Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush: Border Security Working

  1. Apr 10, 2007 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.

    http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/177688 [Broken]

    The border isn't like that except in a very few places.
    It is like this:


    The people smugglers have also become more inventive. They have learned the tricks from their cousins the drug smugglers.

    http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/177371 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 16, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Texas National Guardsmen Accused of Smuggling
    by John Burnett
    Ooops! And sometimes it's not working. or "There's a hole in the dike"

    Plans for 20-Foot Border Wall Rile Texas Residents
    The way to resolve the problem is to reduce or eliminate corruption in various countries, reduce or eliminate the economic disparities in those same countries, and improve economic opportunity throughout central and south America, as well as US.
  4. Jun 16, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm glad I don't have that crap ruining my dark sky. And so much for energy-savings. Guards with battery-operated night vision equipment would probably be just as effective as all that flood-lighting without giving the immigrants/smuggler a clear view of the whole layout.
  5. Jul 20, 2007 #4
    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.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  6. Jul 20, 2007 #5
    There are several studies that show our economy actually receives a benefit from immigration, although it is much easier to control here, because of our location.


    I'm sure though the high amounts of unregulated human traffic is a serious burden on local economies in the US, so I can see were that might make opinion on the subject differ.

    Perhaps the statue of liberties message should be changed to:-

    "Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"*

    *but only if they have passed through the proper immigration procedures and are legal.

    I must admit I like the idea of tackling the root of the problem suggested by Astronuc, rather than the fallout. Of course quick fixes, effective or not, are always going to appeal to the more conservative voters.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  7. Jul 20, 2007 #6
    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  8. Jul 21, 2007 #7
    Why not? 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). States only divide people and take away their freedom to live where they want. States are also unequal in terms of land ownership. For example Canada and Russia own much more land than say Israel and Lebanon. It's not fair that there are such great inequalities in terms of land. If we eliminate states we also eliminate these inequalities.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2007
  9. Jul 21, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think humans are a mixed bag - often struggling between 'good' and 'not so good'. There is perhaps always some level of self-interest, which is not necessarily the same as selfish.

    Governments are composed of 'people'. Government policies are established by 'people'. The violence or aggression perpetrated by governments is really violence and aggression by 'people' on other 'people'.

    It would be nice if people of the world would live peacefully and productively, and care for Nature and the environment, and each other. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The world is already divided by differences - primarily in culturally, ethnically and racially. This seems an extension of the tribalism that seems to be a characteristic of humanity.

    Socio-economic/political have shown their weaknesses. Communism never had a chance to succeed because a 'few' took control over the 'many'. Capitalism and democracy have similarly failed.

    The question is - how to overcome selfishness "the state of being concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."

    Life is not fair.

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

    Finally, consider the nature of 'private property'. I see the need for 'private property' or more accurately - I need a place or personal space to where I can retreat for peace and quiet.

    We've drifted off course on the topic.
  10. Jul 21, 2007 #9
    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.
  11. Jul 21, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Easier said than done.

    How would one propose to eliminate inequalities?

    If I look on a local basis, within 20 km of where I live, there is significant inequality. We have very wealthy folks (and $million estates) and homeless (many or most homeless are mentally ill to some degree). We have people with PhDs and those with limited education (my wife and daughter have been helping a teenage mom whose children were temporarily removed because of her drug problems. The teenage mom has at best a 9th grade education). And there is a spectrum of economic status, education and opportunity.

    We have two prisons nearby whose inmates have committed murder and violent assault. Those inmates grew up within this society.

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

    What does a society/community do with those who may not want to conform and be productive?

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

    What does a society/community do with those who exploit others?
  12. Jul 21, 2007 #11
    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.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2007
  13. Jul 21, 2007 #12
    are you willing to let homeless people live in your house to the point where you cant prepare lunch in your own house because other people have cleaned your fridge? i think not. humans and just about every other living organism on earth is territorial to some degree or another. humans are territorial in a way that reflects ideals instead of family units though.

    eliminating boarders would not create 'equality' because the people who build houses wouldn't have anywhere to live because others would sooner move into someone else's house then build their own.

    the entitlement of people to the fruits of labor should be related to the labor they do that bears fruit.
  14. Jul 21, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes - I am well aware of the geography.

    I am simply trying to find a starting point from which to change the world in a more positive direction.

    That starting point for me is me. I can't change other people - I can't control other people, nor would I want to do so.

    I can practice justice, fairness and equanimity in my own interactions with people. I can chose not to exploit others - and I don't.

    I can choose positive interaction and do my best to avoid conflict.

    However, conflict is inevitable, because there are conflicting interests and desires.

    An https://www.physicsforums.com/blogs/astronuc-15685/an-end-to-suffering-979/ [Broken]", and equally profound book which looks into many of the modern day conflicts since World War I and the impact of European colonialism.

    This is the harsh reality of the modern world. :frown:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  15. Jul 21, 2007 #14
    If you ask me in 10,000 years the Earth will probably be much more conglomerated, into states like Europe NAmerican confedaracy. East Asian Bloc, Indian and Sub Himalayan confedaracy. The African nation states and so on. Who knows eventually we may even have one big planetary conglomeration, it's not beyond the realms of possibility, particularly when or if we start colonizing planets.

    However the poster is clearly a socialist and his ideas are horrible and unselfish and therefore impractical :wink::biggrin: I didn't die in two world wars to listen to no pinko propaganda. :biggrin:
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2007
  16. Jul 21, 2007 #15
    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.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2007
  17. Jul 21, 2007 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
  18. Jul 21, 2007 #17
    There will be those who commit anti-social acts but i believe that if we could eliminate the conditions which cause people to commit anti-social acts like poverty and a restrictive society, there will be much less anti-social acts.

    I mean man is the cruelest animal upon earth. Control of land by states has largely been a matter of historical accident and of course military conquest.

    Even if the nations somehow managed to have equal amounts of land, I doubt that would do all that much to minimize state tyranny. Again, the question is not whether or not we should eliminate the state, but just exactly how we can eliminate the state. It is far from being a trivial question.

    Anarchists oppose the state because the state is imperialist and expansionist and it prohibits individuals from living where they want by deporting them and arresting them.

    Last edited: Jul 22, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook