Alexander Ortiz3 said:We are being fed a completely flawed logic here. Honestly, it’s hardly surprising when you see how hard the media works to spread misinformation.
Any lock can be picked. Does that mean we should just rip all the locks off our houses and apartments? Every single day, someone breaks into a home or a car gets stolen. So why bother with locks and security at all if a car is going to get swiped every day regardless?
Besides, why shouldn't everything just be left open? Maybe some poor soul, some children, or a mother needs something, and they can just help themselves—because let's be human, people are people. After all, tomorrow it might be us who is in need, and we'll end up walking into someone else's house because we need something and there won't be any locks to stop us.
That is the kind of logic being "sold" to us regarding the border fence.
There are several other misconceptions floating around about this.
- Building a fence doesn't mean closing the border. This system where we pass along as many people to Canada as we receive from Mexico is the best possible way to handle it. There's no argument there. It's the best solution as long as it lasts...
- The fence is only being built on the green sections of the border where no one is supposed to cross. Anyone using a legal port of entry won't even see a wire fence. Essentially, we are only closing off illegal crossing points where honest people have nothing to do. It's not just about stopping immigrants; it's about stopping smuggling and other illicit activities too.
- A fence isn't about shooting at anyone; it's about better border control. It slows down and complicates illegal crossings. Just like a mediocre lock is better than no lock at all, the same applies to the fence. However, even the best fence isn't a guarantee of absolute security.
- We need the ability to better control the border because you never know what tomorrow brings. Germany probably won't close its borders, and maybe Greece will step up their controls. Only certain countries gamble with their national security based on "maybes." Ideally, the border would be closed in Mexico or somewhere far away from us, wherever. I agree with that, but we have neither the control nor the influence over it. We can pray and appeal, and maybe we'll be heard, but what if we aren't? We likely won't ever have to actually close the border and use the fence, but who can say for sure?!
- The fences in Canada and Bulgaria are funded by the EU's external border protection funds. Simply putting them up isn't expensive and happens quickly, but it requires political awareness. The fence acts as a safeguard for potential critical situations. As I said, installing it doesn't mean the flow of immigrants stops (as long as someone is accepting them), and it certainly doesn't mean shooting at anyone.
- Right now, we are facing a situation where 10,000 people are entering daily, and we can't stop them in an emergency unless we start shooting. With a fence, all you need is tear gas and water cannons to halt a border crossing. Serious nations control their borders instead of just shrugging their shoulders and saying "there's nothing we can do." Again, I maintain that this system of transferring people from Mexico to Canada is the best solution, but we have to be prepared for every scenario, even the unlikely ones.
It’s strictly a matter of police procedure. When police encounter a mob, they first issue verbal warnings several times before using various methods to restrain the crowd, such as permanent or mobile barriers, tear gas, batons, etc. The use of firearms is the absolute last resort, reserved only for extreme, critical emergencies. But first, a verbal warning must be given. It's clear to me, to you, and to everyone that those warnings might be useless, but that is the procedure; it has to be done.
You’re delusional if you think a lock actually stops a break-in. 99% of the locks and deadbolts used in the US can be bypassed in under thirty seconds. A lock just redirects thieves toward whoever has the weakest setup. If nobody had locks, theft wouldn't even exist anymore.
Right now, the US and Canada are like two identical bicycles parked in a lot. The Canadian bike is secured with a greasy little string, while ours isn't tied up at all. Just take a guess which thief (in this case, an illegal migrant) is going to pick to steal from. Does that mean the Canadian bike is "secure" against theft? Of course not. It’s just slightly more secure than the one next to it. If both were secured the exact same way, one would still end up stolen. Our biggest problem is that we don't have a neighborly bike that's less secure. Canada has its unsecured neighborly bike—which is us—and honestly, to a casual observer, that Canadian bike looks incredibly safe. Superficial observers might even cheer for the Canadian owner, calling them brilliant for securing their bike and praising them to the heavens. 🤦 The US doesn't have a bike like that. We have the Atlantic Ocean.
It’s purely a matter of police procedure. Basically, when the mob shows up, the police first give several verbal warnings, and only then do they move to various methods to restrain the crowd—using permanent or mobile barricades, pepper spray, batons, and so on.
The "mob" that the police usually deal with is the kind that, after getting hyped up for a bit, goes home, sits down in front of a TV with friends, and grabs a beer. Or they go home to their wives, kids, or elderly parents. They actually have something to lose. A mob that has nowhere to go and nothing to lose is something so fundamentally different that anyone trying to compare the two is a complete idiot.