News If East Germany Could Secure Their Border So Can America

[JaredJames]

A 100yds? That's 30,000 towers, and at least as many guards! I think you could achieve the same with towers 1000 yds apart - I think that's still within fairly easy viewing distance for most parts of the border region.

Perhaps I over cooked it a little. Not sure of the terrain out there so just assumed it was difficult to see any distance.

Perhaps putting 30000 troops there would be a better use of their time than their current situation in the ME. At least you'd see your money at work, making a difference.

 

[WhoWee]

Ok, so what's the prevailing opinion here? Is a border obstacle with monitering and militarization sufficient to significantly decrease the flow of illegal immigrants going to happen? My guess is no. It won't happen.

We need to ask ourselves why these people want to come here. If our manufacturing plants have relocated to Mexico - it had to create local employment. If Mexico has a national health care system - is our Medicaid system better for them? Our economy is in the tank, Obama is talking about unemployment extensions - we're not offering a lot of well paying jobs. Other than welfare, what motivates these people? We don't have these problems on the northern border.

Address this issue sufficiently, and the fence/militarization of the border would only be necessary to stop criminal activity - hence (going back a few pages) shoot to kill might be appropriate?

 

[ThomasT]

Thanks for the reply jared. I will reply to some of your points below:

A 20ft fence, 15ft above ground, 5ft below ground. Floodlit and monitored with infrared and other such sensor tech. Guard towers every 100yds with armed, shoot to kill guards (well perhaps not that last one).

Ok, that means a minimum of about 100,000 guards stationed on the border. That's based on the assumption that each guard will do an 8 hour shift on actual guard duty each day. They do have to sleep you know. Also, unless anyone here has actually done guard duty in a situation where it was likely that they might get shot at, then you have no idea how much an 8 hour shift can take out of you.

Also, they're not going to be allowed to just shoot to kill on sight. The US, for all its faults, is not the USSR or Nazi Germany or anything even remotely like that. Even our most dickheaded bureaucrats wouldn't be allowed to ok something like that.

So, jared, while I might concede that an obstacle of the sort you describe might be built. I really don't think that the government will put 100,000 men on the border. How about 20,000 men? Not likely, but let's go with it. That means one man per 8 hour shift monitors 500 yards of fence. Ok, that might decrease the flow by, say, 10%, which means that instead of 500k per year there will be 450k per year coming into the US. Look, don't you think that whatever agency is charged with protecting our borders has already done any and all of the math that any of us is ever going to come up with? Bottom line, imho, the southern US border is, fapp, open, and will stay that way. The illegal immigration and drug transport will continue, pretty much unabated, for the foreseeable future. We simply don't have the political will, or the manpower, to stop it.

 

[ThomasT]

We need to ask ourselves why these people want to come here. If our manufacturing plants have relocated to Mexico - it had to create local employment. If Mexico has a national health care system - is our Medicaid system better for them? Our economy is in the tank, Obama is talking about unemployment extensions - we're not offering a lot of well paying jobs. Other than welfare, what motivates these people? We don't have these problems on the northern border.

Welfare is enough. But there's more than that. The US is huge. There are VERY large Mexican populations all over the US. There's work here. It's nice here. It's safe here. People in the US have no idea what's happening in Mexico. It's a very bad place to live if you're poor, and not so good even if you have money.

... hence (going back a few pages) shoot to kill might be appropriate?

No. This would never be appropriate or implemented. The vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals but just poor folks seeking a better life. If we started shooting them, then I would renounce my citizenship in disgust and move to Sweden or somewhere. On second thought, maybe southern Italy -- it's warm there isn't it?

 

[JaredJames]

Im curious, i don't know what troops do when they arent deployed to a war zone, so the way i see it, why can't they post that man power to the border?

There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of troops available. Just seems logical to me. At least then they are actually defending the country.

 

[WhoWee]

Welfare is enough. But there's more than that. The US is huge. There are VERY large Mexican populations all over the US. There's work here. It's nice here. It's safe here. People in the US have no idea what's happening in Mexico. It's a very bad place to live if you're poor, and not so good even if you have money.

