Who do you think will fold first? Trump Or Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer?
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho
why do i find this so hard to believe?
even if it were true, "Most" is crucial in this case. What's the point of having miles of perfect wall, only to have a few hundred feet gap in it?
and that nicely illustrates the futility & absurdity of the whole thing.
The wall/barrier is not for the entire border, only a few hundred miles. The rest is already semi protected by natural barriers: rivers, mountains etc.... Again the idea is not to stop it, its to slow it down and funnel it to make the agents jobs easier and to deter most people from trying. Keep in mind this area is not just illegal immigrants its also drug smugglers, human trafficking, sex slavery etc...
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf
This does not change a thing about Trump's politics or intentions. The wall is still a play to xenophobes, nationalists, racists, etc, throughout the whole country, not just those few living on the borders. Trump doesn't represent them, just like he doesn't represent anyone else. It is purely populist politics, the politics of hate, fear and division.
I have to agree with the consensus that the "wall" is an idiotic, childish idea - which is why I can't take it seriously. For me, it's simply a political play... playing to people's prejudices and fears. Blaming a minority for the failings of successive governments.
The "wall" embodies the politics of fear and hate in that it gives the clear message, that these unwanted people are coming in and the border has to be sealed to keep them out. In any other part of the world, the proposal of a wall would be met with derision.
There is no clear differentiation there, just a lot of weasel words.
Remember the Democrats are on tape saying almost the exact same things as Pres. Trump, some just a few years ago, others over the last few decades.
Do you believe that people should be able to enter a country (cross the border at any location)? As far as I am aware no country allows this, many have even stricter policies then what is being proposed now in the USA. Try crossing the border in the Middle East, China, Russia, even Canada and see what happens.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
I don't even begin to understand the value of a border wall. It seems to me that The Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall, just to name two, were at best a bit of an inconvenience when invaders were restricted to walking and very slow tunneling. On a Cost/Benefit analysis they all seem to fail rather miserably even given restrictions that no longer exist. Why would anyone want to spend anything on one in the modern age?
The Great Wall was a fantastic deterrent when it was maintained and fully staffed, however, at different times, China did not have the money to maintain it, and some Emperors were too corrupt to care about the border. In general, it had approx. 1 million soldiers as look outs, and it featured a very effective signaling network using fires and long range ballistic arrows.
The Great Wall was a fantastic deterrent when it was maintained and fully staffed, however, at different times, China did not have the money to maintain it, and some Emperors were too corrupt to care about the border. In general, it had approx. 1 million soldiers as look outs, and it featured a very effective signaling network using fires and long range ballistic arrows.
The wall was conceived around keeping out large numbers of people / people on horseback. Because at that time, that was the main threat. It's arguable if it would have kept out determined spies.
It may be that as a military structure the wall worked as well as the obsolete fortifications which we now find the remains of all over Europe...
Fast forward several hundred years and you have the Maginot Line, which is widely regarded by most military historians as an expensive failure. One aspect of this, as with any "wall" idea, is that there was too much focus on it, too many troops stationed there, etc.
If you take a look at any map you will see that most borders are uncontrolled. For example, the border between Brasil and Peru is clearly impossible to enforce except at major road checkpoints. Anyone wanting to take contraband or people in and out can cross anywhere else - as they do - the risks are often worth it, particularly with drugs or arms.
As we've seen with a lot of illegal immigration via the Mediterranean to Europe - people will risk death. A wall on the Mexican border will simply result in more boats, more dangerous trips. It's really doubtful if it will act as a real deterrent. It will also mean putting more money into the pockets of people smuggler gangs.
The best deterrent is proper immigration control, which starts within a country and needs significant investment. Tighten up on employment of illegal workers, more checks, more penalties for those employing people in the country illegally. Once the incentives dry up, the migrant flow will diminish. That's the only realistic way to reduce the problem. If the incentives aren't removed the people will continue to arrive.
The UK doesn't have a wall - it obviously has a far more natural barrier, not to mention immigration control on the French side of the channel, but still has people making dangerous trips to get here - in large numbers. The problem with places like UK and US is the perception among people in some parts of the world that the streets are paved with gold or the idea of the "land of opportunity". Building a wall, is just reinforcing this idea even more.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf
The wall was conceived around keeping out large numbers of people / people on horseback. Because at that time, that was the main threat. It's arguable if it would have kept out determined spies.
It may be that as a military structure the wall worked as well as the obsolete fortifications which we now find the remains of all over Europe...
Fast forward several hundred years and you have the Maginot Line, which is widely regarded by most military historians as an expensive failure. One aspect of this, as with any "wall" idea, is that there was too much focus on it, too many troops stationed there, etc.
If you take a look at any map you will see that most borders are uncontrolled. For example, the border between Brasil and Peru is clearly impossible to enforce except at major road checkpoints. Anyone wanting to take contraband or people in and out can cross anywhere else - as they do - the risks are often worth it, particularly with drugs or arms.
