Mexico may take fence dispute to U.N. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Telluride · 10-09-2006, 09:23 PM

The article.

WTF? Regardless of how you feel about legal immigration, illegal immigration, amnesty, etc...what right does one country have to essentially tell another that it can't build a fence in an attempt to secure its borders? I'm assuming that there will still be places where people and goods can LEGALLY cross the border, so it seems like the only reason to complain about the building of the fence is because it will make it more difficult to transport people and goods ILLEGALLY across the border.

Is there any legal tactic that can be used to prevent the USA from building this fence?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-09-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

PARIS - Mexico's foreign secretary said Monday the country may take a dispute over U.S. plans to build a fence on the Mexican border to the
United Nations.
ADVERTISEMENT

Luis Ernesto Derbez told reporters in Paris, his first stop on a European tour, that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case.

The Mexican government last week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. President-elect Felipe Calderon also denounced the plan, but said it was a bilateral issue that should not be put before the international community.

Derbez said Monday after meeting with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy that it was a "shame" U.S. immigration policy had been used for what he claimed was a short-term political gain in the lead-up to midterm elections in the U.S. in November.

He said he discussed the issue with Douste-Blazy, and planned to bring it up in meetings with his Spanish and Italian counterparts during visits to Madrid and Rome. He vowed to work on the case until the "very last day" of President
Vicente Fox's term, which ends Dec. 1.

The U.S. Senate approved the border fence bill last month and
President Bush has said he will sign it into law — despite last-minute pleas from the Mexican government for a veto.

"What should be constructed is a bridge in relations between the two countries," Derbez said.

I saw this and I laughed out loud. Telling someone they can't build a fence in their own backyard, that's rich. I wonder why the Mexican government is so opposed to this prospect, perhaps something that might curtail illegal mexican immigration, and thus cripple their pathetic economy.

Telluride there is no legal action that can be used to prevent this in an international sense. America acts as a sovereign nation, we make our own laws and enforce them, not the UN or any other global order. There is no legal basis for an international order to stand on in this case; who knows though maybe an internal faction like the ACLU might sympathize and try something, but I don't know if any court, well maybe the 9th circuit, in their right mind would label this act unconstitutional.

pan6467 · 10-09-2006, 09:48 PM

The sad question one has to ask about all this is: yes, Congress passed it.... (Kudos to Congress for doing something right)..... but did they pass the funding?

OP I don't care what Mexico says.... they don't like the wall come tear it down.

feelgood · 10-09-2006, 09:49 PM

Nope, I don't see Mexico successfully forcing USA to stop building fences on their border. If the Mexican government doesn't like it, perhaps they should find a way for their own civilanns to stop jumping the border and put an end to cross border drug trafficking.

Besides, its USA's border, their fence, and their rights

Edit: Just another thought, would this be another version of the Berlin Wall?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-09-2006, 10:01 PM

We are trying to keep illegals out, not our own citizens in. So no, in no way shape or form is this similar to the Berlin Wall.

analog · 10-09-2006, 11:13 PM

When it is completed, they will just start using rafts and such to launch from the northwest and northeast sides of Mexico, going out and north a bit then back to shore, and landing in either Texas or California. People from Cuba and Puerto Rico have been getting to Florida that way for a long time- and theirs is much farther of a trip.

/not an opinion against the wall, just an observation.

jorgelito · 10-10-2006, 12:18 AM

wall on mexico border DOES NOT EQUAL Berlin Wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LStanley · 10-10-2006, 03:23 AM

I'd like to see landmines thrown all over the riverbank... then we could "dare" them to come over.. lol...

I bet they REFUSE to illegally immigrate to the US..

ironman · 10-10-2006, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

The article.

WTF? Regardless of how you feel about legal immigration, illegal immigration, amnesty, etc...what right does one country have to essentially tell another that it can't build a fence in an attempt to secure its borders?

THe same that the US has to tell us not to build a bridge, make a damn, cut on taxes, elect our own presidents, support internal war, pass laws, dictate the economical politics, etc..., etc..., etc..., but that's another 2 cents, right?
Many of the causes for inmigration are a direct consequence of US foreign politics regarding Latin America (in Guatemala alone the US has been directly responsible for overthrowing more than 4 presidents, and support an internal war that lasted over 30 years, took over 300,000 lives and maintained us in poverty).
If the US wants to build the wall, go ahead, do it for God sake, but don't be that innocent to beleive that the wall alone will stop illegal immigration, it will be more difficult, more dangerous and more people will die trying to get to the so called "american dream", just please, don't fool yourselves. Maybe, while the wall can keep out of the US the illegal immigrants, at the same time it can keep out of Latin America the US's illegal impositions.
The way I see it, and the way the US treat us, long ago we are part of the US and Gerorge W. Bush ir our president, Berger is just kind of a mediocre Governor.

Ustwo · 10-10-2006, 06:15 AM

Maybe the UN is like a homeowners association and Mexico is just afraid a fence will lower its property values.

roachboy · 10-10-2006, 07:25 AM

this fence is an idiotic idea.
truly idiotic.
you can see what is going to happen below: this is pure electioneering, a bone tossed to the xenophobic set. the money will be directed into other things. we'll see what the reality is sometime after the elections.

just read the article below:

Quote:

Fence Meets Wall of Skepticism
Critics Doubt a 700-Mile Barrier Would Stem Migrant Tide

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 10, 2006; A03

CALEXICO, Calif. -- Legislation passed by Congress mandating the fencing of 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico has sparked opposition from an array of land managers, businesspeople, law enforcement officials, environmentalists and U.S. Border Patrol agents as a one-size-fits-all policy response to the nettlesome task of securing the nation's borders.

Critics said the fence does not take into account the extraordinarily varied geography of the 2,000-mile-long border, which cuts through Mexican and U.S. cities separated by a sidewalk, vast scrubland and deserts, rivers, irrigation canals and miles of mountainous terrain. They also say it seems to ignore advances in border security that don't involve construction of a 15-foot-high double fence and to play down what are expected to be significant costs to maintain the new barrier.

And, they say, the estimated $2 billion price tag and the mandate that it be completed by 2008 overlook 10 years of legal and logistical difficulties the federal government has faced to finish a comparatively tiny fence of 14 miles dividing San Diego and Tijuana.

"This is the feel-good approach to immigration control," said Wayne Cornelius, an expert on immigration issues at the University of California at San Diego. "The only pain is experienced by the migrants themselves. It doesn't hurt U.S. consumers; it doesn't hurt U.S. businesses. It only hurts taxpayers if they pay attention to spending on border enforcement."

Congress has decreed that five sections of reinforced fencing -- most probably a double fence with stadium lighting -- will be built along a third of the border, in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The biggest section is planned from east of Calexico stretching more than 300 miles to west of Douglas, Ariz.

There also are questions of whether the fence will be more of a symbol to be used in elections than a reality along the border. For one thing, shortly before Congress adjourned, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money allocated for the fence to other projects, including roads, technology and other infrastructure items to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of building a "virtual fence."

Currently, less than 100 miles of the border is fenced, primarily in populated areas. San Diego has become a symbol for the efficacy of fences, but a closer look at the experience of that seaside city also illustrates the potential pitfalls.

In the mid-1990s, the city was awash in illegal immigrants. Hundreds would gather by a soccer field near Otay Mesa, east of San Diego, and rush into the United States on what the Border Patrol termed "banzai runs." During those years, Border Patrol agents routinely apprehended 200,000 illegal entrants a year in the sector. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) got funding to build a fence and thousands more Border Patrol officers were dispatched to the area. The number of crossers plummeted.

But the fence, originally estimated at $14 million, incurred huge cost overruns and logistical and legal hurdles. It took $39 million to build the first nine miles, and the fence has yet to be finished. For a decade, litigation has delayed construction of 3.5 miles of the structure because environmental groups have opposed a federal plan to lop the tops off two mesas and pour 5.5 million cubic feet of dirt into a valley, called "Smuggler's Gulch," to flatten the terrain. Environmental groups lost the case when the Department of Homeland Security invoked a law exempting it from federal and state regulations in the interest of national security. DHS recently appropriated an additional $35 million to complete the fence -- for a total of $74 million, or more than $5 million a mile.

The fence in San Diego forced illegal traffic into the deserts to the east, leading thousands of migrants to their death. In response, the Border Patrol shifted thousands of agents to Arizona to deal with the flow. But many of those agents came from the San Diego and El Centro sectors. So once again, the number of crossers in San Diego and El Centro is increasing even though the two sectors are the most heavily fenced in the nation.

"Tucson now has 2,600 agents. San Diego has lost 1,000 agents. Guess where the traffic is going? Back to San Diego." said T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the main union for Border Patrol agents. "San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country, and yet it's not stopping people from coming across."

There are concerns along the border that the congressionally mandated fence could overshadow new, cheaper technologies that show some promise. For example, 30 miles of reinforced vehicle barriers, which cost on average $1 million a mile, have reduced by 95 percent road traffic from drug and migrant smugglers into the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, where a park ranger was shot and killed by narcotics traffickers in 2002, said Kathy Billings, superintendent of the territory. "We used to have two to three high-speed chases a month," she said. "Now we have less than six a year."