No. This would never be appropriate or implemented. The vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals but just poor folks seeking a better life. If we started shooting them, then I would renounce my citizenship in disgust and move to Sweden or somewhere. On second thought, maybe southern Italy -- it's warm there isn't it?

Let's stay focused - I don't want to shoot anyone. If we address the immigration issue comprehensively, the botder reverts back to a customs issue.
The US is a nice place to live, but the concept of using welfare to buy votes is unpleasant.

 

[JaredJames]

Just to point out, I don't advocate "shoot to kill" in the above context.

 

[ThomasT]

Let's stay focused - I don't want to shoot anyone.

Thank the gods (old school, never mind).

If we address the immigration issue comprehensively, the border reverts back to a customs issue.

Elaborate?

The US is a nice place to live, but the concept of using welfare to buy votes is unpleasant.

Ok, maybe it's just me. I just woke up. What are you talking about?

 

[NobodySpecial]

A 20ft fence, 15ft above ground, 5ft below ground. Floodlit and monitored with infrared and other such sensor tech. Guard towers every 100yds with armed, shoot to kill guards (well perhaps not that last one)

Not even close - the tunnel above was 100ft deep and came up 1/4mi into the US.
You would need an east german style fence with a DMZ 1-2km wide

Then you would have to deal with corrupt guards, the majority of east german defectors were border guards - in spite of a system were 1/3 of the guards were spys for the stasi and they had a policy of treating everyone else at the post where someone defected as if they had also defected. The policy for dealing with US border guards who let a few people through for a bribe would have to be similarly stiff

Then you have the issue of everybody else entering america - probably a secret service detail to watch every visitor (as in east germany) might be sufficent - and would certainly result in 100% employment.

 

[ThomasT]

Im curious, i don't know what troops do when they arent deployed to a war zone, so the way i see it, why can't they post that man power to the border?

Because we don't have the manpower. We've got a certain lesser percentage of the manpower that we had, say, 40 years ago during the Vietnam thing. There's currently no draft/conscription. Our troops are spread over the entire world. We actually do not have the manpower that it would take to police the Mexican border, much less the entire southern US border.

There are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of troops available. Just seems logical to me. At least then they are actually defending the country.

No. There are fewer troops available than you might think, even though, technologically, the US military is far superior to any other nation. More planes, more ships. more nuclear weapons, etc. -- but not more people under arms.

 

[ThomasT]

Not even close - the tunnel above was 100ft deep and came up 1/4mi into the US.
You would need an east german style fence with a DMZ 1-2km wide

Then you would have to deal with corrupt guards, the majority of east german defectors were border guards - in spite of a system were 1/3 of the guards were spys for the stasi and they had a policy of treating everyone else at the post where someone defected as if they had also defected. The policy for dealing with US border guards who let a few people through for a bribe would have to be similarly stiff

This is a good point. Who knows who is being bribed and for how much.

Then you have the issue of everybody else entering america - probably a secret service detail to watch every visitor (as in east germany) might be sufficent - and would certainly result in 100% employment.

But that's absurd. Was that your point? I mean, there are literally thousands of people coming through the 'regulated' border crossings each day.

 

[JaredJames]

Not even close

Please note the last line in my post:

"Tunnels, well I don't think there's much you can do about those.".

Please don't mis-quote me, I wasn't addressing the tunnels and made the point of noting this at the end of my post. The whole "5ft below ground" thing was simply to prevent people easily/rapidly digging under it.

Because we don't have the manpower. We've got a certain lesser percentage of the manpower that we had, say, 40 years ago during the Vietnam thing. There's currently no draft/conscription. Our troops are spread over the entire world. We actually do not have the manpower that it would take to police the Mexican border, much less the entire southern US border.

No. There are fewer troops available than you might think, even though, technologically, the US military is far superior to any other nation. More planes, more ships. more nuclear weapons, etc. -- but not more people under arms.

Good or bad aside, the war in Iraq and Afghansitan is costing billions to fund not to mention the man power required for it.

If illegal immigration is that big an issue, why not use those troops (I thought they were being pulled out anyway)? The money spent on that could be saved and some of it put towards defending the border. Use the troops for those purposes. Defend your country.