As we've seen with a lot of illegal immigration via the Mediterranean to Europe - people will risk death. A wall on the Mexican border will simply result in more boats, more dangerous trips. It's really doubtful if it will act as a real deterrent. It will also mean putting more money into the pockets of people smuggler gangs.
The best deterrent is proper immigration control, which starts within a country and needs significant investment. Tighten up on employment of illegal workers, more checks, more penalties for those employing people in the country illegally. Once the incentives dry up, the migrant flow will diminish. That's the only realistic way to reduce the problem. If the incentives aren't removed the people will continue to arrive.
The UK doesn't have a wall - it obviously has a far more natural barrier, not to mention immigration control on the French side of the channel, but still has people making dangerous trips to get here - in large numbers. The problem with places like UK and US is the perception among people in some parts of the world that the streets are paved with gold or the idea of the "land of opportunity". Building a wall, is just reinforcing this idea even more.
I actually agree with you, and completing the barrier/wall, and improving/replacing the old one will help. It should be part of a comprehensive reform including what you mentioned above.
I actually agree with you, and completing the barrier/wall, and improving/replacing the old one will help. It should be part of a comprehensive reform including what you mentioned above.
how can you agree with cynwulf when they specifically said that border walls are useless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf
It may be that as a military structure the wall worked (note the past tense here) as well as the obsolete fortifications which we now find the remains of all over Europe...
Fast forward several hundred years and you have the Maginot Line, which is widely regarded by most military historians as an expensive failure. One aspect of this, as with any "wall" idea, is that there was too much focus on it, too many troops stationed there, etc.
If you take a look at any map you will see that most borders are uncontrolled.
As we've seen with a lot of illegal immigration via the Mediterranean to Europe - people will risk death. A wall on the Mexican border will simply result in more boats, more dangerous trips. It's really doubtful if it will act as a real deterrent. It will also mean putting more money into the pockets of people smuggler gangs.
The problem with places like UK and US is the perception among people in some parts of the world that the streets are paved with gold or the idea of the "land of opportunity". Building a wall, is just reinforcing this idea even more.
so you agree with all that, yet you say completing the wall will help?
The best deterrent is proper immigration control, which starts within a country and needs significant investment. Tighten up on employment of illegal workers, more checks, more penalties for those employing people in the country illegally. Once the incentives dry up, the migrant flow will diminish. That's the only realistic way to reduce the problem. If the incentives aren't removed the people will continue to arrive.
cynwulf, i read your post yesterday and there just wasn't anything to add for me except a "+1" of sorts.
anyhow, i feel the need to say it now:
well said.
i agree.
i have given up on this thread; it seems certain people simply do not listen to the arguments I and others already made days ago, and i'd just have to repeat them over and over...
well, thanks for holding up the ... stick? baton? flowers? ... while i turn my head in exasperation.
maybe we can take turns.
I actually agree with you, and completing the barrier/wall, and improving/replacing the old one will help. It should be part of a comprehensive reform including what you mentioned above.
Tearing down the existing barrier would be a better idea.
If you have better immigration services/enforcement/checks within the country, that is the way forward. While people know they can get work fruit picking, as waiters or other types of casual work the incentives are still there.
Over here we have the same. Most of the migrants are economic. They travel through many countries in Europe to get here - not claiming asylum in any of those countries. When they do arrive, usually by smuggling themselves inside lorries via the Dover to Calais crossing, they claim asylum - often after destroying their travel documents and claiming to be from a different country to their actual country of origin.
They come here because, even after their asylum applications are refused, they can just "disappear" and get illegal work, often on farms, or in backstreet factories, or restaurants. None of this is solvable with physical barriers - the crux of the problem is that we simply don't have enough immigration officials or border force staff. The current government and the previous coalition government has made damaging cuts to border force, not to mention policing.
This has allowed people to slip through the net and remain in the country. Some of these are indeed "criminals on the run". They have fled their own countries for various reasons, some to make a new start, some to make money, to send home to family, others as career criminals, still working with criminals back in their home countries or seeking out new "turf". And why wouldn't they, in a country which has "left the doors open" for decades, been a soft touch for criminals - and now made cuts to policing and border security...
Border security is all about people and processes, not in physical structures.
In the US, people have been deceived by right wing rhetoric - which panders to xenophobia, fear and discrimination.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Not right wing rhetoric, both parties at different times have stated that the country needs a "barrier" on the southern border. The number one priority for a government is to protect its borders, basic role of military is defense....defense of what? The borders, and the people inside those borders, the life, culture, society, civilization inside those borders. Without borders, you have chaos, collective chaos.
Countries should have strict immigration policies, with specific points of entry and specific processing centers as it was done in the past, ie: Ellis Island in USA.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island
Do not underestimate that "immigration" can also be used as a type of warfare. This was done relatively recently when Fidel Castro ordered the Mariel boatlift, which was supposed to bring Cubans to the USA that did not want to live in a communist country, and instead he emptied the prisons and mental hospitals and put them on the boats. Not all were, but many were criminals and mad men, with the hopes of "invading" and causing chaos in the USA. It's one of the reasons Jimmy Carter was not re-elected.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
