I disagree....a wall would work

[seanx]

.....but it must be made of brick and not wood or straw.........

as far as history goes....the great wall of China worked for many centuries.......hell, we'd only need the one between Mexico and the US to last 40-50 years until I die..........perhaps aluminum.....or heavy duty plastic, like a contractor trash bag.............

[freddyv]

I was thinking the same thing when mickulz mentioned that walls didn't work. sure, no wall will last forever...but provided you maintain the wall (i.e. repairs, etc.) and have people patroling it, it should be effective.

[Mickulz]

I was not talking about just the aspect of keeping people it.

One of the keys things about the great wall of China is that is did not really keep anyone out. The 1 million + soldiers that stood on it did.

Again, you need to read your history. Rome is a perfect example. The wall that they built around it led to the direct downfall of the city.

The fact is you can build a wall as big as you want, but without the people patrolling it, it will do you no good.

I also disagree with the post that said "where the wall is built, it is effective". Not really, they just move 20 miles east and cross there. You could argue that it makes it work if they do not cross there, but lets face it, if another option was not available, they would just scale that part of the wall.

Take the money that you would spend on the wall, and just hire more people to patrol it.

I shall end with a quote:

"military historians are generally dismissive of the net value of this great wall. It was astonishingly expensive to build, maintain and garrison. The money the Ming spent on the wall could have been spent on other military capabilities such as European style artillery or muskets. The fact remains that the great wall was of no help at all in preventing the Ming Dynasty's fall."

[freddyv]

Barring any sort of physical boundary between Mexico and the US, I don't think that people patrolling the borders alone would be sufficient. It's a matter of logistics. With no wall, people could still sneak in once the border patrol agents pass by a given point. A wall adds a measure of security, and makes the job of the border patrol agents easier as well as safer.

Our southern border with Mexico is expansive. How would you suggest that we secure that area sans some sort of wall/barricade? In a flood-type situation, you impede the flow of water using sand bags in tandem with people bailing the water with buckets.

If you're crafty, there will always be a way to circumvent the wall. You can build a fence so that animals don't get into your yard, but they might still dig under it or get over it. The fence will definitely cut down on your infestation though if you properly maintain it.

[freddyv]

I think it's also important to note that the purpose of this wall is to keep mexican illegals out, not to prevent military invasion.

[Mickulz]

Correct, which is why it would not be as effective. Both the walls of China and Rome worked well with keeping invaders out. It was the other aspects that doomed it.

[seanx]

........invaders are harder to stop than illegals, aren't they?.........and it seems to me this Iraq War thingy is costing us more than any wall ever would to maintain.................

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

Correct, which is why it would not be as effective. Both the walls of China and Rome worked well with keeping invaders out. It was the other aspects that doomed it.

so what are you proposing? clearly simply employing more border patrol agents won't solve the problem.

[freddyv]

also, as far as I know no one is suggesting erecting a wall only to leave it undefensed, unpatrolled, and subject to falling into a state of disrepair.

again, the purpose of your historically cited wall-building ventures was much different than the purpose of building this wall. I don't know that it's an apple to apples comparison.

I just did a quick search on the aurelian walls that surrounded rome...and apparently they were up and in use for roughly 16 centuries if the information and my math is correct. that's not too bad of a run. considering the wall at our southern border wouldn't be to protect us from enemy invaders, I'd imagine it could potentially be pretty formidable.

[Mickulz]

The problem with the Aurelian walls is it became a source for the rich to control life inside of Rome. With the walls, they were able to control food, water, and transportation to a point where they eventually brought the downfall of Rome.

I am suggesting simply that the men should be in place LONG before a wall in constructed.

I am not even touching the aspect of cost. My concern is purely effectiveness. The #1 source of illegal immigrants is not even crossing the borders at unprotected areas. So until that process is fixed a wall will not even help that.

[freddyv]

say we are able to expeditiously construct a wall running the entire length of our southern border. we would have designated areas where you would be able to get in and out. say we also are able to sufficiently supply border patrol agents. wouldn't this effectively eliminate the flow of illegal immigrants from mexico? this is also assuming that we adequately run checks when people try to come into the country (i.e. so a platoon of illegals doesn't sneak in via an 18-wheeler).

I'm not saying that this would do anything about the ones already here. But wouldn't it keep more mexicans from sneaking in? The coast guard could handle the coastal areas, of course.

[Mickulz]

freddyv said:

this is also assuming that we adequately run checks when people try to come into the country (i.e. so a platoon of illegals doesn't sneak in via an 18-wheeler).

Bingo.

The #1 source of illegals right now are stolen/forged day passes that US citizens on border towns get.

again..I am saying the wall should be one of the last things done. Not saying it should not be done. Just saying there are other issues at hand that need fixed first.