(I subscribe very strongly to dealing with your own (your countries) problems first and then helping others around the world. It's no good trying to sort out another countries problems if your own country is going to the dogs.)

I'd say that even an additional 10,000 to 20,000 men could help with the immigration issues by simply patroling the borders and providing additional response teams.

 

[NobodySpecial]

But that's absurd. Was that your point? I mean, there are literally thousands of people coming through the 'regulated' border crossings each day.

Yes exactly - there isn't much point in having a ninja patrolled laser canon armed death fence if at the border crossing you have someone saying "hello Mr forged passport, so you have decided to visit america for a holiday, oh I see you have brought grand-ma and your chickens and all your possessions with you while you go to Disney land - well have a nice stay"

The east german fence would hardly have worked if the east germans also allowed people to go on coach trips to Bonn.

 

[CAC1001]

I'd say that even an additional 10,000 to 20,000 men could help with the immigration issues by simply patroling the borders and providing additional response teams.

The current Army isn't/wasn't really large enough for the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts. It really needs one or two additional divisions. But then you need the troops to fill those divisions, you need the vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc...all for it, and the budget is just not there, especially right now.

 

[CAC1001]

Largely semantics though nowadays
Left wing philosphers tended to define them as nationalism = aggressive, patriotism = defensive.
Right wing philosphers split them into nationalism=instinct/no choice in where you are born vs patriotism = moral choice/duty to country.

Unless you define what you mean they are pretty interchangeable terms.

My definition of them was that nationalism is a collective type of thing, a wave you get caught up in. Patriotism is much more individual and not a mania you get caught up in for awhile. There is a fine line between the two though.

 

[JaredJames]

The current Army isn't/wasn't really large enough for the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts. It really needs one or two additional divisions. But then you need the troops to fill those divisions, you need the vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc...all for it, and the budget is just not there, especially right now.

Which is why in my previous posts I indicated you would have to remove the Iraq / Afghan component for it to work. (Bring the troops home style, kill two birds with one stone - troops come home, troops help secure border).

 

[NobodySpecial]

"Tunnels, well I don't think there's much you can do about those.".

Sorry missed that - I was just pointing out that the tunnels were quite large engineering projects - not the holes in fences you used as kids to get into the ball park.

 

[mheslep]

For my part I'm unconcerned about tunnels. They could only be used by small numbers of people or for smuggling. Put large numbers of random people through a tunnel and it would remain a secret only for a moment.

 

[JaredJames]

For my part I'm unconcerned about tunnels. They could only be used by small numbers of people or for smuggling. Put large numbers of random people through a tunnel and it would remain a secret only for a moment.

Agreed. They'd have people singing like canaries if they caught any of them. Given the engineering required for such a tunnel it simply isn't worth the risk as someone earlier pointed out.

 

[skeptic2]

Then you would have to deal with corrupt guards, the majority of east german defectors were border guards - in spite of a system were 1/3 of the guards were spys for the stasi and they had a policy of treating everyone else at the post where someone defected as if they had also defected. The policy for dealing with US border guards who let a few people through for a bribe would have to be similarly stiff

Yes exactly - there isn't much point in having a ninja patrolled laser canon armed death fence if at the border crossing you have someone saying "hello Mr forged passport, so you have decided to visit america for a holiday, oh I see you have brought grand-ma and your chickens and all your possessions with you while you go to Disney land - well have a nice stay"

The east german fence would hardly have worked if the east germans also allowed people to go on coach trips to Bonn.

Very good points and similar to the ones I made in post #66.

I know a woman who claims to have paid a coyote who simply drove her over in his pickup. As he crossed the border he started talking on his walkie-talkie to a US customs official who told him which of the lines to get into. When they got to the customs stop, that officer just waved them through.

Thousands of people cross at the border crossings each day. How do you force them to return? Once in the US it's relatively easy, though expensive, to get a good ID.

My point is that it is not possible to make the border even close to air tight. It is much more effective to create an incentive to obey the law than impediments or punishments for violating it.

