Bush: Border Security Working

A man was arrested Wednesday after officials say he tried to smuggle eight people into the country by hiding them inside water tanks.

Morning Edition, June 15, 2007 · Three men with the Texas National Guard assigned to help strengthen patrols along the Texas-Mexico border were charged with transporting illegal immigrants into the U.S. Cases of corruption among public servants working along the border have increased.

All Things Considered, June 15, 2007 · Business leaders, farmers, politicians and environmentalists — almost everyone in Texas' Rio Grande Valley is opposed to the federal government's plan to build a wall along a 135-mile stretch of the state's border with Mexico.

About 70 miles of the wall will be built through the Rio Grande Valley, and residents say it will change the character of their communities, disturb wildlife habitats and have an impact on the region's economy.

Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas says Valley residents are indignant, and believe Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff misled them.

"On February 21, we met with director Chertoff in Laredo, and we told him firsthand of what we thought of the wall, and we told him it was not necessary. And he answered and said, 'You're right. We may need it in Arizona and New Mexico, but the Rio Grande River is a structure we need to work with,'" Salinas says.

Salinas says business and political leaders from the Rio Grande Valley were thrilled with Chertoff's response — that a virtual wall, consisting of cameras, sensors and boots on the ground was a viable alternative to a real wall.

Salinas says living on the Texas-Mexico border has given local residents perspective about the determination of Mexicans who cross illegally.

He points out a 16-foot fence that runs along the border next to one of the international bridges that connects South Texas and Mexico. He says the McAllen port director used to park his car on the U.S. side of the fence next to his office.
. . . .

An editorial cartoon circulating around McAllen shows a 20-foot high border wall running through town. On the Mexican side of the 20-foot wall is a store and a sign that reads, "Jose's 21-foot ladders."
. . . .

Sure it is working in a few places, nice photo op though.

Click on the link, then click on the picture of the stadium lights.

Migration and the economy
( i ) The UK 's need for immigrants and the policy of the UK Government towards recruitment

There is a wide spread perception shared by big business and the government that the UK needs immigrants, first to take certain low paid jobs which the existing population decline to take, second, and more importantly, to overcome skill shortages in the country. Immigrants are then, seen as playing an important part in enabling the Government to achieve sustainable economic development.

Many immigrants have gone into low paid jobs in the construction industries, catering and domestic services. At the same time, skill shortages are frequently being met by immigrants. So in the health sector, about 30 per cent of doctors and well over ten percent of nurses are non-UK born. In education, overseas teachers play an important role in staffing schools, and a growing number of London education authorities are recruiting staff directly from abroad. In higher education, non-British nationals make up over twelve per cent of academic and research staff. The rapid increase in demand for workers in the IT industry means that over 50,000 more people will be need to be recruited by 2009 and there is a lag in the training of natives (Glover et al , 2001).

I think it's immoral to deny people access to a country. Let people live wherever they want to live without being expelled, evicted, deported or put in prison by the government. No one owns the land of the earth so everyone can be where he wants to be without requesting permission from the government. The earth and it's land belong to everyone equally. No one has a right to more land than another.

For example Canada and Russia are two big countries which are greatly underpopulated. They can let to at least more 200 million people come to their country. They have more than enough space.

In an anarchist or communalist society there is no need for government. Eliminate borders. Borders are not necessary in my opinion. Borders only divide people and take away their freedom to live where they want. In anarchism there are no borders. Borders are only necessary if some are going to rule others.

Government is a monopoly on violence and this monopoly takes freedom because no one has the right to use violence. Government is never good because it uses violence. If humans are inherently good, they can get along without government. If humans are inherently bad, selfish and violent, then they need some government to restrain them. However that governmet is not allowed to abuse its power or to make laws which hurt others or prohibit and control their freedom of movement.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/m.../sp001500.html
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html

Nice idealist take on things. It wouldn't work IMO. Why have a country? I'm afraid we cannot become the United States of Earth. People are too diverse and want their own way of life.

If humans are inherently good, they can get along without government. If humans are inherently bad, selfish and violent, then they need some government to restrain them.

In my opinion it would have been better if there were no states at all (aka anarchism). Then we will have a unified world without inequalities (aka communism).

It's not fair that there are such great inequalities in terms of land.

