Reason.com: The Standard Array Of Bad Arguments Against Border Fencing
link
First bad argument: it's possible to cut through or climb over. That's part of a good argument--but for it to be genuinely important, you've got to show that those things are relatively easy. What matters is what percentage of illegals will be stopped. If merely 1% cuts through or climbs over, then the barrier would be a huge success. It'd be amazing were it that successful. The point of such barriers is to cut down on traffic, not eliminate it. As is so often the case, what matters is percentages. If the barrier doesn't work, I want to know it. But you really can't trust libertarians on the point any more than you can trust progressives--they both basically want maximal immigration, and have opposed the wall from the beginning. Actually, they ought to be happy if it doesn't work--and keep their mouths shut about it.
As for being able to saw through...I wonder whether there's anything that can be added to the concrete (there's concrete inside of those bollards, no?) What's cheap and good at ruining Sawzall blades?
The author asserts that people can get over with ladders and rope...which, again, doesn't tell us much. By how much does it reduce crossings if every group that crosses has to bring a 40' ladder with them? And rope? really? Bullshit. What are people going to do with rope? What percentage of the population can climb 40' (or whatever) of rope? And that would slow them down to a crawl, anyway.
And: seems like this really needs to be used in conjunction with sensors and drones.
Though I'll give the story this much: at least it doesn't commit the common error of arguing both that (a) the barrier doesn't work and (b) it's immoral because it pushes people toward more remote--ergo dangerous--crossing-points. It can't be both.
Bah. I hope the thing works. It's telling that so many hope it doesn't. But getting reliable information about anything politically controversial is virtually impossible anymore.
[Oh yeah: the piece also uses the But..but...most illegals are here via visa overstays!" argument. Ok. But a ton of them come over the border, too. The fact that there's a bigger part of the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to fix this part of the problem. That's like arguing that we shouldn't try to reduce cancer deaths because more people die of diabetes.]
[And: that fence they're climbing in the picture is maybe 20' tall and of a very different design.]
[And: Here's the video. The border patrol pulls up on the other side of the barrier in the end and chases the one guy who managed to get over. Totally ineffective!]
First bad argument: it's possible to cut through or climb over. That's part of a good argument--but for it to be genuinely important, you've got to show that those things are relatively easy. What matters is what percentage of illegals will be stopped. If merely 1% cuts through or climbs over, then the barrier would be a huge success. It'd be amazing were it that successful. The point of such barriers is to cut down on traffic, not eliminate it. As is so often the case, what matters is percentages. If the barrier doesn't work, I want to know it. But you really can't trust libertarians on the point any more than you can trust progressives--they both basically want maximal immigration, and have opposed the wall from the beginning. Actually, they ought to be happy if it doesn't work--and keep their mouths shut about it.
As for being able to saw through...I wonder whether there's anything that can be added to the concrete (there's concrete inside of those bollards, no?) What's cheap and good at ruining Sawzall blades?
The author asserts that people can get over with ladders and rope...which, again, doesn't tell us much. By how much does it reduce crossings if every group that crosses has to bring a 40' ladder with them? And rope? really? Bullshit. What are people going to do with rope? What percentage of the population can climb 40' (or whatever) of rope? And that would slow them down to a crawl, anyway.
And: seems like this really needs to be used in conjunction with sensors and drones.
Though I'll give the story this much: at least it doesn't commit the common error of arguing both that (a) the barrier doesn't work and (b) it's immoral because it pushes people toward more remote--ergo dangerous--crossing-points. It can't be both.
Bah. I hope the thing works. It's telling that so many hope it doesn't. But getting reliable information about anything politically controversial is virtually impossible anymore.
[Oh yeah: the piece also uses the But..but...most illegals are here via visa overstays!" argument. Ok. But a ton of them come over the border, too. The fact that there's a bigger part of the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to fix this part of the problem. That's like arguing that we shouldn't try to reduce cancer deaths because more people die of diabetes.]
[And: that fence they're climbing in the picture is maybe 20' tall and of a very different design.]
[And: Here's the video. The border patrol pulls up on the other side of the barrier in the end and chases the one guy who managed to get over. Totally ineffective!]
posted by Winston Smith at
12:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home