Most countries have rather high fences around their airports which are their "borders" for a great many visitors. No one would complain about these fences. They are there for the security of the planes but also to stop illegal immigrants.

Australia built a fence several thousand kilometres long to keep Dingos out of the east and south. It worked. It was also in the middle of our country.

If I don't want someone in my backyard I can build a 2 metre fence (3 metres with special permission).

Isn't the only difference between these types of boundaries and the Israel and US fences a matter of size?

If I had a nation very close to my border whose national policy was the destruction of my nation and another neighbour actually developing nuclear weapons that their president says should be used against Israel, I'd actually think the fence was too little. The controversy about the fence is not that it keeps those that do not belong in the country out, it is that it disects Palestinian's farms, villages, etc, making their life quite difficult. Of course the Palestinian question might be a little simpler if any other Arab nation would accept any of them as refuges. They'd rather that they live in squallor and be a thorn in the side of Israel.

If Mexico doesn't like the wall, perhaps they should do something that allows their population to live a little better, or discourage their citizens from illegally crossing into another country.

It may be a political stunt (the US one, not the Israel one) but really what is the big deal? It is their borders (both Israel and the US) and they really should be able to decide who comes into their country. And dehammer, I'd actually think the US/Mexican border illegal crossings causes more deaths than the Israeli one. This border is used to smuggle people and smuggled people are often little better than slaves and do die. It is used to smuggle in terrorism. It is a route that various terrorist organisations have used in the past. It is used to smuggle drugs. Whether the drugs are the killers or the drug pushers are the killers makes little difference to the fact that it is still a danger.

If I was a US senator proposing the wall I, Mike, I wouldn't mind it being compared with the Great Wall of China or Hadrins wall. Both were built to keep out hostile forces into territory under a legitimate government control. I guess you could get picky about Romans and Britain but during that era, someone was going to attempt to control territory. At least the Romans brought roads, plumbing, sound laws.

If it is technically possible and cost effective (border patrols don't seem to work all that well and must cost a great deal to run each year) isn't it just another form of border protection, just like the border patrol or the Coast Guard. Mike, do you suggest that there should be no border protection?


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness