Trump's wall address
I'm Canadian, and by admission, I haven't actually read, watched or listen to this address. But, I have perused a number of articles on the topic and I feel that it really is a sufficient basis to start digging into this.
First, the sympathetic articles revolve around indicating that the speech was a first or rare for how tactful and touching it was. Again, while I can't vouch for the authenticity of the sentiment, I can say, when a person has been in the spotlight every single day for 2 years and you comment that the quality and content of such a display is "rare" or a "first", then aren't you basically admitting that is most likely nothing more than facade?
I mean, Trump hasn't exactly been quiet about this wall. And many of the points brought up in that announcements were firsts. Whereas many others have been viciously shouted again and again, and generally tend to line up a lot more with the president's MO. In short, I don't think the critics are wrong to critique or doubt. By sympathizer's own admission, the entire thing was TOTALLY out of character.
I don't mean to draw conclusions. I just have to say that the doubters aren't exactly operating on nothing. In my opinion, their stance is much more justified than those who choose to believe in the position and emotion of the performance. History does not support a belief that this was in any way the "true" Donald Trump.
From what I've read, Trump makes some impassioned remarks and attempts to make a solid case for his wall. It resorts to using some weak evidence and plays on people's feelings and emotions. And as such, it sounds like it absolutely would have been a convincing spectable to behold. And likely quite moving. And, realistically speaking, that is perhaps more important than the truth or reality. Being successful in politics is a lot more about being in alignment with how the majority FEEL about your actions. Not that I agree with the value of politics like that. But, definitely from a standpoint of getting re-elected and having the general populus on your side.
What I will say is this, the few bits I did read of what was said from those supporting Trump do include some genuine truths. They simply happen to be ill guided. For instance, Trump draws an analogy to the rich building walls around their homes and how it isn't because they hate those outside the walls, but rather because they love what is within the walls.
And, I think the SENTIMENT is true. We try to keep others out of our homes because we see the people and things within the homes as valuable. But, it does little else to justify the comparison. In short, it isn't impossible to believe that a strong stance on border security stems from the same sense of love as a family attempting to safeguard their homes. But, it does nothing to validate the effectiveness of walls in the grand scheme of that solution or the prove the parallels in the means and motives of those challenging the walls.
A rich person does not simply build a wall. They build a wall, install cameras and sensors and may even hire a person or a service to monitor. A single person or a team operating remotely can typically monitor an entire residential property with ease. Actual apprehension is often left to local law enforcement. It can actually be fairly efficient. But, that is largely owing to the logistics of the land size and the effectiveness of the local police.
Similarly, there are not a lot of reasons for another person to forcibly access your personal residence. It is pretty safe to say that in times of relative peace without a looming zombie apocalypse. Someone trying to break into your house is there to do direct harm to you in some way. By extreme contrast however, people seeking entrance into the US can being so for a wide array of reasons. And most of those reasons are benign. Fleeing oppression. Seeking a better life. Love. And so on.
It also works on some level because not everyone can afford such solutions. Someone wishing to break into a home will have a wide array of potential targets. In all likelihood, they can get what they need by breaking into a less secure house than the one with the giant wall around it. If every single home had identical security measures... I don't believe it would deter crimes against those homes. The crooks would simply need to become more cunning, more daring, or both.
And that is the difference. Mexican's and those coming in through Mexico don't have other neighboring countries to try and break into that will offer them what they are seeking from the US. In short, the US is the only viable target for these people. Which in turn means, you will simply get a mix of more cunning and more daring illegal immigrants. Eventually a reliable way of circumventing the system will be discovered and exploited.
More than anything, my point is to agree with what many others have said, a simple, physical wall won't hold for long. Weak points or general weaknesses will be discovered. Which will in turn drive the need for more resources like monitoring and personell. And as others have said, if have adequate monitoring and personell already, you don't need the wall. In fact, the wall become a weakness then, as it is static and immovable.
That being said, its the concept of a wall in general which is flawed. Not just a physical wall. To those arguing in favor of solutions like just deploying better monitoring and more people, I would say that is just a more dynamic kind of wall. It has it's own weaknesses and it too, in time will become compromised.
Men can be bribed, confused, mislead, or black mailed among other things. Walls can be scaled or dug under (or even simply destroyed in places). The only thing that will really keep people out... is making them not want to get in. Or not get in, in that fashion.
Border security absolutely is and will remain an important topic for any country. The American problem is really that the path to legal citizenship is too restrictive. This creates a greater need than the system can handle which leads to the illegal entry by otherwise harmless people. It is also too restrictive in the sense that America needs more immigration to sustain the population and thus the economy. But, there is also a sense of nationalism which makes it an unpopular topic for many.
However, I think that the way to frame the problem is to point out; the more restrictive the immigration policy, the more people that will attempt to circumvent current measures. The more people attempting to circumvent the current measures, the more that will succeed and the greater the odds of someone discovering a reliable exploit. The sooner a reliable exploit is discovered, the sooner taxes need to be levied again the provide funds to revisit the problem.
