If East Germany Could Secure Their Border So Can America

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Germany
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
256 replies · 33K views
Siv said:
You're proud of America because America is your country, period. And why is it your country ?
Because your great grandfather happened to be born there, or moved there, rather than a few hundred kilometers north or south or east or west.

Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.
So irrespective of what his rationale is, you've decided that his pride is a form of religion? Incidentally, what if his great grandfather was born in Europe or Japan?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gokul43201 said:
So irrespective of what his rationale is, you've decided that his pride is a form of religion? Incidentally, what if his great grandfather was born in Europe or Japan?

Basically, what he's saying is that you're only allowed to be proud of a country if you're not part of that country.

Which is nonsense.
 
edward said:
If the can't go over the fence they go under it.






Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%20Marijuana%20Seized#ixzz14N91MhlA


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020435119?U.S.-Mexico%20Drug%20Tunnel%20Found,%2040%20Tons%20Of%20Marijuana%20Seized

An operation like that is funded and organized - and criminal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Char. Limit said:
Basically, what he's saying is that you're only allowed to be proud of a country if you're not part of that country.

Which is nonsense.

No, no no, it's makes total sense to be proud to be an American, because we all know that objectively, America is the greatest country in the world. Having pride in any other country is just crazy. Or at least that's what I gather from my nightly Glenn Beck watching.

Cause you know, at least I know I'm free, etc. etc.
 
Galteeth said:
No, no no, it's makes total sense to be proud to be an American, because we all know that objectively, America is the greatest country in the world. Having pride in any other country is just crazy. Or at least that's what I gather from my nightly Glenn Beck watching.

Cause you know, at least I know I'm free, etc. etc.

I never mentioned America. You brought up America.
 
This thread is done. In the last two pages there's barely a mention of the whole fencing issue.

Haven't unsubscribed from a thread in a while. But unfortunately I keep getting emails full of rambling non-sense.
 
I think the tunnel mentioned a few posts back is worth discussing.
 
WhoWee said:
I think the tunnel mentioned a few posts back is worth discussing.
It was quite a nice tunnel, it had obviously been made by profesional engineers.
It started in a warehouse just across the border and went quite a way, 300-400m into the USA splitting into several branches so it came up in a few different warehouses on the US side.

They run too deep to detect with ground penetrating radar or microphones, they are normally found by intelligence work - warehouse on the US side rented by front companies that don't seem to need a warehouse and have no trucks arriving.

They are also mostly used to smuggle drugs rather than people. If you smuggle people the security is too hard and the location will leak out, after you have spent rather a lot of time and effort building the tunel
 
Gokul43201 said:
So irrespective of what his rationale is, you've decided that his pride is a form of religion? Incidentally, what if his great grandfather was born in Europe or Japan?
Then it would not be a religion - please read what I wrote -
Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.


Char.Limit said:
Basically, what he's saying is that you're only allowed to be proud of a country if you're not part of that country.

Which is nonsense.
Ok, Char.Limit. First of all, I am a "she".

Second of all, it is not nonsense (calling something nonsense is an argument since when ?:wink:).

Patriotism is "my country right or wrong" - theistic religions are "my god right or wrong". There is no rationale to either. It is our innate sense of "us vs. them" is all.
 
jarednjames said:
This thread is done. In the last two pages there's barely a mention of the whole fencing issue.

Haven't unsubscribed from a thread in a while. But unfortunately I keep getting emails full of rambling non-sense.
Wow, the PF I remember from 7-8 years ago was a much nicer place.
 
Siv said:
Then it would not be a religion - please read what I wrote -


Ok, Char.Limit. First of all, I am a "she".

Second of all, it is not nonsense (calling something nonsense is an argument since when ?:wink:).

Patriotism is "my country right or wrong" - theistic religions are "my god right or wrong". There is no rationale to either. It is our innate sense of "us vs. them" is all.

Firstly, it's rather difficult to tell gender over the internet. Since I am a he, I assume others are as well.

Secondly, calling something nonsense has never been a logical argument, but I wasn't making an argument, I was making a statement.

And finally, if I'm proud of the U.S. because we have the largest, most powerful army (I'm not saying that I'm proud of the U.S. for this reason, but let's go with it), is that "religious"?
 
CAC1001 said:
A big problem in Europe from what I understand is Muslim immigrants, who due to the Europeans not requiring them to assimilate, have essentially formed their own little "countries within-a-country." There are areas within France and Germany, Sweden, and I think even the UK now (?) where the police will not even go into, because it is too dangerous. They have had problems with Muslims rioting in France in particular, they also have rioted in London and Stockholm.

There isn't such a Muslim problem in the United States because Muslims here have mostly been assimilated; we don't have whole communities of Muslims that do not assimilate and become rather radicalized like in Europe. [...]
I suggest the reason for the difference in assimilation is the perennially weak job creation rate in Europe compared to the US (until recently). Especially in the troubled areas you mention, Muslims immigrate to Europe but can't get a job because of things like the employer restrictions and a less than stellar entrepreneurial culture. They linger none the less because of the largess of extensive welfare systems, while retreating into isolated communities. Hopefully this is a cautionary tale for a US government considering policies hostile to business.
 