 

[Siv]

Largely semantics though nowadays
Left wing philosphers tended to define them as nationalism = aggressive, patriotism = defensive.
Right wing philosphers split them into nationalism=instinct/no choice in where you are born vs patriotism = moral choice/duty to country.

Unless you define what you mean they are pretty interchangeable terms.

Thank you. Yes.
Its like religious folks saying that it is religious extremism which is the problem and not religion per se.

The point is, there is no rationale for either, except chance. I am born to Christian/Hindu/Muslim parents and so I think that religion is the best. Similarly, I am born to American/Indian/British parents so I am proud of that country.

There is no rationale in thinking your own religion/language/country/race is the best. On the contrary ...

Anyway, that's all I will be posting here, since its off topic.

 

[Galteeth]

On the size of the army thing- a big question to me is why the heck do we still have over 100,000 troops in europe, troops in japan, south korea etc. It seems like if we stopped being the defense force for the entire world, we would have sufficient manpower for the middle east missions and border security, if such was desirable.

 

[JaredJames]

On the size of the army thing- a big question to me is why the heck do we still have over 100,000 troops in europe, troops in japan, south korea etc. It seems like if we stopped being the defense force for the entire world, we would have sufficient manpower for the middle east missions and border security, if such was desirable.

Exactly. For some reason it's a case of look out for others and to hell with your own countries needs. The UK is exactly the same (although now we don't even have our own dedicated services thanks to the merger with France - wait until something kicks off and see how long we remain helping each other).

 

[ThomasT]

... there isn't much point in having a ninja patrolled laser canon armed death fence if at the border crossing you have someone saying "hello Mr forged passport, so you have decided to visit america for a holiday, oh I see you have brought grand-ma and your chickens and all your possessions with you while you go to Disney land - well have a nice stay"

Indeed. Nice phrasing.

Anyway, having said what I've said in this thread about insufficient manpower and other problems, I nonetheless think that if the political will was there, a big if, then the US could surely summon the manpower, and surely build a formidable obstacle for that manpower to monitor and patrol -- and that a border security 'could' be engineered that would significantly (like down to, say, 10% of current levels) decrease the flow of illegal immigrants across the southern (at least the Mexican) border.

So, for the moment, let's just assume that the people who could set in motion a significant stemming of this flow are allowing it to continue for some particular reason. What might that be? Or is this just an absurd notion? (I'm pretty sure it isn't about votes.)

(The problem I have with the whole situation is that I'm sort of morally conflicted about it. That is, we know that, given the current situation in the US, we can help these people to better lives within the borders of the US. On the other hand, are we creating another third world country that, eventually, will not be able to help any of the poor and downtrodden, but will itself need help?)

Is it really just that the US, even given the political will, can't do it?

By the way, a bit off-topic, but regarding the immigration situation (not illegal, and, as I understand it, largely Muslim) wrt, say, Germany. Germany 'needs' a certain number of immigrants assimilating into it's workforce each year. The problem is, as I understand it, that they're not, as had been envisioned or hoped for, assimilating into the dominant German culture. And so the historical dominance of a certain culture within the boundaries defining Germany is being increasingly threatened -- in a way that the historical dominance of a certain culture (Anglo-Saxon, English speaking) isn't yet being threatened within the boundaries defining the US.

The US, on the other hand, doesn't 'need' the number of illegal immigrants coming into the US each year -- unless there's some 'plan' that most of us haven't considered. Or is it simply that the US can't do anything about it. Which is the case?

 

[CAC1001]

On the size of the army thing- a big question to me is why the heck do we still have over 100,000 troops in europe, troops in japan, south korea etc. It seems like if we stopped being the defense force for the entire world, we would have sufficient manpower for the middle east missions and border security, if such was desirable.

Troops in Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc...was in part to also protect America, in particular during the Cold War. It also allows us to be able to project force around the world when needed.

 

[mheslep]

Troops in Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc...was in part to also protect America, in particular during the Cold War.

Yes, very prudent at the time, but he cold war is long over yet the US still maintains 50,000 troops in Germany, tens of thousands in Japan, in S. Korea, in Guam, ...

It also allows us to be able to project force around the world when needed.

