Saturday, September 30, 2006

Senate Says: Build 700 Miles of Fence along Mexican Border

In another convulsion of political theatrics, the Senate approved a bill authorizing 700 miles of fence along the southwest border, which in geographic terms means Senator Jon Kyl-R state of Arizona gets the bulk of the fence with another section in New Mexico and parts of Western Texas. The vote was 80-19. The CT delegation voted: Dodd -Yes Lieberman -No. Illegal immigration is the driving issue behind the fence according to the Washington Post
The measure was pushed hard by House Republican leaders, who badly wanted to pass a piece of legislation that would make good on their promises to get tough on illegal immigrants, despite warnings from critics that a multibillion-dollar fence would do little to address the underlying economic, social and law enforcement problems, or to prevent others from slipping across the border.(Washington Post)
But more importantly, good old common sense says that building a fence of 700 miles along rugged terrain is dumb idea. The Soviet Union, of whom GOP lawmakers seem to emulate more and more, tried the whole fence thing too. But an even better example is a WW II one, where France installed a defensive fence ignominiously known as the Maginot Line. It's not like deer, dogs and cats ever seem detered by fences either but politcal theater is much more important than actually addressing illegal immigration.
The Arizona branch would have to plunge down steep ravines and scale craggy mountain peaks. "This is not Iowa farmland," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.). Construction is "going to be near impossible."

A vast stretch of the Arizona fence would traverse the lands of the Tohono O'odham Nation, which strongly opposes it and could bring suit, said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.). Construction crews would have to deal with rivers and streams running north to south and wildlife migration routes that do not respect the U.S.-Mexico divide. And the Border Patrol does not have enough agents to stop smugglers from simply knocking holes in remote stretches.

"It's not feasible," said Kolbe, who is retiring from Congress at the end of the year. "It's a statement for the election. That's all."(Washington Post)

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know it's not your area of expertise like Norwalk water mains, but your military history is a bit inaccurate.

The Germans in 1940 won by going around the Maginot Line. If anything, the French didn;t build enough fortifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#France_1940

Anonymous said...

hello...the problem was the Maginot Line was too short, not too long.

Besides, I'm not expecting border jumpers to arrive via Panzers and Stukas

If fences don;t work, should we remove the ones around our nuclear power facilities?

Anonymous said...

Us Celts remember this wall worked pretty well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall

Anonymous said...

The Berlin Wall was to keep people IN, this wall is to keep people OUT.

Terrible comparison.

Anonymous said...

If fences just push the problem off to somewhere else, then let's fence the entire border with Mexico, except for California. Then we will put a fence around California to keep everyone there. California is already so over populated and whacky that no one will ever notice 10 new million people coming in across the border.

Anonymous said...

If this is such a crazy idea supported by the "far right" House Republicans, then why did Chris Dodd who is not up for re-election, vote "yes"?

Anonymous said...

CTDOT projects replacing the Waterbury mixmaster will cost $2 Billion. That is the same price as all 700 miles of fence that you complain is too expensive

Deb said...

The SD-Tijuana fence has done exactly what it was supposed to do: discourage all the youngest, most able bodied laborers to make it into the U.S. It is tough to cross a dessert, and as we don't want immigrants to bring their families, it works pretty well.

As I blogged today earier, fences are more often used to keep people in, not keep them out, and our border fences have done just that: encouraged undocumented people to stay in the U.S., rather than to follow their age-old migration and return cycle. Fences make things worse, not better.

I think your examples of the Maginot Line and the Berlin Walls were excellent.

Anonymous said...

Milton Friedman is a bright guy

He said you can;t have open borders and a welfare state at the same time.

Can liberals choose, or can they just whine

GMR said...

Western Europe has a huge problem as well, and the answer there is not to fence in borders but to focus on the companies that hire the illegals.

Between Western Europe and North Africa are separated by the Mediterranean Sea. However, Spain possesses two enclaves in North Africa: Melilla and Ceuta. These territories have large fences, and Africans are constantly trying to breach the fence.

The Melilla Border Fence is 11 km long and cost EUR 33 million (US$35 million at the time, or about $3 million per kilometer). It's a 3 meters (almost 10 feet) tall parallel fence, topped with barbed wire, and the height is being doubled to 20 feet. A road runs between the fences, and there are automated spotlights.

The Ceuta border fence is also a parallel 3 meter fence, topped with razor wire. A Picture is here.

Anonymous said...

well, bluecoat I suppose you are the Nobel Prize winner and Milton Friedman is a clueless fool?

Methinks you have reversed roles