But even the vehicle barriers, posts in the ground connected to each other by railroad ties, need year-round maintenance. The barriers at Organ Pipe have already been breached four times since they were completed this summer. A full-scale double fence in the Arizona desert, where summer rains cause flash floods that often rip up anything in their path, would be extremely costly to build, let alone maintain, Billings said.

The ecological effect of a fence would be significant, according to Roger Di Rosa, manager of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, which runs along about 50 miles of the Mexican border. Efforts to protect pronghorn sheep and encourage the jaguar to return to the United States could be seriously affected, he said. "If it doesn't fly, it's not getting across," he said. "The law is pretty straightforward but the border is very unique."

Marine Corps officers in the region also have questioned the need for a fence. Using a combination of vehicle barriers and ground-based radar, they had blocked a significant portion of smuggling traffic through their land on the Yuma Proving Ground, which runs along 30 miles of the border, Di Rosa and others said. In recent months, however, the Pentagon for unknown reasons ordered the base to install a fence. Marine Corps officers at the facility did not return a call seeking comment.

Di Rosa and others cited other potential unintended consequences of fence-building. In some regions along the border, the nearest main road can be 80 miles away. So to build the barrier, roads must be created. That could end up facilitating movement into the United States rather than blocking it. Officials along the border challenged optimistic timelines that the wall could be built in two years, citing the high probability of lawsuits from environmental agencies and land owners.

In Texas, which is to get 200 miles of fencing, opposition to the plan has come from law enforcement and city governments. The City of El Paso has officially opposed the plan, as has the Texas Border Sheriff's Association.

Maverick County Sheriff Tomas S. Herrera predicted ranchers would sue the federal government to fight the installation of a fence on their property. One reason is that ranchers want access to the Rio Grande, which snakes 1,254 miles along the border, to water their herds and for sport fishermen who pay to use the waterway.

Perhaps because of these objections, Congress, in a late-night concession just before adjournment, pledged that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has discretion to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."

Herrra thinks flexibility might be needed. He echoed a widespread skepticism about federal programs, hatched in Washington, designed to deal with the border problems.

"A few years ago, they installed cameras and said the cameras would solve things," he said. "Those cameras can pick up a tick on a cow's back. But when half the monitors are all busted like they are now, they don't work."

His prediction for how illegal immigrants would deal with the wall: "They will get ladders made out of mesquite and climb it."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100901006.html

so if the fence cannotbe built and even if it could be built is seen across the board as something between ludicrous and unnecessary, then the question arises of why it was passed as a funded project--in this, think maybe displacement--the republican dominated congress, seeing the writing on the wall for november, displaces its fantasies about staying in power onto a ridiculous project for walling themselves in, preventing the Other from "invading"---from this angle, the project is actually very funny.

kutulu · 10-10-2006, 08:04 AM

This fence is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

People from Cuba and Puerto Rico have been getting to Florida that way for a long time- and theirs is much farther of a trip.

/not an opinion against the wall, just an observation.

Puerto Ricans are US citizens. They have no reason to take a raft to Florida.

feelgood · 10-10-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

wall on mexico border DOES NOT EQUAL Berlin Wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

Edit: Just another thought, would this be another version of the Berlin Wall?

"Another version" does not equal "equal"

Thank you

stevo · 10-10-2006, 08:32 AM

I have another version of the horse and buggy, its called a car.

feelgood · 10-10-2006, 08:39 AM

Yeah, but is it a horse and buggy?

A pen is another version of a pencil but it isn't a pencil
A watch is another version of a clock but it isn't a clock
Jeff is another version of Greg but isn't Greg

See where I'm going?

A fence may be another version of a wall, but it sure isn't the Berlin Wall...

splck · 10-10-2006, 08:45 AM

I suppose it will make some Americans happy, but I suspect it's a waste of money. People are smart, and they'll get around a wall as soon as you put it up. Always have, always will.

Elphaba · 10-10-2006, 09:19 AM

I would be tempted to follow the money on this one. Boeing received a multibillion dollar contract to construct this "wall." It's not a wall at all, but a string of security towers with various detection devices.

Ustwo · 10-10-2006, 09:23 AM

Land mines.

Cheap, effective, easy to replace.