If we eliminate states we also eliminate these inequalities.

Life is not fair.

At this point - elimination of states would produce 'chaos' - more so than currently exists.

Life is not fair but we can make it fair by eliminating inequalities.

In my opinion it would produce peace and prosperity for everyone. If we abolish states the world will be unified and everyone could live where he wants to live without being deported or put in prison by the state government.

Easier said than done.

How would one propose to eliminate inequalities?

Again, looking on a local basis - what about crime?

What does a society/community do with those who want a disproportionate share of the wealth or land?

There are inequalities between states too, not only between individuals. Some states own more land than others. For example Russia owns much more land than Israel.

I think that if we could eliminate the conditions which cause people to commit crimes like poverty or not having enough money, then there will be much less crime.

Some states already own a disproportionate share of the wealth and land. For example Canada owns much more land than Israel or Lebanon.

Combining a novelist's talent for atmosphere with a scholar's grasp of historical sweep, foreign correspondent Fisk (Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon) has written one of the most dense and compelling accounts of recent Middle Eastern history yet. The book opens with a deftly juxtaposed account of Fisk's two interviews with Osama bin Laden. In the first, held in Sudan in 1993, bin Laden declared himself "a construction engineer and an agriculturist." He had no time to train mujahideen, he said; he was busy constructing a highway. In the second, held four years later in Afghanistan, he declared war on the Saudi royal family and America.Fisk, who has lived in and reported on the Middle East since 1976, first for the (London) Times and now for the Independent, possesses deep knowledge of the broader history of the region, which allows him to discuss the Armenian genocide 90 years ago, the 2002 destruction of Jenin, and the battlefields of Iraq with equal aplomb. But it is his stunning capacity for visceral description—he has seen, or tracked down firsthand accounts of, all the major events of the past 25 years—that makes this volume unique. Some of the chapters contain detailed accounts of torture and murder, which more squeamish readers may be inclined to skip, but such scenes are not gratuitous. They are designed to drive home Fisk's belief that "war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death." Though Fisk's political stances may sometimes be controversial, no one can deny that this volume is a stunning achievement.

This is first of all a book about war -- in particular, the wars that have scarred the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Algeria, throughout the author's long career as a correspondent for the London Times and then the Independent. It switches back and forth across the 20th century in a way that seems driven more by stream of consciousness than by any linear design, and, as befits its topic, it is a book of almost unremitting violence. The author presents himself both as unflinching witness and implacable judge of the events he recounts, for he believes that he is telling a story of unrelenting perfidy and betrayal -- in part a story of Middle Easterners being betrayed by themselves and their leaders, but mostly one of the Middle East being betrayed by the power, greed and arrogance of the West.

Fisk has thrown himself into the fiery pit time after time, often at grave personal risk -- Afghanistan at the beginning of the long struggle against the Soviets, the bloodbath of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Algeria after 1991, the second Palestinian intifada since the fall of 2000. When he is not personally in the midst of conflict and destruction, he evokes them, as in his lengthy discussion of the Armenian deportations and massacres of World War I or (in a different register) his treatment of the shah of Iran's prisons and torture chambers.

However Fisk regards himself, he is at bottom a war correspondent, and the fabric of his book is woven largely from his battlefield reporting. Fisk's writing on war is vivid, graphic, intense and very personal. Readers will encounter no "collateral damage" here, only homes destroyed and bodies torn to shreds. At times, as one horror is heaped upon another, it all seems too much to absorb or bear.

In my opinion it would have been better if there were no states, so that individuals could go to live where they want without being deported, expelled or imprisoned by the government. Government can make laws which prohibit the freedom of movement. If i want to move to Canada without permission, the government can deport and arrest me. I am only allowed to stay for 3 month and then i must leave. This restricts the freedom of movement for a lot of people who are not authorized by the government to immigrate. Without government, everyone could be free to go wherever he wants without being deported and confined in jail.

AFAIK, most states welcome hardworking, industrious immigrants.

What states do not want are people who take advantage of the system, and thus represent a burden.

It would be great if 'everyone' was honest, kind, hard working, . . . .

But REALITY is . . . .

What does a community/society do with those who simply take from others or act aggressively and violently upon others? Some people simply cannot control themselves in civilized society, and unfortunately they need to be confined in order to protect other members of society.