Whether you like immigrants or not, legal immigrants pay taxes, contribute to society and decrease the stress on the borders. Illegal immigrants don't.
First, the sympathetic articles revolve around indicating that the speech was a first or rare for how tactful and touching it was. Again, while I can't vouch for the authenticity of the sentiment, I can say, when a person has been in the spotlight every single day for 2 years and you comment that the quality and content of such a display is "rare" or a "first", then aren't you basically admitting that is most likely nothing more than facade?
I mean, Trump hasn't exactly been quiet about this wall. And many of the points brought up in that announcements were firsts. Whereas many others have been viciously shouted again and again, and generally tend to line up a lot more with the president's MO. In short, I don't think the critics are wrong to critique or doubt. By sympathizer's own admission, the entire thing was TOTALLY out of character.
I don't mean to draw conclusions. I just have to say that the doubters aren't exactly operating on nothing. In my opinion, their stance is much more justified than those who choose to believe in the position and emotion of the performance. History does not support a belief that this was in any way the "true" Donald Trump.
From what I've read, Trump makes some impassioned remarks and attempts to make a solid case for his wall. It resorts to using some weak evidence and plays on people's feelings and emotions. And as such, it sounds like it absolutely would have been a convincing spectable to behold. And likely quite moving. And, realistically speaking, that is perhaps more important than the truth or reality. Being successful in politics is a lot more about being in alignment with how the majority FEEL about your actions. Not that I agree with the value of politics like that. But, definitely from a standpoint of getting re-elected and having the general populus on your side.
What I will say is this, the few bits I did read of what was said from those supporting Trump do include some genuine truths. They simply happen to be ill guided. For instance, Trump draws an analogy to the rich building walls around their homes and how it isn't because they hate those outside the walls, but rather because they love what is within the walls.
And, I think the SENTIMENT is true. We try to keep others out of our homes because we see the people and things within the homes as valuable. But, it does little else to justify the comparison. In short, it isn't impossible to believe that a strong stance on border security stems from the same sense of love as a family attempting to safeguard their homes. But, it does nothing to validate the effectiveness of walls in the grand scheme of that solution or the prove the parallels in the means and motives of those challenging the walls.
A rich person does not simply build a wall. They build a wall, install cameras and sensors and may even hire a person or a service to monitor. A single person or a team operating remotely can typically monitor an entire residential property with ease. Actual apprehension is often left to local law enforcement. It can actually be fairly efficient. But, that is largely owing to the logistics of the land size and the effectiveness of the local police.
Similarly, there are not a lot of reasons for another person to forcibly access your personal residence. It is pretty safe to say that in times of relative peace without a looming zombie apocalypse. Someone trying to break into your house is there to do direct harm to you in some way. By extreme contrast however, people seeking entrance into the US can being so for a wide array of reasons. And most of those reasons are benign. Fleeing oppression. Seeking a better life. Love. And so on.
It also works on some level because not everyone can afford such solutions. Someone wishing to break into a home will have a wide array of potential targets. In all likelihood, they can get what they need by breaking into a less secure house than the one with the giant wall around it. If every single home had identical security measures... I don't believe it would deter crimes against those homes. The crooks would simply need to become more cunning, more daring, or both.
And that is the difference. Mexican's and those coming in through Mexico don't have other neighboring countries to try and break into that will offer them what they are seeking from the US. In short, the US is the only viable target for these people. Which in turn means, you will simply get a mix of more cunning and more daring illegal immigrants. Eventually a reliable way of circumventing the system will be discovered and exploited.
More than anything, my point is to agree with what many others have said, a simple, physical wall won't hold for long. Weak points or general weaknesses will be discovered. Which will in turn drive the need for more resources like monitoring and personell. And as others have said, if have adequate monitoring and personell already, you don't need the wall. In fact, the wall become a weakness then, as it is static and immovable.
That being said, its the concept of a wall in general which is flawed. Not just a physical wall. To those arguing in favor of solutions like just deploying better monitoring and more people, I would say that is just a more dynamic kind of wall. It has it's own weaknesses and it too, in time will become compromised.
Men can be bribed, confused, mislead, or black mailed among other things. Walls can be scaled or dug under (or even simply destroyed in places). The only thing that will really keep people out... is making them not want to get in. Or not get in, in that fashion.
Border security absolutely is and will remain an important topic for any country. The American problem is really that the path to legal citizenship is too restrictive. This creates a greater need than the system can handle which leads to the illegal entry by otherwise harmless people. It is also too restrictive in the sense that America needs more immigration to sustain the population and thus the economy. But, there is also a sense of nationalism which makes it an unpopular topic for many.
However, I think that the way to frame the problem is to point out; the more restrictive the immigration policy, the more people that will attempt to circumvent current measures. The more people attempting to circumvent the current measures, the more that will succeed and the greater the odds of someone discovering a reliable exploit. The sooner a reliable exploit is discovered, the sooner taxes need to be levied again the provide funds to revisit the problem.
Whether you like immigrants or not, legal immigrants pay taxes, contribute to society and decrease the stress on the borders. Illegal immigrants don't.
Comments
Post a Comment