I don't buy this argument anymore at this level of generality. Without a specific argument as to why the security of the US can not be guaranteed by force projection done from the US, perhaps a bit slower, via the colossal US air lift capability, or from many fewer forward deployed bases, or by the Navy, then the whole thing smacks of empire maintenance and continued picking-up-the-tab for the Europeans in the eastern hemisphere.

 

[CAC1001]

Yes, very prudent at the time, but he cold war is long over yet the US still maintains 50,000 troops in Germany, tens of thousands in Japan, in S. Korea, in Guam, ...
I don't buy this argument anymore at this level of generality. Without a specific argument as to why the security of the US can not be guaranteed by force projection done from the US, perhaps a bit slower, via the colossal US air lift capability, or from many fewer forward deployed bases, or by the Navy, then the whole thing smacks of empire maintenance and continued picking-up-the-tab for the Europeans in the eastern hemisphere.

I wouldn't go as a far as "empire maintenance," as the U.S. doesn't have any formal empire in the old sense like Britain did. However I do agree that if we could do force projection just fine without overseas bases, then we could close some of them up.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't go as a far as "empire maintenance," as the U.S. doesn't have any formal empire in the old sense like Britain did.

Yes on reflection I agree, empire is inaccurate. Perhaps military-industrial-complex maintenance.

 

[talk2glenn]

Yes, very prudent at the time, but he cold war is long over yet the US still maintains 50,000 troops in Germany, tens of thousands in Japan, in S. Korea, in Guam, ...
I don't buy this argument anymore at this level of generality. Without a specific argument as to why the security of the US can not be guaranteed by force projection done from the US, perhaps a bit slower, via the colossal US air lift capability, or from many fewer forward deployed bases, or by the Navy, then the whole thing smacks of empire maintenance and continued picking-up-the-tab for the Europeans in the eastern hemisphere.

The US air lift capability may be colossal relative to the rest of the world, but it is completely incapable of moving anything heavy. To do that, you need ships. These ships are slow, and vulnerable to attack.

The US presence in Germany and Europe is almost entirely heavy. From there, we can easily project force towards Eastern Europe and/or the Middle East. Without Germany, the Iraq and Afghanistan operations as executed would have been much less possible. Like wise for our bases in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and elsewhere around the Gulf. How do you think we get an 80 ton tank to Baghdad? Fed Ex? Naw, they just never leave.

There is no political incentive to retain an expansive and substantial foreign military presence. There is tremendous political pressure to retain an expansive and substnatial domestic military presence, and every Pentagon proposed closure at home is fought tooth and nail by the affected state and its federal representatives. The fact that, despite this, the United States still retains such a tremendous foreign footprint is a testament to just how vital that footprint is.

Japan and S. Korea provide a SE Asian heavy capacity. Europe and the Middle East give us an African and Eastern European heavy capacity. This cannot be replaced with air or sea power. The Navy doesn't have any ships capable of transporting a tank division, and the Air Force lacks the planes. The cost (in terms of dollars and time) of maintaining your heavy capability at home, and then shipping it abroad every time you decided to go to war would be prohibiting; this is precisely why nobody else on Earth ever goes to war with anybody except their neighbors. It's simply not practical.

 

[mheslep]

The US air lift capability may be colossal relative to the rest of the world, but it is completely incapable of moving anything heavy.

Not true.

Cargo is loaded through a large aft door that accommodates rolling stock, such as the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank, other armored vehicles, trucks, trailers, etc., along with palletized cargo.
...
Maximum payload of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
And one can make an argument that a fixed base in Germany or anywhere else is more 'vulnerable to attack' than a United States naval task force at sea.

 

[JaredJames]

Just to add to mheslep:

C-5 Galaxy

It was designed to provide strategic heavy airlift over intercontinental distances and to carry outsize and oversize cargo. The C-5 Galaxy has been operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) since 1969 and is one of the largest military aircraft in the world.

C-5s were used to transport equipment and troops; included Army tanks and various smaller aircraft.

Payload: 270,000 lb (122,470 kg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy

If you don't consider tanks and "various smaller aircraft" heavy lifting capacity, what do you think it is?

