Two walls don't make a right

One of the most absurd comparisons in the immigration debate has been equating a proposed US/Mexico border fence with the Berlin Wall. While indepth research and extensive subject knowledge could demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the correlation, I have neither - so I will use common sense.

One big, glarring difference makes any purported similarity pointless.

The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. The US border wall would be to keep people out.

The quality of life was such in communist East Germany that people wanted to leave. The Berlin Wall allowed the government to hinder people fleeing to democratic West Germany.

The quality of life is such in modern-day America that Mexicans and other immigrants want to come here despite our laws. The US border wall would allow our government to better regulate who (and what) comes into our nation.

People wanted to leave East Germany. They want to come to America. That little fact tends to destroy this comparison from the beginning.

We can debate the effectiveness of the fence or any other immigration enforcement measure, but it is beyond silly to the point of recklessness or ignorance to compare a fence along the US/Mexico border to the Berlin Wall.

Comments

[seeker]

Anti-fence people are seriously making this comparison? Wow. Even my Mexican wife and I both agree that a fence is probably part of ensuring national security. But let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by stemming the immigration tide without giving them a valid way of getting here to work, or we'll end up leaving the crops in the field to rot while ensuring our "safety."

[Aaron]

I had seen the comparison in other places, but when I was reading the comments at the Marvin Olasky's piece that I linked to in the previous piece I was reminded about it.

On the whole I agree with you. You cannot let whomever come across whenever they feel like it. But you also have to allow people the chance to come here legally.

Besides could you imagine the political backlash from going around rounding up and deporting every illegal immigrant. It may sound nice on paper, but it is impossible. It would be Elian Gonzalez times 10 million. No politician is going to touch that. Whether it is right or wrong, it is impossible.

[seeker]

rounding up and deporting every illegal immigrant. It may sound nice on paper, but it is impossible.
Yeah, well, I wouldn't say it sounds "nice." It sounds like a police state, and it is certainly not doable in any reasonable sense.

This is a big problem, and if we can get an 80% solution, that would be impressive.

[Aaron]

It sounds nice to a lot of people. I am not definitely part of them, but it does have some appeal to actaully enforce the law. But regardless of what anyone may feel, it is not possible and we have to do something to fix this issue.

[Ed Darrell]

The Berlin Wall was built to keep economically and politically repressed people from getting the freedom that free enterprise and democracy offer. The proposed wall on the Mexico border would be built to keep economically and politically repressed people from getting the freedom that free enterprise and democracy offer.

The difference? American patriots were horrified at the construction of the Berlin Wall; there are fewer patriots to express horror today.

[seeker]

The Berlin wall was to keep people trapped in a Communist state that people would normally flee from. They were fleeing to political and ideological freedom, and secondarily, to economic opportunity.

Mexicans are fleeing PRIMARILY to economic opportunity. Their government does not keep them there by force.

Are they politically oppressed? Only by the dishonesty of their officials, but not by force of arms.

These are similar, but not identical. I don't think that you could equate the two walls unless the Mexico/USA wall was being built by Mexico.

[Cineaste]

Symbolically, any wall seems contrary to the words written on the Statue of Liberty. To address the illegal immigration issue, I would rather see tougher laws and more border patrol security than a wall. It would also cost far less.

[economist]

Ultimately a wall, increased border patrol, and tougher laws will not solve the problem. We aren't even enforcing the laws we have on the book. Will added changes help? Sure. The fundamental problem is social and economics.

As long as the Mexican economy cannot offer strong employment opportunities for Mexican workers, there will always be an overwhelming desire to come across the border to the US (legel and illegal).

The US government has never played hardball with the Mexican government to create economic opportunities, nor have we offered any real substantive econmic assistance on that front to help them. I submit that that is one of the reasons the 1986 Immigration Reform Act failed--lack of funding as called for in the bill to provide econmic assistance.

Now, before we all go postal on the notion of giving money to a foreign government to solve immigration. We already to it with our other allies in terms of econmic assistance.

This problem is going to be a complex one to solve. No wall is going to keep people out. They will just find another way (tunneling seems to come to mind as a way around the wall...reminds me of a recent case in AZ). A wall alone is like trying to plug a hole in a dyke. The flow is just to huge with so little economic opportunity south of the border.

[seeker]

Eco,

I totally agree. But fixing the mexican economy will take lots of time and playing hardball. And if we push too hard, Mexico may get pissed and elect a Socialist president who will be more friendly with President Chavez than Bush.

[economist]

Seeker-

Given our past foreign policy actions in Latin America over the last 70 years, pushing our weight around hasn't been the problem. If we didn't like the result, we executed the socialist leader

The problem has been pushing our weight around without politicizing an issue from a partisan perspective. The US has never been good at taking the long view when it comes to decisions is makes with regard to Foreign Policy. Yet, we are very good at throwing our weight around including recent developments to fight the war on terror.

If you buy into the concept of global free trade and the importance of NAFTA to the US and participating countries, then political pressure along with economic assistance will help. It doesn't have to take 50 years to make a difference. If targeted correctly and put in perspective with a long-term plan for addressing illegal immigration economically, socially, and through enforcement, we will have a solution.

To date, we haven't done one thing to pressure Mexico or provide economic assistance along the lines that I have outlined.

Without economic development within Latin American and Mexico, we are all kidding ourselves if we think this problem is going to go away without it.

I am not saying that you have this view, but it gives me pause to come out and say this. Just because it will take longer than the 5 years it will take to build a wall along the border doesn't mean it economic assistance can't help in say 10 years.

If aid wouldn't help, then I would question our overall strategy of providing foreign aid to countries assisting in the War on Terror as well as the success of the Marshall Plan for Europe. Foreign Aid has been a common practice going back to at least the early 20th century.

[seeker]

Actually, what you are saying makes sense to me. Is there anyone in Washington espousing this view and the associated solutions?