The Great Wall of China would be a better example. It's even twice as long as the fence that would be needed to cover the US-Mexico border. As effective as your idea is for trying to kill or maim people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves would be, I think it would run afoul of human rights issues.
There is a difference between stealing money to fuel your greed and stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving. Or speeding for the thrill vs. speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital. His assertion is that illegal immigration often follows a similar pattern.
I don't see a human rights problem with a well marked minefield between two fences.
Anyone who wishes to avoid being blown up can pay attention to the "Warning: land mines" sign and not climb over the fence topped with barbed wire. Similarly, the zoo isn't violating your human rights if you ignore the "warning: bears" sign, swim through the moat, and then get eaten by the bears.
The difference is intent. Mines are placed with the intention of killing or maiming. Bears are not placed in zoos with the intent to kill trespassers. If animals were used for that intent it would still run afoul of human rights. You realize that it IS illegal to use deadly booby traps to protect your own personal property, right?
You realize that it IS illegal to use deadly booby traps to protect your own personal property, right?
Of course. Setting deadly booby traps is a privilege the goverment reserves for itself. And fair enough too -- the setting of deadly booby traps should be very well regulated to ensure that there's absolutely no way that anyone can wander into the trap without knowing (a) it's there and (b) it's very very deadly.
The purpose of this sort of trap is not to kill or maim anybody, it's to ensure that it never kills or maims anybody by being so obviously deadly that nobody would be stupid enough to ever attempt to cross it. Let's face it, life in Mexico isn't so bad that it's worth facing a 99.9% chance of death in order to escape it.
Yes, it's not so bad in Mexico. Nobody would ever attempt to run across a minefield to escape grinding poverty and bloody wars waged by rich and powerful drug cartels fueled by demand from the United States.
I hovered over voting him down because it was such a terrible statement; but it certainly was not trollish. I think he honestly believes that a minefield is a legitimate answer. Whatever logical and moral failings he may personally have, we can still engage his argument on an intellectual level with reason and evidence.
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. I'm not even sure how to approach such a misguided argument. So I haven't yet, because I didn't want to lower the level of conversation on hn.
I simply meant to encourage you to avoid snarky one-liners like one you've posted, and instead raise the level of discussion here.
Note the lack of tempting opportunities on the other side of the bear pit.
Note also how bears tend to be large and rather obvious dangers (to most people, anyway), whereas mines tend to be buried under the ground, because their deterrent effect depends on uncertainty about their position.
specified the presence of a "warning, land mines" sign
True, though I couldn't suppress a giggle at the the thought of some radio ranter getting upset if it included a Spanish translation, since the fence would be on US territory.
What you're ignoring is the fundamental difference between a natural danger which we mitigate to increase the scope of people's freedom (observe dangerous animals from behind a fence, skydive after checking the parachute, hike with the aid of a map and compass) and an artificial danger which we impose to obstruct or limit people's freedom.
Playing with a bear is only tempting to small children or someone who's functionally retarded. A small percentage of people are suicidal or stupid enough to kill or injure themselves by ignoring or circumventing protective measures but we don't consider their rights violated as a result; the ratio of zoo deaths:zoo visitors (or whatever) is so low that the social benefit far exceeds the cost. If people in Mexico felt no particular motivation to enter the US other than for tourism, then we would expect to see at most 21 deaths annually on the Mexican side (~7m border area population/~0.003% suicide rate). Interestingly, we could expect up to 75 on the US side (also ~7m border population/0.012% s.r.).
I'm not sure what we do with the bodies in this hypothetical minefield; perhaps leave them there as a warning, because we don't want expensive border patrol agents to die removing them for burial. sure, they could be issued with maps or the mines could be turned off remotely, but as hackers we can all see the potential security pitfalls in such safety procedures. Given past administrative lapses with things as important as nuclear weapons, it's clear that we can't trust anyone - especially not government employees - to maintain the security of our minefield, so it would be better to shred all our maps as soon as we've deployed the things. I gather this is often what happens in a military context. It's true that this might result in avoidable future inconvenience if we ever develop a more comfortable relationship with Mexico, since removing the landmines would be dangerous and expensive. It would probably be better to turn the fence into a tourist attraction - people could buy a ticket to climb into guard towers and machine-gun cardboard targets of border jumpers, say. This would eventually set off (most of) the landmines, and tap into the unexploited commercial potential of historical killing zones.