Personally, I think a strong naval force is the key to being a strong military power in the world these days. The ability to mobilize your troops around the world, and then re-deploy elsewhere is important.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't know about ships, but as mentioned above the Air Force does have aircraft that can carry Abrams tanks. Also keep in mind that Abrams tanks get shipped back to the U.S. from Iraq all the time for a tear-down and re-build. I saw a TV special on this, they take the whole tank apart, down to the very pieces of the engine, they put the hull into a special machine that holds it up and fires it with some kind of miniature pieces all over to scrape the rust off, they replace the tracks, the engine is rebuilt completely, etc...then the tank is basically brand-new at the end and goes back to battle.

EDIT: The U.S. Navy does have ships that can carry Abrams tanks: http://www.msc.navy.mil/N00p/pressrel/press05/press07.htm

 

[mugaliens]

I don't know about ships, but as mentioned above the Air Force does have aircraft that can carry Abrams tanks.

Yes, but only one at a time, and at great expense, so it's done only in emergencies. The C-5 Galaxy has the lift capacity to carry the weight of two Abrams, but it can't actually carry two Abrams tanks, as the bending moment about the CG in the wing box exceeds the structural limitations of the aircraft.

Also keep in mind that Abrams tanks get shipped back to the U.S. from Iraq all the time for a tear-down and re-build.

Yes they do - aboard ships.

EDIT: The U.S. Navy does have ships that can carry Abrams tanks: http://www.msc.navy.mil/N00p/pressrel/press05/press07.htm

Believe it or not, the U.S. Army has significantly more sealift capacity than does the U.S. Navy, whose focus is projecting power from the sea, not hauling the Army's cargo back and forth.

 

[CAC1001]

Yes they do - aboard ships.

I pointed that out in an edit.

Believe it or not, the U.S. Army has significantly more sealift capacity than does the U.S. Navy, whose focus is projecting power from the sea, not hauling the Army's cargo back and forth.

Didn't know that, probably makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint though, as the Navy brass I'd bet wouldn't want to be concerned with hauling the Army's stuff around as opposed to power projection. I read this was a problem with the Air Force for a long time, that the Air Force was charged with providing close air support for the Army, but the Air Force brass had zero interest in this, and didn't believe it was even necessary, as they saw future wars as being nuclear and not requiring the Army.

BTW, what is the CG when you refer to the C-5 Galaxy?

 

[JaredJames]

BTW, what is the CG when you refer to the C-5 Galaxy?

Centre of Gravity, not just C-5 specific.

 

[brainstorm]

I wouldn't go as a far as "empire maintenance," as the U.S. doesn't have any formal empire in the old sense like Britain did. However I do agree that if we could do force projection just fine without overseas bases, then we could close some of them up.

Why is it that if people engage in free trade at a global scale, it's called empire, but if they do it at the level of (a) sub-global region(s), it's called a national economy and no eyebrows get raised? Have the ethics of conquest degenerated into "empire is ok as long as it is contained within national borders?"

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

 

[drankin]

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

Nice ideal. Very impractical. Impossible to enforce without a worldwide governing "empire" to bring those that want their own nation and culture untouched into line, by force. The Middle East is resisting assimilation by the West as we speak and it's very violent, for example. What you are suggesting would create extreme violence.

 

[mheslep]

Nice ideal. Very impractical.

If the idea is summarized as the abolition of national borders, then I doubt on reflection you'd agree that this is even a nice idea. That's a concept borne of both nihilism and of contempt for the idea that some cultures can be preferred both practically and morally over others.

 

[mheslep]

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

So far the closest practical historical example of this is the United States.

 

[brainstorm]

Nice ideal. Very impractical. Impossible to enforce without a worldwide governing "empire" to bring those that want their own nation and culture untouched into line, by force. The Middle East is resisting assimilation by the West as we speak and it's very violent, for example. What you are suggesting would create extreme violence.

