webdiplomacy.net

As long as people feel they can have a much better and safer life in USA, even if they are illegal, they'll continue migrating, regardless af any kind of wall. I see only 2things that can convince people they'd better not migrate:

1. A genocide in the USA
2. A true improvement in life conditions in poor parts of México and Central America

The 2nd point will be harder with climate change that has been destroying traditional ways of life in the south. And will be hard without some help. Consider for instance this. The minimum wage in Mexico is moreless 7 dollars a day. Not an hour, a day. If you'll be 8 times better on the other side, you'll consider options to workaround a wall

Hadrian's wall, Antonin Pio's wall, walls of Theodosius, north african wall, walls on the Rhein, walls on the Danube, Great China wall, Atlantic wall, Berlin wall, even the wall in the game of thrones. None of them worked. Humans are building walls for thousands of years that does not work.

Chance that Trump wall will succeed where all other failed is not very high.

If walls does not work, what can work? Canals might. Suez, Panama, Rhein-Danube, Black Sea to Caspian Sea, Attica, Kiel. Each one was profitable and strategic asset.

Why not instead of walls put canals. Northern one on Canadian border and southern one on Mexican. Make USA an island. Economic benefit like Panama and Suez, defensive benefit like Britain or Japan.

Chance that Trump wall will succeed where all other failed is not very high.

Given that the majority of 'illegal' immigrants fly into to US and then overstay their visas, I doubt the wall was ever considered an effective policy tool. More like an effective political one.

Make people afraid and they will focus on the fear while you steal their livelihoods, and quality of life through tax cuts for the super elite.

I think that Trump's wall was most effective at enabling racist hatreds of Mexicans to continue to flourish within Trump's supporter base. Perhaps more citizens of the USA would support the Texan wall if it encircled Texas completely & kept all the Texans inside Texas, permanently.

I think it had a considerable effect on seasonable workers from border towns who used to cross regularly for agri work and want to know they can return home easily and often.

This who entered by plane and overstayed a visa becoming 'illegal' were not affected.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:51 pm

This who entered by plane and overstayed a visa becoming 'illegal' were not affected.

That's because US immigration policy give preferred status to illegals that arrive, "by land," meaning by boat and plane over those who use other means. It is seen mostly in Florida.

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:57 pm

I think that Trump's wall was most effective at enabling racist hatreds of Mexicans to continue to flourish within Trump's supporter base. Perhaps more citizens of the USA would support the Texan wall if it encircled Texas completely & kept all the Texans inside Texas, permanently.

Sounds discriminatory against Texans. What about Arizona?

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ ... e/2947728/

Building the wall did nothing to stop regular tunnel building in border towns because they have no detection systems Built six stories below the wall with reinforcements, electricity, and a rail system to speed access.

But as Trump said, "It's a beautiful wall." It's just totally useless except to stop the casual crosser.

Meanwhile at the other southern border wall that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention because its built by Europeans who are the enlightened liberal good guys....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljaze ... ns-melilla

At least 18 dead
Scores wounded
Spain responds by saying it will seek to add irregular immigration to listed NATO security threats at a summit in Madrid later this month.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:15 am

Meanwhile at the other southern border wall that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention because its built by Europeans who are the enlightened liberal good guys....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljaze ... ns-melilla

At least 18 dead
Scores wounded
Spain responds by saying it will seek to add irregular immigration to listed NATO security threats at a summit in Madrid later this month.

I an unusual turn, i actually agree with Oct on this.

Further i would question the very existence of these exclaves, as effectively colonies. It makes sense to hand them back to Morocco. As it does Gibraltar returning to Spain...

I confess I don't know enough about the history of the enclaves to make an informed comment. If there's a long established period of Africans who consider themselves Spanish living there for generations then it's hard to conclude that giving their home to another country, or moving them to the Spanish mainland, then it would be hard to argue for them to become Moroccan. Much like it's hard to argue for Ireland to be made part of the UK just because it's clearly part of the same group of islands.

If, on the other hand, its full of Africans who have lived there for generations and wonder why the hell they're ruled by Spain, then it's a no brainer. Pretty much the same if its a glorified military outpost.

The UN has a position on self-determination, but what is harder is deciding who the 'self' is.

Like Ireland (the island) had no particular history as a unified and self-governing political entity, but it did have a language and culture... So when it came to independence the decision to arbitrarily divide it up so that a Unionist majority could be maintained in the largest possible area was, eh, not driven by some sense of fair or proportionate procedure. It was decided by unilateral Fiat under threat of war (continued war rather than an end to the conflict).

A much smaller Northern Ireland might not have been sustainable economically, but could have had 80-90% Unionist majority and avoided most of the sectarian division seen since (And particularly the 30 years of conflict from the 70s).

Which is just to say, it is pretty complicated at the best of times. Like, pre-1916, self determination for the Irish would not have resulted in independence, it just wasn't a popular idea. Whereas today, Scotland actually has the opportunity to self-determine, and voted against independence - for probably exactly the same reasons...

So anyway, should the self be all of Scotland? What about just the parts that vote to leave? What is only the parts of the UK who voted for Brexit actually got removed from the Common Market? Where do you draw the arbitrary lines which define the 'self' in the principle of self-determination?

Was wondering if anyone was able to varify the following? I'm not particularly familiar with the Africa Facts Zone so it's entirely possible that it's a nonsense. If not, it's pretty grim viewing.

https://twitter.com/AfricaFactsZone?t=z ... Jzcgg&s=09