Why do those who don't want the border closed keep talking about the Berlin Wall? What about Hadrian's wall?

Question

The emperor Hadrian (AD117-138) determined that the frontiers of the Empire should stay as they were when he succeeded. In some cases the frontiers were on rivers, such as the Rhine, Danube and Euphrates. Where no natural barrier existed, artificial barriers were constructed. In Germany, between the Rhine and the Danube, this was a ditch and timber palisade, with attached towers and forts. In Britain the wall which bears Hadrian’s name was built slightly north of the Stanegate “to separate the Romans from the barbarians” in AD122."

It was 15 feet high, and had forts called milecastles (housing garrisons of up to 60 men) every Roman mile along its entire length, with towers every 1/3 mile. Sixteen larger forts holding from 500 to 1000 troops were built into the wall, with large gates.

It lasted until into the 5th century. While it did fall when the Empire did, what came after was the dark ages. This wall like the one we need was to keep people out, not in.

Thoughts?

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/rome/a/aa060600a.htm

cora, we'd have to use modern methods, of course.

VJ, sorry I don't understand your shorthand.

Mendi, yes but the Berlin wall did not keep people out. It kept people in.

JD, thanks for the information. I hadn't seen that. And since Los Angeles County alone spends $1 billion per year on illegal immigrant services and the State of California spends $10.5 billion, it does seem like the cost of the fence/wall is justified.

I think there will need to be some wildlife corridor areas where there are sensers and we have a manned presence. However, since illegals drive off the wildlife, the border fence/wall in the other areas shouldn't be environmental damage, and lack of forest fires and trash would be an environmental benefit.

The wall/fence is under environmental etc. review right now, so if you have comments on that point you might want to send them to your Congressmen.

Answer 1

Great Answer From gokart121 Above Me



I Also Endorse The Wall

But Alongside That,
I Endorse The DISMANTLING Of The Border Patrol

I Think Border Security Should Be The Responsibility Of The National Guard
Translated: Militarize The Border(s) And Ports Of The USA

Strategically Placed Firebases Along The Border(s)
Combined With An AGGRESSIVELY Patrolled Fenceline
In Populated Areas


Combined With A Strong Program Of Internal Hiring Policies
And Restrictions On Social Services For ILLEGAL ALIENS
We Could Clean This Mess Up Within 5 Years



See:
Cost 0f 1,891 Mile Mexican/U.S. Border Fence =
14 Days of Iraq War
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060802_nd.htm

Below is a sample of homeland security items
in the FY2007 Budget,
their estimated costs,
and the time it takes the Pentagon to burn through
the same amount in Iraq.

* 1,500 new Border Patrol agents:
$459 million ($306,000 per agent)
Iraq spending equivalent: 1.9 days

* Container Security Initiative (CSI)
to pre-screen U.S.-bound cargo
at more than 40 foreign ports:
$139 million
Iraq spending equivalent: 13.9 hours.

* An additional 6,700 Detention Bed Spaces
to replace “catch and release” with a “catch and return” policy:
$410 million.
Iraq spending equivalent: 1.7 days

* An enhanced Worksite Enforcement program
to “send a strong deterrence message to employers
who knowingly hire illegal workers…”:
$41.7 million
Iraq spending equivalent: 4.2 hours

* Border technology to enhance electronic surveillance:
$100 million
Iraq spending equivalent: 10 hours

* 18 additional Fugitive Operations teams (raising the total to 70)
dedicated to catching the estimated 450,000 individuals
who have absconded following their deportation orders:
$30 million
Iraq spending equivalent: 10 hours

* Completion of the San Diego Border Infrastructure System,
including multiple fences and patrol roads:
$30 million
Iraq spending equivalent: 3 hours

And now for the grand finale.
Although this last item is the Most costly,
it may yield one of the biggest benefits.

After the first 10 miles of border fence was completed,
arrests of illegal immigrants
trying to cross the San Diego border sector plummeted
from about 25,000 per year to 3,000 per year.
But of course the San Diego fence
pushed the illegal influx eastward,
into the (less hospitable) Arizona desert.

A serious commitment to border security
would require fencing off the entire southern border—
all 1,891 miles of it.
(For comparison, we have 40,000 miles of Interstate highways.)

At $1.7 million per mile
(the cost of the first 10 mile stretch in San Diego),
the entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off
for $3.3 billion dollars.

Iraq spending equivalent: 13.8 days.

Cost/benefit analysis, anyone?

Answer 2

My thought is, having the US/Mexico border fence will force positive economic developments on both sides of it. US citizens and businesses will 'rediscover' some of their ethics, and mexicans will start investing all that 'hard work' in their own country, building their own roads, schools, and hospitals, providing for the needs of their own poor, and teaching the poor to take care of themselves also.

At any rate, the border fence will clean up business-as-usual for all parties concerned, help close the door on drug trafficking and other cross-border crime, and help people sort out their priorities etc. 2 countries, separated by a joint border, which is a joint responsibility. I don't mind the idea of assisting mexico economically, but this 'sole means of support' stuff needs to stop. They say Mexico's got 110 million people in it, well great, everyone can work 10 minutes a week on various projects that need done, and eventually they'll have all the infrastructure they need. Building the fence closes the 'easy out'...

Answer 3

Sure. Great wall for keeping large invading armies out.

But how effective was it at keeping a handful of people from sneaking across? One, we'll never know. And two, probably not very.

So, not a particularly useful analogy given the vast differences in the goals and circumstances. But nice try. Very creative.

Answer 4

If we are going there then we are talking Great Wall of China not Hadrian's Wall. Hadrian's was only about 100 miles long, Great Wall is 3900 miles long.

Just what we need, several million laborers working on this for 30 years. Heck, let's build some pyramids while we are at it.

Answer 5

My answer is kind of cliche but... good walls make great neighbors.

On a more sarcastic note: where are all those wall builders now?

Answer 6

what about LOC between ind and pak?

Answer 7

I think it is because we are shutting people out.