this regard.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

The only real way to stop illegal immigration is to nuke the countries illegals. The alternative- illegals work to make their countries like the United States- is never going to happen. It would also help if certain politicians would stop inviting illegals over and defending them instead of the legal citizens, but again, that's never going to happen.
The wall isn't meant to stop illegal immigration. It is a deterrent. It is intended to make border hopping so hard that very few people would risk hopping the border. Those few that do could more easily be caught by the Border Patrol.

 

[ThePurpleProse]

You can't compare hispanics to african/sand nigger immigrants, hispanics are easier to deal with, they hold western values and a hard work culture, I know both kinds and any immigration would come to a halt if USA stop giving free shit to those that come in, but as @heyilikeyourmom said, you can't blame or stop Mexicans particularly, losing family or friends for being stuck on a cartel war is very common there and USA is sustaining a large part of the drug business.

I have a really effective solution to illegal immigration.

Spoiler

undefined

The wall coupled with a few of this would make a very good deterrent but if I gotta be honest, USA is building the wall on the wrong frontier, canadian niggers are ideologically worst and harder to spot.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The Wall at best slows the problem down.

It slowed the problem down very well for germans, hungarians and israelians.

Keep in mind that Hungary has nowhere near the money to spend as the US does. They did it with chainlink fence, barb wire, camera's and patrols.

The mexico/US border is a little less than 20x longer than the Hungarian border fence. The GDP of the US is more than 100x larger than Hungary.

Of course no wall is perfect, even the berlin wall was tunneled under, but they remain a very effective and relatively cheap way to have control over borders.

I don't know any examples of walls working badly (besides the great wall of china, but that is hundreds of years ago and that was trying to use them against foreign military rather than mostly civilians and some drug runners). Does anyone know a single (or more) examples of border walls being ineffective or overcosted?

-----

I think it's obvious that one should oppose illegal immigration, but one should in this day and age of unchecked mass migration be as concerned about foreign legal migration as you should be about illegal immigration. When white south africans have difficulty migrating legally to most western nations, with most eventually going to australia if they meet the skill demands of australian immigration, that should tell you something about the motives of the people writing the immigration rules for legal migration (not in regards to australia which seems sensible, but in regards to countries who actively prevent immigration by people that ancestrally come from those countries).

I don't think you can look at those and conclude that there isn't some attack in european countries on people who are ancestrally from european countries. And something similar seems to be going on in the US, though I don't know how hard it is for south africans to migrate to the US.

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

Shoot 'em if they come by ground, drown 'em if they come by sea. And if they try a 'But think of the children!' ploy, shoot the kids first.

 

[crocodilian]

I don’t think we should just accept illegal immigration, but I do empathize with people fleeing Mexico. It’s a dangerous place, and I recognize our part as Americans in keeping it that way by continuing to purchase drugs from there. Our antiquated marijuanaphobia is our own worst enemy in this regard.

The people who ruined Mexico are the Mexicans. They can blame Los Federales Estados Unidos McDonaldos all they want, but nobody had to twist the Mexican government's (or each citizen's respective) arm to accept their part in illegal drug trade. In fact, a lot of modern Mexicans venerate drug dealers. You want those people coming here with the same mindset that ruined Mexico in the first place?

 

[Malagor the dank omen]

Does anyone know a single (or more) examples of border walls being ineffective or overcosted?

I know one that is innefective, but mainly because of European Legislation and lefties screeching: the fence in Ceuta and Melilla (Spain's cities in Africa). Every once in a while a couple hundred negroes jump the fence and get arrested by the Guardia Civil. The fence is a chain link fence with barbed wire that they cover up with thick blankets to jump over. Government wanted to put razor wire but they backed off after the media said it was inhumane to put it because it would hurt the illegals (no shit). As well, migrants also cross by sea (those which can muster enough brainpower to know how to swim), which is not fenced off but constantly watched by the police. There was a huge stink over this some years ago after the Guardia Civil shot some rubber bullets to migrants to deter them and some of them drowned because they didn't knew how to swim properly.

The main problem is that once caught, the police cannot tell them to fuck off (the EU banned that). Instead they have to be taken to an inmigrant detention centre to be processed in hopes the guys tell them where they are from, but they never tell. After 3 months, the maximum amount of time they can be detained, they are released.

