Opponents of the wall genuinely think that sealing the border is impossible–at least those in the mainstream do. Furthermore, if they refuse to even entertain the notion that sealing the border is possible a) they will never be proven wrong; and b) their adversaries will never be proven right. And it doesn’t hurt that their stance will make them the favored choice at the polls for the very vocal hardcore believers who think that any attempt to close the borders is a betrayal of their ideals.
The argument that X is an intractable problem so we shouldn’t even try to fix it is kind of an odd argument for the left to be making, considering their faith in social engineering. Yet it’s become their fallback position in recent years.
I was wrong about immigration, at least the politics of it. I thought the political divisions would force the competing constituencies into some kind of messy but reasonable compromise that would be an improvement over the current situation. Instead, one side used dishonest arguments and raw political leverage to try to impose its preferred outcome on everyone else, which further radicalized opponents and alienated many citizens who might otherwise have been sympathetic to Bush’s approach.
Whether a real compromise, the status quo or some kind of smaller and more incremental reform is now more likely is anyone’s guess.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/06/re-very-good-immigration-post.html
I wrote about this exact thing yesterday.
A couple of problems with comparisons to the Israel defense barrier are:
1. The Israeli defense barrier is a militarized barrier with razor-wire, machine gun nests, etc. Is this really what we want on our southern border?
2. The Israeli defense barrier would barely would barely make it around San Diego County. A 2000-mile wall/fence traversing the Chihuahuan Desert would require an effort of a different order of magnitude. To call it an apples to oranges comparison would be an understatement.
And in the end, there’s no reason to believe that such a monstrous project would even slow down illegal immigration from Mexico. San Diego is arguably the most fortified stretch of border, complete with a multi-fence no man’s land, yet they find tunnels under it all the time. The ways in which such a wall could be defeated are only limited by the imaginations of immigrants and coyotes, and their desire to make money.
yours/
peter.
Instead, one side used dishonest arguments and raw political leverage to try to impose its preferred outcome on everyone else, which further radicalized opponents and alienated many citizens who might otherwise have been sympathetic to Bush’s approach.
This is precisely the way to describe what happened. I actually read through the bill about a week ago. It was imperfect. It was not even that good. However, I thought it reasonable first-step in addressing the issue of immigration (I especially liked the part where it would have eliminated the visa “lottery”). The problem was the bill supporters. Instead of reasoned public debate, the supporters arrogantly tried to bully this bill through congress with no respect, whatsoever, for anyone who had questions about it. Their attitude was that the rest of us (much of the electorate) were stupid rubes who had not the knowledge nor the wisdom to question what our arrogant betters thought was good for us.
This is the reason why the bill went down in flames, and rightly so!
The democrats really do need to take a hint from the republicans and get rid of their senority system in congress.