Sunday, July 24, 2016

NYT: Anti-Border-Fence Propaganda

Jeez this sort of thing is just amazing to me.
tl;dr: we found four people in Arizona who said that they didn't think that border fences would work. (Implicit conclusion of story: border fences won't work.)

   Seriously, this isn't just BS, it's BS that's part of a campaign of BS. (This is the sort of thing I expect that conservatives are complaining about when they complain about the liberal media.)
   Since we all have to ante up with our liberal cred to be taken seriously: I am not exactly for border fences. But I'm also not against them. What I'm against is the rabid liberal opposition to such a fence. My view is: we should build fences along the border were and only where they're going to be efficient / cost-effective. In the places where fences will help, build them. Where they won't, don't. I'm led to believe that they'd be cost-effective in some places, but not in others.
   Liberal opposition to border fences began with outrage and talk of symbolism (IT'S JUST LIKE THE BERLIN WALL!!!!111), and evolved from there. But the symbolism argument is crap. Two seconds of thought reveals why. And I refuse to explain it. Do the two seconds yourself if it's not immediately obvious to you.
   If it is permissible to have laws limiting immigration, then it is permissible to enforce those laws (humanely, of course). If it's permissible to enforce laws to keep people out, then it's permissible to use fences.
   And, in fact, I think that this is part of what's at the root of liberal opposition to border fences:  I've long believed (but sometimes questioned) that many liberals implicitly (or explicitly) accept an open borders position. Many liberals have a general orientation that is against border-enforcement of any kind: anti-fence, pro-sanctuary city, etc. etc. If a person leans consistently against enforcement of a law, eventually one must hypothesize that they're against the law itself.
   And another thing: I usually try to rise above rhetorical shenanigans, but I do think that people who are against fences tend to (a) say 'wall' instead of 'fence,' because it helps them invoke the Berlin Wall analogy, and (b) speak of a wall instead of walls (or a fence instead of fences) for roughly the same kind of reason.
   And furthermore: people in the story speak of drones and increased border patrols as if these measures and fences were mutually exclusive. Of course they aren't.
   Seems to me that, as with most problems, we have a relatively sane center with respect to this one, and two nutty extremes. The sane center recognizes that we need humane enforcement of just immigration laws. The nutty right wants to round up eleven million people and boot them out, and it has undeniable elements of racism. The nutty left opposes enforcement of immigration laws at almost every point, accuses everyone who disagrees with them of racism, and seems to strongly incline toward open borders.
   I say: stop making the fence question a political one. Leave it up to people who understand law enforcement on the border. It's a damn policy question. Treat it that way.


Blogger Pete Mack said...

The fence is expected to cost an astronomical amount. I have always felt that if you want to stop illegal immigrants, you should crack down on employers.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Lewis Carroll said...


Is it asking too much for people in favor of a fence, wall or whatever the f*ck they want to call it to provide evidence that there's is some pressing problem we're trying to solve? Because what I'M really against is whipping up blind rage against a problem that has actually been getting relatively better the past few years:

If we start with actual facts which point to real and pressing problems, maybe then we can talk about solutions. So we don't wast our time on 'problems' that have to be solved NOW NOW NOW, even though they might not actually be, you know, problems.

It reeks of the same stuff that demands strict voter ID laws because of the non-existent voter fraud epidemic.

/rant over

3:11 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Yeah guys, that's cool. Those objections are both way better than the symbolism/Berlin Wall objection.

4:12 PM  
Anonymous Lewis Carroll said...

Ridiculous PC objections are no objections at all. In fact they're usually a reason to reconsider your opinion if it is consistent with them.

8:52 PM  
Anonymous rotgut said...

I think two seconds of thought reveals the real issue, which is patriarchy/rape culture/heteronormativity. You don't like a wall when it's keeping you from getting out. You're okay with a wall when it keeps others from getting in. Obviously, you're really talking about sex here. You want to put your penis wherever you damn well please, and a barrier that prevents you from doing that is bad, bad, bad. But you also don't want others putting their penises where you don't want them, so a barrier that keeps them away from you is good. This is clearly misogynistic and reveals deep hostility and aggression towards the LGBTQ community. Surely you see this. I hope the scales fall from your eyes and you are able to quit spouting this hateful rhetoric. And don't even try to disagree, as that will only reinforce your commitment to hate.

11:53 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Wow, Rotgut, you may have a future in gender studies

8:28 AM  
Anonymous Lewis Carroll said...

That was pretty funny, r.

8:43 AM  
Anonymous rotgut said...

Yeah, I'm looking for some easy publications. I think this one has legs--"Misogyny, homophobia, and hate: Critical reflections on the discourse of 'the wall.'"

9:10 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Needs more "penis"

9:13 AM  
Anonymous rotgut said...

"Cock and walls: A critical reflection on the primacy of penises in discourse on 'the wall.'"

9:26 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Sufficient penis content achieved.
You are now on a trajectory toward publication.

9:30 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home