In fact, a lot of modern Mexicans venerate drug dealers.

This is not a fucking joke. Many people here may think this is just with one of them, but every single one of Mexico's druglords is pretty much the king of one region of the country. The people love them because they bring bucketloads of cash and keep the law away from them or they keep them so bribed they don't even fucking matter.

This year i had a mexican chick as a coworker and when i asked about the Narcos she constantly kept telling me that they were "The heroes of the people".

 

[Strange Rope Hero]

Why don't we just kill them. I mean, anything less than death, is still better than their home countries.
Until we start gunning them down, they're gonna keep coming.
Pussification is the root of many problems in America.

~ man who cut his testicle off, 2019 ~

 

[Lemmingwise]

I know one that is innefective, but mainly because of European Legislation and lefties screeching: the fence in Ceuta and Melilla (Spain's cities in Africa). Every once in a while a couple hundred negroes jump the fence and get arrested by the Guardia Civil. The fence is a chain link fence with barbed wire that they cover up with thick blankets to jump over. Government wanted to put razor wire but they backed off after the media said it was inhumane to put it because it would hurt the illegals (no shit). As well, migrants also cross by sea (those which can muster enough brainpower to know how to swim), which is not fenced off but constantly watched by the police. There was a huge stink over this some years ago after the Guardia Civil shot some rubber bullets to migrants to deter them and some of them drowned because they didn't knew how to swim properly.

The main problem is that once caught, the police cannot tell them to fuck off (the EU banned that). Instead they have to be taken to an inmigrant detention centre to be processed in hopes the guys tell them where they are from, but they never tell. After 3 months, the maximum amount of time they can be detained, they are released.

Yes, I suppose using a wall and never returning those who try to cross it, but instead just detain them for three months before releasing them on the side of the illegal crossing, is one way that you can render a wall somewhat ineffective.

 

[Malagor the dank omen]

Yes, I suppose using a wall and never returning those who try to cross it, but instead just detain them for three months before releasing them on the side of the illegal crossing, is one way that you can render a wall somewhat ineffective.

Like i said: European legislation and lefties screeching. Before Spain got into the EU illegals were barely a problem. They got in, but carefully smuggled into the country and always kept a low profile because the they would be arrested and eventually deported. And if they caught you crossing the border the police would have dumped your sorry ass in Morocco, where the less lenient authorities would have hounded your ass from any city. Now with the EU we cannot kick migrants out when we catch them red handed. They need to be processed in order to deport them. But most are smart enough to know that if they say where they are from, they are done from so they never tell. If they don't spill the beans for 3 months in the detention centre, the authorities would use up all the time they had to deport the suckers and they would be forced to let them go.

Yeah, it's really that shitty.

 

[Lemmingwise]

But most are smart enough to know that if they say where they are from, they are done from so they never tell.

I remember Soros open society foundation booklets found in Greece and Turkey that explained in several languages exactly what answers to give; what answers to not give, where the checkpoints were and most importantly, to throw away your passport.

The booklets also overpromised welfare, houses, etcetera of particularly germany and sweden and gave amounts of welfare that "refugees" can appeal to as well as how to do it.

At the time I could download it from the open society website, it's a shame I didn't save any.

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants-10346437

I'm sure similar booklets or at the very least, training/prepping happens in north africa.

 

[Recoil]

it's been said already but maybe you (the narrative you, the royal you)'re dense

The liberal elites lionize illegal immigration because they need a slave class. Illegal immigrants will inevitably form the backbone of that class.

 

[mr.moon1488]

No I am neutral on the wall because I know far more people enter our border illegally by other means [Tunnels, being packed into a semi truck like sardines, etc]. The Wall will not reduce a significant portion of that flow. But it will slow the flow which we can use as part of a broader political solution to the problem.

I am more interested in the broad solution

I've seen this sentiment expressed a lot, and it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how defensive structures actually function. Defensive barriers do not actually stop a force trying to get around/through them. I could build a castle with walls taller than the burj khalifa, and thicker than Amberlynn Reid but it would be nothing but a mild inconvenience at best to an opposing force if there are no defenders. However, we've seen countless walls and castles built throughout history and they did have a major impact.