The US didnt' sign the treaty banning them for good reason

reconmike · 10-10-2006, 09:39 AM

Not only should the fence go up, but we should dig 20 foot wide punji pits on our side also. So if they do happen to get over the fence the will either have to pole vault or catapault themselves over the pits.
And with the security cameras around we should put it on pay-per-view to help defer the costs of maintainence.
I would pay $20 bucks to see the agony of defeat.

feelgood · 10-10-2006, 09:40 AM

I think it'll be cheaper to say that the army have laid mines than actually to do it. Fear is more effective tool than prevention tool.

roachboy · 10-10-2006, 10:01 AM

landmines....
you would put fucking land mines along the border?

and then----as if that was not enough----we also get the notion of some kind of world war 1 trench war contraption be built that would provide the real sociopaths with spectator sport--maybe pay the 20 bucks and drink a few dozen pbrs while you watch some poor person twitch about on a wooden stake--o ha ha look that must be agony, pass me another beer will you?

maybe afterward, you could go home and masturbate because we all know that nothing gets the manly man worked up quite like a little bloodsport--- nothing says touch yourself quite the way someone else's pain does.

it'd be a great international spectator sport too--i would imagine that much of the planet would be greatly entertained by the footage and photographs of drunken american yahoo sociopaths hooting and cheering as folk who try to enter the states to get work are blown to bits or die slowly while impaled in a trench.
it'd be a real fine insight into the core of something about america, i would wager.
probably a finer insight than you know.

Bill O'Rights · 10-10-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Not only should the fence go up, but we should dig 20 foot wide punji pits on our side also. So if they do happen to get over the fence the will either have to pole vault or catapault themselves over the pits.
And with the security cameras around we should put it on pay-per-view to help defer the costs of maintainence.
I would pay $20 bucks to see the agony of defeat.

$20 a night...or $20 bucks a month?
Of course, if they actually clear it, we could offer them instant citizenship...as an enticement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

landmines....
you would put fucking land mines along the border?

and then----as if that was not enough----we also get the notion of some kind of world war 1 trench war contraption be built that would provide the real sociopaths with spectator sport--maybe pay the 20 bucks and drink a few dozen pbrs while you watch some poor person twitch about on a wooden stake--o ha ha look that must be agony, pass me another beer will you?

Of course...no one made then try to vault the fence. You know the risk, you take your chances.
And as far as providing the real sociopaths with spectator sports...what do you think NASCAR is? The thrill of watching cars going around in a circle? No, it's the thrill of the expectation of a firey crash. Welcome to the coluseum.

reconmike · 10-10-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

landmines....
you would put fucking land mines along the border?

maybe afterward, you could go home and masturbate because we all know that nothing gets the manly man worked up quite like a little bloodsport--- nothing says touch yourself quite the way someone else's pain does.

.

Being the manly man that I am it would take nakid women trying to clear it before I would be able to rub one out.

Then I would run out of my doublewide grab what ever guns I had in reach jump into my trusty pickup truck and head out coon hunting, cause nothings better than killin a few coons right after I loose a few million child prospects.

Ustwo · 10-10-2006, 10:40 AM

roachy thats a brilliant idea!

Hey we could even make it pay for itself by putting it on pay-per-view!

roachboy · 10-10-2006, 11:03 AM

it's your proposals, ustwo and reconmike: i am sure you can tend to marketing them.

ooo, lookit that one--running running--oops, he didnt see that minefield sign---gimme a beer, will you---this should be good-----poof----i dunno, i think that guy was just a kid and i dont think he has legs any more---well, i hope they dont send any medical attention so we can watch em twitch--that's the best part....
hand me a hamburger, will you?
carnage makes me hungry.

that'll show em.

great ideas, gentlemen.
really great stuff.

i feel like i went to what i thought was a thread and landed in a sewer--everything here smells....but i suppose that's all part of bloodsport, isn't it?

hey, maybe you could get little scratch-and-sniff cards that'd give you a whiff of gunpowder and smell of excrement as you watch people die on the border. they could be sent to you if you sign up for the pay-per-view installments in advance.

if they were really thinking, the networks would broadcast this online and provide you with a zoom function so you can get right up in there and look at the wounds.
that'd be great.

that way you could get real up close like from your living room couch.
and it'd be better than real life because you wouldnt have to move.

cj2112 · 10-10-2006, 11:21 AM

roachboy, it's brilliant! I'd totally watch it!

stevo · 10-10-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's your proposals, ustwo and reconmike: i am sure you can tend to marketing them.

Hey, wait a minute. The land mine proposal was my idea.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=66213#35

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

need a solution to the border? two words: land mines

4-17-2006 1:22 pm

Ustwo · 10-10-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Hey, wait a minute. The land mine proposal was my idea.

Yes but you don't have the cult of personality I do, when I post, they listen.

stevo · 10-10-2006, 01:12 PM

I must not be evil enough.

