Militarized Border

Why is it not a good idea for a country to have a militarized border or at least a heavily monitored border?

it is a damn good idea… but it is expensive…

it is just a question of which is more expensive, preventative defence of the border or cleaning up after the border is breached…


Funnily enough I’m writing a novel about two countries, one of which is highly democratic but has sealed its borders with a militarily maintained wall. There are several such structures in the world, the great wall of China being the oldest one, the Berlin wall and Hadrians Wall (both now defunct, obviously) being more recent examples.

Here’s a wikipedia article on the subject.


I’m not talking about anything like the Berlin wall. The Berlin wall was built to keep people in not out. I’m not talking about the locking up of a country. I’m talking about a protected border from illegal entry; something that can only strengthen a country. Were you suggesting that the country with the protected border was less than that of the country with the border that was not protected?

Depending on the size of your country a physical wall may or may not make much sense. Israel, for example, can easily man a wall due to it’s small size.

The US would have a far harder time of it, because of the thousands of miles of border. Not only do you get tradeoffs between extrodinary cost of a physical wall and it’s actual substance (short chain-link fence across US-Mexico border vs 40 foot high concrete structure with guard towers that would require obscene deficit spending to construct), but you also have to man the wall, supply the people who man the wall, ect. It would be hard. Defending something the size of the US-Canada border, what with it’s wooded terrain and far longer distance, would be insane.

Perhaps there would be other ways to work this than a physical wall, however? What if, for example, you patrolled drone aircraft over the border which sight along the ground for any intruders. If the aircraft had smart enough AI to determine the difference between humans and vehicles versus deer, it could automatically alert a rapid response team, or the local police, to ride out and intercept the intruders. If they travelled in pairs, one could break from the border and follow the intruders, perhaps shoot a tag onto vehicles to track them, ect.

I’m sure we could work out something with the technology of today but that isn’t really the point. I’m asking, fundamentally is it wrong for a country to militarize it’s border in order to protect it against illegal entry?

only if it is fundamentally wrong to protect your money and valuables in a bank and with insurance…

my stuff, I’ll protect it…

and that was the primary purpose of american government… to protect the citizens and their stuff…


Depends on which side of the wall you are on and what your aim is, but okay, I take the distinction…

In the novel I’ve written the protected border works to the advantage (and disadvantage) of both sides, but to answer your question explicitly: no, there is nothing I can think of that would make such protection of a border wrong

If it is wrong to protect anything by means of force (which seems absurd given the way the world is) then I suppose you can construct an argument down that road but such a thing would probably be objected to aesthetically, rather than ethically. Wall like that are f’in ugly at the best of times…

Don’t you think that if the U.S. government were to militarize the border that there would be a huge opposition against it despite its apparent need and benefits?

the democRATS will cry and whine and protest any way… nothing new…


The democrats will whine and protest and try to delay it until they get into power then claim that they were in favour of it all along, do it themselves and try to take all the credit.

The Berlin Wall was built to keep the citizens in, not necessarily to keep the enemy out. This is a common misconception. The communist countries were experiencing a major brain drain at the best and the brightest fled communism.

Nope, and I can provide the economic, health and security reasons for protecting the U.S. borders.

First: L.A. has at least 60 hospitals closed because legally they have to care for those without insurance. Ta Dah, most of which are illegals.

30% of Californias incarcerated prisoners are illegals. Cost per year per inmate $30,000 + depending on the crime.

How about outbreaks of TB, (was erradicated) Hepatitis A & C, Leprosy on the East coast (7,000 cases so far)

How about the overcrowded schools and roads.

Do you have any idea what illegals cost the U.S. taxpayer??

We are basically subsidizing the agricultural industry in its attempts to avoid upgrading to robotic harvesting. I mean how difficult is it to create machines to harvest lettuse, strawberrie, apples, oranges, etc. Technology is used in other parts of the U.S. for this, so try not to buy into the industry’s bs propaganda regarding this.

Besides, our teens need summertime and after school employment instead of sitting on their backsides whining or joining gangs.

Expensive yes, but the way the government spends our tax dollars, it is not out of the realm of possibilities.

The drones were created, then the govenment swooped down, purchased them for the war in Iraq. The drones were created inexpensively to protect our borders by supporters of the Minute Men.

Which reminds me, I need to see what is currently being done regarding reinstituting the drones on our borders.

Hello F(r)iends,

I would like to keep all the benefits of illegal immigrants (cheap labor, doing the job lazy Americans won’t, doing the jobs the unions otherwise send offshore, etc) without incurring any of the costs of preventing these illegals from coming here. Basically, I would like to have my cake and eat it too… I’m sure that’s not difficult.

{I love sarcasm}


I was only drawing an architectural comparison between Hadrian’s Wall and the Berlin Wall, politically and historically they are very different. One last a lot longer…

This is from the AMA regarding illegal immigrants.

It is from Acrobat and I could not copy the whole article.

Illegals do pose a major threat.

a militarized or fortress border is not only an indication of the fortress mentality paranoia and panic of the builder but also promotes such a fortress mentrality among its leadership and people for as long as the fortress border exists, the states paranoia rises furthur and the so called fog of fortress mentality sets in. those inside live in their own world, a bubble at odd with reality, distrusting and discrediting outside information, influences. the mind draws a conclusion first and then fits the evidence to this conclusion. such fortification therefore if not a contributing factor then atleast a symtom and indicator of the eventual downfall.

in this day and age of global buisness, and information sharing, such a mentality would cripple the economy and therefore the military might of a state, and therefore its own ability to defend its border, and is it not therefore self defeating?

im not saying countries shouldnt or dont defend themselves

there are exceptions to every rule and this is not a comment reflective or predictive of any state or nation.

in fact constant border skirmishes are attrition to military and uncertainty for the people therefor the buisness and politics and could be equally damaging to the economy. Damn it appears the only option is to smite thyne enemy with all thy mite attack is the best form …no wait…nuclear genocide…double damn…nuclear winter

or maybe im just in a bad pessimistic mood


It’s a great idea. We, now more than ever, have to worry about national security.

On top of that, the pres of Mexico has mentioned some stuff that implies that he is allowing an invasion of the US in slow motion. That’s too much and it’s a double threat.

However, I do think that the Mexican that comes here and works is a good addition to the US, and so we should have a visiting worker program with plenty of human rights.