The reason for this? Defensive structures give an advantage to the defenders. Rather than border patrol having to play the worlds' largest game of whack-a-mole with people entering wherever, and whenever, persons trying to enter now have to engage in large scale operations to circumvent the wall. Can they dig under it? Yes, but that is much more difficult than simply rushing across and when the incursion is discovered, there is actual real loss in the form of wasted labor. Can they go around by sea? Yes, but once again, if they're caught they're going to lose a ship in the best case scenario.

Alt explanation:

It would be like you're playing poker against someone, and you can reach over and randomly discard a card from their hand, but they can't do this to you. Naturally, you're likely to win more hands than they are.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The solution is obvious but under the Westphalian international system we currently run is impossible. If we take feudal europe as an example, if the situation became untenable in a region and people started fleeing, neighboring nobles or the King would start to wonder why. Invariably it meant the local nobility had fucked up and would be deposed in short order by their neighbors with the land parceled out to the winners or else given to a favored servant of the King who was due a promotion. It was rare for Kings to be able to fuck up their entire countries as the local nobles would band together and install a new king if they did. There were no such things as international borders. Merely the boundary of which particular noble family owned what, and who they owed allegiance too in turn.

The Peace of Westphalia ended that however. The Kings became SOVEREIGN over clearly demarcated political boundaries. Boundaries which were inviolate and independent of the King as a person. This was the solution Europe came up with to try and bring an end to the centuries of religious warfare that had killed a huge chunk of the population and on a per capita basis made World War 2 seem like a skirmish.

Europe would export this system globally. And it works by and large to control State actors in the international arena. At the expense of being able to deal with internal matters that impact internationally.

The solution to the issue of Central American migrants pre westphalia would be for the United States to invade, overthrow their government and seize all the property and money of their current ruling class (probably killing them too). We would then import a new ruling class drawn up from the American population and if not outright annex the countries let them maintain independence but have their entire "nobility" be replaced by Americans, to include the local defense forces. Problem solved.

Unfortunately in an era of sovereign states and nationalism this cant be done.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The solution is obvious but under the Westphalian international system we currently run is impossible. If we take feudal europe as an example, if the situation became untenable in a region and people started fleeing, neighboring nobles or the King would start to wonder why. Invariably it meant the local nobility had fucked up and would be deposed in short order by their neighbors with the land parceled out to the winners or else given to a favored servant of the King who was due a promotion. It was rare for Kings to be able to fuck up their entire countries as the local nobles would band together and install a new king if they did. There were no such things as international borders. Merely the boundary of which particular noble family owned what, and who they owed allegiance too in turn.

The Peace of Westphalia ended that however. The Kings became SOVEREIGN over clearly demarcated political boundaries. Boundaries which were inviolate and independent of the King as a person. This was the solution Europe came up with to try and bring an end to the centuries of religious warfare that had killed a huge chunk of the population and on a per capita basis made World War 2 seem like a skirmish.

Europe would export this system globally. And it works by and large to control State actors in the international arena. At the expense of being able to deal with internal matters that impact internationally.

The solution to the issue of Central American migrants pre westphalia would be for the United States to invade, overthrow their government and seize all the property and money of their current ruling class (probably killing them too). We would then import a new ruling class drawn up from the American population and if not outright annex the countries let them maintain independence but have their entire "nobility" be replaced by Americans, to include the local defense forces. Problem solved.

Unfortunately in an era of sovereign states and nationalism this cant be done.

Yet that concept is from 1600s and there were numerous land grabs since.

In fact, it's pretty rare to find a country that has had 100 years of unbroken sovereignity. There are a couple, but not that many. Besides breaks in sovereignity, territory has changed hands numerous times.

Besides, in some sense, that sovereignity is more illusory than reality. When the US needed their panama canal, they had no problem inventing a new country, panama, to get it. When US/EU wanted to expand it's sphere of influence, they had no problem helping a coup in Ukraine and as a response, Russia had no problem annexing Crimea to retain access to the black sea.

The EU and the US would have more than enough tools to seriously curb immigration if they wanted to. The point is that they don't want it. In the US neither neocons or democrats want to curb cheap labor/guaranteed voters. In the EU they need it to have voters that will offer less resistance against the forming of the EU state with army and all.