You can't blame peace for war. Extreme nationalist violence is the product of nationalism, not freedom or migration. As for a "worldwide governing 'empire'," that already exists in practice in the form of intergovernmental cooperation in managing people according to citizenship. Each national government is an socially-accepted "empire" and they work together to control migration and economic activity. You're right though that it is very difficult to regulate ethnic social movements. The best you can really do with such people is give them a minimal regional territory to concentrate themselves in and then bombard them with anti-fascist propaganda. I'm not as concerned with ethnic nationalism as I am with figuring out how to facilitate diversity of language and culture within regions of free migration. It seems to me that when people migrate freely, they tend to use English or another lingua franca unless there are sufficient numbers of speakers of some other shared language(s). As post-nationalism progresses, I believe such issues will become quite challenging since some people seem to have a hard time maintaining language/culture when multiple languages/cultures are co-present.

 

[JaredJames]

So far the closest practical historical example of this is the United States.

I know the US is made of separate states, but they do all come under one overall government and are part of the same country so actually I'd say it's the EU in respect to actually having individual countries 'remove' their borders so far as work goes.

Any EU resident can work in any other EU country without requiring work documentation.

 

[JaredJames]

Each national government is an socially-accepted "empire" and they work together to control migration and economic activity.

Work together? You're 'aving a giraffe mate. ("Having a laugh")

Each country has it's own laws, countries such as those in the EU may work together in some respects but it still comes down to the individual laws governing each country which dictate what happens with regard to migration and economic activity. Nothing to do with working together. If Britain doesn't want immigrants, it doesn't accept them. There's nothing anyone can do about it (I suppose they could try imposing sanctions on us in some shape, but not sure how effective that would be).

 

[brainstorm]

Work together? You're 'aving a giraffe mate. ("Having a laugh")

Each country has it's own laws, countries such as those in the EU may work together in some respects but it still comes down to the individual laws governing each country which dictate what happens with regard to migration and economic activity. Nothing to do with working together. If Britain doesn't want immigrants, it doesn't accept them. There's nothing anyone can do about it (I suppose they could try imposing sanctions on us in some shape, but not sure how effective that would be).

What I meant is that the governments work together to segregate people into their respective regions of citizenship. So if the UK deports someone, that person has to go where they have citizenship or where their citizenship won't get them deported. Thus, governments work together to maintain global apartheid. It just so happens that the ideology of national pride and belonging has convinced many people to accept relegation to a limited regional territory as a privilege instead of infringement of their right to free mobility. Make the cages cozy enough and the zoo animals will see them as a right and a privilege instead of as a prison.

 

[JaredJames]

What I meant is that the governments work together to segregate people into their respective regions of citizenship. So if the UK deports someone, that person has to go where they have citizenship or where their citizenship won't get them deported. Thus, governments work together to maintain global apartheid. It just so happens that the ideology of national pride and belonging has convinced many people to accept relegation to a limited regional territory as a privilege instead of infringement of their right to free mobility. Make the cages cozy enough and the zoo animals will see them as a right and a privilege instead of as a prison.

The UK only deports you if it has just cause. The main reason being that you've broken the law. They can't simply deport someone without a damn good reason.

They don't work together to segregate people. A person comes to the UK, violates the UK's laws and as such their own actions remove their right to inhabit the UK and so they are removed back to wherever they came from. They don't work together on this. The UK does this off their own back. There's no participation from the other country unless travel documents are required. In the case of China, it can take a year to get those documents. From India it is around 6 months. Their foreign goverments don't make it an easy process.

 

[mugaliens]

Didn't know that, probably makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint though, as the Navy brass I'd bet wouldn't want to be concerned with hauling the Army's stuff around as opposed to power projection. I read this was a problem with the Air Force for a long time, that the Air Force was charged with providing close air support for the Army, but the Air Force brass had zero interest in this, and didn't believe it was even necessary, as they saw future wars as being nuclear and not requiring the Army.

The Air Force also provides airlift, not only for the Army but for all services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USTRANSCOM" was created in order to manage air, land, and sea-lift while bypassing issues involving interservice rivalries.

 

[CAC1001]

Why is it that if people engage in free trade at a global scale, it's called empire, but if they do it at the level of (a) sub-global region(s), it's called a national economy and no eyebrows get raised? Have the ethics of conquest degenerated into "empire is ok as long as it is contained within national borders?"

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

I don't understand your claim, would you clarify?