CAC1001 said:
A big problem in Europe from what I understand is Muslim immigrants, who due to the Europeans not requiring them to assimilate, have essentially formed their own little "countries within-a-country."
Not all communities choose to assimilate, visited a camera store in New York recently?

There are areas within France and Germany, Sweden, and I think even the UK now (?) where the police will not even go into, because it is too dangerous.
Unlikely - there were areas of the UK where the police couldn't go and the army had to be used. But that was due to christians - we are still waiting for them to assimilate but it's only been 1500 years so we need to give them a chance.

They have had problems with Muslims rioting in France in particular, they also have rioted in London and Stockholm.
Everybody riots in France. If the croissants are cold they burn barricades in the streets.
Disaffected youth riot everywhere when they feel the system is against them.
I understand there have occasionally been riots in the USA with the descendants of some of your former imported laborers - despite them being Episcopalians.
 
Last edited:
mheslep said:
I suggest the reason for the difference in assimilation is the perennially weak job creation rate in Europe compared to the US (until recently).
Or more likely numbers and timing. Europe has a larger muslim community - mostly from former empire countries in the UK and France or Turkish guest workers in the case of Germany. The children of the people who first migrated after WWII are now more assimilated.

It's a lot more comparable to Mexican immigration to the US - and so a similar level of poverty / unemployment etc. In London the only mexicans you are likely to meet are professors, managers of mexican companies or airlines etc. so on the same basis Brits would be wondering why mexicans in the USA seem so down and what it is about the US economy that obviously doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
Siv said:
You're proud of America because America is your country, period. And why is it your country ?
Because your great grandfather happened to be born there, or moved there, rather than a few hundred kilometers north or south or east or west.

Now if you were born a European but were proud of America, or if you were an American and proud of Japan, that wouldn't be a religion. But this is.

It's not religion. It would be a religion if you blindly think your culture/country is superior and that's that. Being proud of your culture/country while acknowledging faults it has and areas it could learn from others, is not religion.

Patriotism is "my country right or wrong" - theistic religions are "my god right or wrong". There is no rationale to either. It is our innate sense of "us vs. them" is all.

You're confusing patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is more complex than "my country right or wrong." Nationalism is rather religious and cult-like. It is blind and cannot be reasoned with. You can't reason with a rabid Nazi. It's a cult. You also can't reason with a rabid Marxist. It's a cult. A patriotic German, you very much could reason with. A patriotic Russian, you very much could reason with.

Reminds me of Tom Cruise in Valkyrie when he says, "Do you want to serve Germany or the Fuhrer?"

Or Mikhail Baryshnikov in White Nights when he says, "I am Russian. Not Soviet."

Patriotism and nationalism are different and patriotism is not religious.
 
Siv said:
Wow, the PF I remember from 7-8 years ago was a much nicer place.

It also had far slacker rules regarding off-topic posts.

The discussion is now regarding whether or not patriotism is a religion or not. This has what to do with a fence?

I'm sorry but this thread has just got plain silly.
 
CAC1001 said:
Patriotism and nationalism are different
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.
 
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.
 
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).

That should stem the flow somewhat. Blooming expensive though.

As sarcastic as it sounds, I really think that would be the only effective way to stop the vast majority of illegal immigrants passing into the USA. But then, would the cost be justified?

I do hate illegal immigration but I think an important point here is that the UK has a strip of water between us and Europe and we still get illegals passing over via the trade routes on lorries using the ferries and trains across the Channel.
If this border defence isn't enough to keep them out then I don't see how anything less than a fence such as I have described above would be effective (granted it's the transport links causing the problem, but even the US would still have them - not sure how much of a problem they create for you though).

The solution for the UK is simple, search every lorry entering the UK. This would drastically reduce the number of immigrants entering illegaly but it would also be extremely costly, both in monetary value and delay time for transport vehicles.
The US would need to implement an island like system (as per the UK), isolating yourselves completely so that the only way in and out is via border posts, allowing you to check as many entering vehicles as possible.

Tunnels, well I don't think there's much you can do about those.
 
jarednjames said:
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).
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.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
ThomasT said:
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?
 
Thanks for the reply jared. I will reply to some of your points below:

jarednjames said:
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.
 
WhoWee said:
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.

WhoWee said:
... 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?
 
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.
 
ThomasT said:
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.
 
Just to point out, I don't advocate "shoot to kill" in the above context.
 
WhoWee said:
Let's stay focused - I don't want to shoot anyone.
Thank the gods (old school, never mind).

WhoWee said:
If we address the immigration issue comprehensively, the border reverts back to a customs issue.
Elaborate?

WhoWee said:
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?
 
jarednjames said:
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.
 
jarednjames said:
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.

jarednjames said:
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.