A border wall is not one-sided

Roderick Long:

A wall that can be used to keep people out can also be used to keep people in.

Do we really want to trust the U.S. government – meaning not only the present regime but all future U.S. regimes – with a tool of that nature?

Similar arguments have been made many times regarding handing over power to the security state, but this is the first I’ve heard it specifically applied to building jurisdiction border walls.

Meanwhile the proposed U.S.-Mexico border fence could cost $49 billion, 25 times forecasts last year (zero surprise). Perhaps waiving environmental rules for the fence will save a pittance while continuing the security state’s best tradition of degradation.

4 Responses

  1. Yaron says:

    Alright, there are certainly good arguments against a border wall, but the “fascist state” argument isn’t one of them… Americans travel by plane.

    Out of curiosity, do you favor legalizing all immigration? I assume yes, though I could be wrong.

  2. A fascist state would not control air travel?

    Your assumption is correct.

  3. Yaron says:

    Well, I guess I should have finished my point… if things ever got to the state where the government became fascist and banned air travel, a closed border with Mexico would be among the least of our problems. I mean, you’re most likely talking about a collapsed world economy by then.

  4. Now, a fascist government in the U.S. would likely be a harbinger (or result of) world economic collapse. Later this century the U.S. economy will be much less central. Obviously the argument is primarily long term.

Leave a Reply