Returning to the possibility of people crossing minefields, economic opportunity is enormously tempting to people notwithstanding the possibility of danger: it is a fundamental driver of history. We have gone to the moon and the ocean depths, fought wars, and died in vast numbers in order to gain economic advantages. About 3% of the world population is estimated have migrated from one country to another for economic reasons, and of course people often migrate within countries - either freely, as in the US, or illegally, as in places like China where choice of residence is considered a privilege rather than a right.
The interior German border mentioned above was regarded as one of the most secure ever; it actually had minefields, as well as guard towers with machine guns and so forth, and only consumed about 0.4% of the DDR's annual GDP by the time the country collapsed. Despite this outstanding achievement, people still insisted on sneaking across it, to the tune of about 120 a year. The East German government had a plan to reduce this by adding more security, but postponed it for lack of ready cash. It's unknown how many people died; most estimates are in the low thousands. Not all went across the border on foot; some traveled in hot air balloons, some swam or used inflatables to travel by sea, and some were smuggled inside commercial vehicles.
Of course, a key difference is that the DDR was more concerned with keeping people inside while you are more concerned with keeping them out. Whether this will have much influence at the individual level is hard to say. Notions about all men having inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been responsible for large-scale subversive behavior in the past, and if anything, the popularity of such ideas seems to have spread since then. Clearly, these concepts of fundamental equality and inalienable rights need to be curtailed and decisions about their availability placed in the hands of qualified administrators, who can then issue them in projectile form.
Unmarked minefields, or air-scattered mines of infinite duration, are the bad kind.
A well-marked, time-limited or centrally controlled minefield is generally much less dangerous, on par with a razor-wire fence. Functionally, it's a sentry system which can be turned off electronically (or by waiting past a certain date), or at worst, which is marked on maps well enough that individual mines can be removed safely by engineers.
Unexploded ordnance (i.e. bombs which you fire and which then fail to explode) are a bigger threat after a modern battle than US-style minefields.
A minefield is probably much less likely to be deployed for this than automated sentry towers, however.
We do this in limited areas already -- there's razor wire and other "obviously dangerous" stuff protecting power substations, subways, power plants, etc. DoE-mandated security contractors will use lethal force at nuclear sites, probably with limited target identification.
I agree doing this over a 2000 mile border is a bad idea. For that, we should try to develop 0-50mi deep monitoring zone (depending on the area), with seismic sensors, UAV overflights, etc., and then whenever anyone is detected, send CBP/ICE agents to intercept. If they're innocent hikers, no harm done; if they're drug/people/etc. smugglers, detain and process them.
That's largely what we do now. The main issue is insufficient CBP agents, and no real consequences for illegally crossing the border ("catch and release"). I think punishment should be much harsher for anyone involved commercially in running the border, and somewhat harsher for people who do it repeatedly.
Ultimately the best solution is to make Mexico a less shitty place to be.
Well, that's all pretty reasonable, including the harsher penalties for people who run the border for a business, but still, seismic sensors and UAV overflights? That's just too close to home for me, I don't want a militarized border if it can at all be avoided. Aside from the monetary cost, I think it's detrimental to society -- is immigration such a bad problem that it requires that drastic a step?
Been there, seen it, had my mind blown (assume much?). I'm not saying there's such a thing as an impenetrable border fence, I'm just saying that you could do a lot better than is currently being done.
If there were ten thousand illegal immigrants in the US instead of ten million, it wouldn't have the deleterious effects on agricultural wages (and consequently job prospects for low-skilled US workers) that it has.