 

[CAC1001]

When brainstorm said the following:

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

...although upon re-reading it, perhaps I mis-interpreted it? I thought he was saying that the U.S.'s having military bases overseas keeps people constrained within the countries where we have the bases.

 

[brainstorm]

The UK only deports you if it has just cause. The main reason being that you've broken the law. They can't simply deport someone without a damn good reason.

Well, if they have a conditional visa with a time-limit, that provides a free-card for deportation if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated, no?

They don't work together to segregate people. A person comes to the UK, violates the UK's laws and as such their own actions remove their right to inhabit the UK and so they are removed back to wherever they came from.

Maybe it bothers you to call it segregation but it is in fact a form of segregation. If you look at how apartheid was regulated in South Africa, it was very similar to the way international traffic is regulated. People needed "passes" instead of "passports," but the general idea was to ensure that people only traveled to another region if they had a reason legitimated by the people/government of the receiving region (mostly employment, I believe). Beyond that, people were viewed as not 'belonging' outside their region of citizenship, the same as nationalism views nation-states at present.

They don't work together on this. The UK does this off their own back. There's no participation from the other country unless travel documents are required. In the case of China, it can take a year to get those documents. From India it is around 6 months. Their foreign goverments don't make it an easy process.

Sure they do. Travel documents are the main method of working together. A government creates a passport for a citizen, which is used/stamped by a second government and used to keep track of where to deport that person if they overstay their visa. Without the passport, they would have to go by whatever the person said and if they said that the UK was their country, there would be no way to deport them.

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

When did I say that? It depends what you mean. There are a lot of subtleties in regulating human traffic, much of which involves manipulating voluntary compliance.

When brainstorm said the following:

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

...although upon re-reading it, perhaps I mis-interpreted it? I thought he was saying that the U.S.'s having military bases overseas keeps people constrained within the countries where we have the bases.

Um, no. What I mean is that if there was no global military presence, travelers would be at the mercy of local xenophobia. The result would be that people would restrict their movement to nationalized regions where they did not feel hostility toward themselves as "foreigners." Thus I think it is a good idea for ALL people, including soldiers/military to be globally integrated. That is the only way to de-escalate the tensions that arise from territorialism. When there is no transnational military presence, it sensitizes people to the prospect of "invasion." When "occupation" is no longer viewed as "occupation," the threat of conflict de-escalates and the presence of "foreign" soldiers becomes just an everyday fact of life. Until that level of comfort is reached, you have a situation where tensions and hostilities are potential in the attitude of local territorialists toward "foreign" individuals.

The only way global peace can occur is for such territorialism and native/foreign tensions to become everywhere fully diffused. For such tension to become diffused, people can't react to the idea of "foreign military presence" as "occupation." They have to just view soldiers as individuals who have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, if they have a conditional visa with a time-limit, that provides a free-card for deportation if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated, no?

Note, "if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated". You can continuously re-apply for a visa providing you have a legitimate reason to do so. If so, it won't be declined.
If you violate the conditions of the visa, that is your fault not the countries. The country accepted you by giving the visa and you have effectively betrayed their trust in you. You don't deserve to be in that country. The conditions are there to protect the country not the person entering it.

Maybe it bothers you to call it segregation but it is in fact a form of segregation. If you look at how apartheid was regulated in South Africa, it was very similar to the way international traffic is regulated. People needed "passes" instead of "passports," but the general idea was to ensure that people only traveled to another region if they had a reason legitimated by the people/government of the receiving region (mostly employment, I believe). Beyond that, people were viewed as not 'belonging' outside their region of citizenship, the same as nationalism views nation-states at present.

You can apply for holiday visa's to the UK continuously. Stay here as long as like (visa's are 6 months at a time so you'd have to re-apply). As long as you can prove you can pay your way, without working illegally and without being a burden to the country they won't stop you.

The only thing stopping you traveling or entering a country is if you are suspicious (can't prove why you are traveling or can't support yourself etc) or if you have violated your travel conditions (come to the country on a tourist visa and then worked etc).

Just because you aren't British, doesn't stop you living here. It's more difficult, but that is only because you need to prove you aren't going to be a burden / problem for the country.