*hangs head in shame*

/me wanders of to find children to eat.

djtestudo · 10-10-2006, 01:17 PM

I would offer a counter-proposal in the UN suggesting the annexation of Mexico into the United States.

I mean, if they want to be here that badly, why not?

That's all you need to suggest to get this Mexico junk laughed out of the General Assembly.

If it's not already laughed out on it's own lack-of-merits.

I hate the idea of the fence, but I believe in the principle of telling Mexico to piss off until they stop helping their people break our laws.

LStanley · 10-10-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Hey, wait a minute. The land mine proposal was my idea.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=66213#35

4-17-2006 1:22 pm

I had reply #7 with landmines...

I've been talking about using them since I got drunk up here at Texas Tech University in 2000-2001...

Its more of a joke than anything, but you guys all getting in a fret about it, need to get laid, grow balls, and pull the splinters and bark out of your arms you tree huggin hippies.

"we're gonna go masturbate to people dieing!" lol, no.

"we love to watch people die" again, no.

"we all live in a doublewide" no.

you stereotypical piece of crap. stfu. get out.

Its a means to git a laugh out of a bad situation.

We like our "American Values" as much as the next guy, and we will do whatever it takes to keep them there, even if it means to build a fence.

We want to keep our job market salary for the lower end where its "liveable" not some 3rd world cheap like vietnam sweat shot .05$ an hour crap.

Also, to keep the drug trafficking out, is a good thing.

I find nothing BAD about the idea of a fence, hell, I've wanted one ever since I was in gradeschool and the mecixan sons of bitches that used to chase me around school and kick my ass for the hell of it, cause there was like 40 of them... Not to mention the fact that EVERYTHING here in Texas now is in spanish, wtf is up with that? THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES IS ENGLISH! why the hell does my TBS have freakin spanish programming?? ... is shitty.

One of the rules to GET INTO the US, to LIVE in the US, and to WORK in the US, is to SPEAK ENGLISH!, there's no reason for then hoopties that come to the US illegally, speak only spanish, have 13 kids, get on welfare, and since the damn kids are born here, they can stay.. they speak only spanish in the household so the kids can hardly speak any english, and this we give them ESL (English as a Second Language) classes, and you hippies still want to talk about equal f'in rights???

I'm NOT PAYING TAXES SO DAMN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS KIDS CAN LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH!. F that.

I'd rather put up landmines.

we don't need them, we don't want them, they aren't citizens, they have no morals, and who cares what happens to them...

One interesting tidbit of information though, if an illegal immigrant walks on your land, its legal to shoot them.

roachboy · 10-10-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

we don't need them, we don't want them, they aren't citizens, they have no morals, and who cares what happens to them...

see gentlemen?

it just takes one of you getting a bit too pissy...and it happens: one of you says what you all really mean, what your politics are really about.

funny stuff.

i'll leave you to entertain yourselves.

streak_56 · 10-10-2006, 03:20 PM

Personally... its a short term solution to a long term problem. Illegal immigration is a problem and I don't think it cannot be solved by just a "fence." If the immigrants are desperate enough, then they will find a way to get into the U.S.

When I first moved to the US, I moved "illegally," and I'm Canadian... so how about a fence to stop Canadian Illegal Immigration, because I am sure that we are more educated and more adept to living in the US than some Mexican Illegal Immigrants.

As said in one of the articles... its a one size fits all solution. If a person is coming to the US looking for the "american dream" (becoming rich) then they should look elsewhere, but if a person just wants a better life for their family (more selfless), then I see no problem. Some of the best people/workers I have known are Mexican and there are a few people who are extremely lazy who would bitch about Mexican people being so motivated and I just wanted to slap them for their ignorance.

But hey... its the US building the fence... not Canada... so really what validation would my opinion hold?

djtestudo · 10-10-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

see gentlemen?

it just takes one of you getting a bit too pissy...and it happens: one of you says what you all really mean, what your politics are really about.

funny stuff.

i'll leave you to entertain yourselves.

Considering these ILLEGAL immigrants are showing a disregard for our laws and government, and are being supported by another nation who gets "pissy" themselves whenever we even discuss possibilities of preventing their entry, I would be pissy too.

Elphaba · 10-10-2006, 03:33 PM

Telluride, I applaud you for an interesting topic that should have produced some meaningful discussion. Please don't let the current direction dissuade you from starting more threads in Politics. The usual suspects take sport in killing off a good topic.

jorgelito · 10-10-2006, 03:50 PM

I find it interesting that Mexico has fenced off their southern border. Why is this ok but it's not ok for the US to have a fence?

boatin · 10-10-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote: