# Some US legislators want to errect a fence between US/Canada border



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060915/border_fence_060915/20060915?hub=Canada

Someone in the Homeland Security line of work is feeling, well..... insecure about us scary Canadians.  Sounds like government make work projects gone mad.   :


----------



## foo32 (15 Sep 2006)

I say we get to work and build one first ....  better yet, let's just mine it.  :dontpanic:


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Sep 2006)

> Someone in the Homeland Security line of work is feeling, well..... insecure about us scary Canadians.  Sounds like government make work projects gone mad



Or maybe, the American people are tired of porous borders to the north *and* south - and the elected officials are finally starting to listen..

Also, I don't think it's the Canadians that they are worried about - it's whomever else wants to cross, via Canada. Another article cites how many paved, unmanned border crossings there are on the northern border. It would be irresponsible to disregard that..


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Or maybe, the American people are tired of porous borders to the north *and* south - and the elected officials are finally starting to listen..
> 
> Also, I don't think it's the Canadians that they are worried about - it's whomever else wants to cross, via Canada. Another article cites how many paved, unmanned border crossings there are on the northern border. It would be irresponsible to disregard that..



There have been articles of late on some of the trouble spots out West and in Ontario.  But they and we are taking action with air patrols already.  In fact the US are beefing up their commitments in this regard out of Great Falls Montana.  I do honestly wonder at the practicality of such an endeavor.  Could the benefits from such a move outweigh the price tags in both money and goodwill between each sides.  And the US attempts at Isolationism in the past only delayed the inevitable.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Sep 2006)

I grew up on the Maine/NB border. I've lived on the Mexican border for 9 years. If you were living the southwestern experience, fences would seem like a good thing.

Isolationist = Bad
Meddling = Bad
Pushing their point of view = Bad

The US can't win, it seems...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2006)

It wont happen, so dont take this too seriously. There wont even be a fence across the entire southern border, rather the fence on the Mexican border will cover 700 miles and the rest of it would be a virtual fence.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2006)

I grew up on the Alberta Montana border.  For the life of me I cannot remember hordes of Illegal Canadian Immigrants sneaking into the US in order to find a better lifestyle.  As a matter of fact, it has been reported that Alberta has the lowest unemployment rate in the continent.  

I presently live on the East coast.  I still don't see signs of pesky Canadians wanting to do menial labour that US citizens would not do.  That is compairing apples to oranges I think.

 Love the US, nice place to visit but that's all folks.  If they want to increase making it bothersome to come and spend my money as a tourist I will keep my business here at home.  

tomahawk6, I think cooler heads will prevail at the end of the day.  There is no way they could afford it.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Sep 2006)

You're missing my point. The border is porous, on both sides. I could take you to 50 spots in New Brunswick where you could cross, no problem. You'd trip sensors, and the BP would be on their way, but you'd probably be gone by the time they got there.

If people can sneak back and forth to smuggle cigarettes, then they can sneak across for other reasons. Porous is porous.  :

Again, whether an actual fence gets built or not, the concern, I believe, is the potential for people to cross easily and undetected. A large percentage of people apprehended on the southern border are OTM - other than Mexican. Coyotes are discovering that other groups are willing to pay much more than the campesinos.


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 Sep 2006)

It sounds like a good idea to me!  it would keep hordes of right-wing US militant groups from crossing the border and taking over our country...  

Oh wait...they want to keep Canadians out!   

 :

It seems like this topic is raised at least once a month by some shit-for-brains sentaor or congressman who probably still thinks we live in Igloos and fight off polar bears every time we go to the kwikki-mart.  

Even that tunneling project in BC a while back was a farce.   It didnt show how 'nefarious and underhanded' the criminals our (both theirs and ours) or how easily it could have been used by terrorists.  It showed how lazy and stupid they are!  Instead of just cruising down a 100 km's and crossing in through the forests of some god-for-saken area at night, where no one would see them, they figured it had to be at a point where they would most likely to be caught, in a built-up area within reach of a local police force.  It was only a matter of time before somebody got pinched in a drug bust and said 'hey cut me a deal, I can tell you where this tunnel is...'

Its all tied back to the same 'blame game' that started after 9/11.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2006)

Sure I see your point.  But there is no bloody way they will ever get their border closed to their satisfaction.  People have been and will always find a way to cross the border if they really want to.  And at any rate I am sure with a population as large and varied as is present in the Con US I suggest there are more homegrown folks they should be worried about, and I am sure they are.  From any view point out there that you will care to look at I am sure there are already folks in place who are working towards their end goals.  

Worrying about closing our border effectively would seem to me to be akin to hunting mosquitoes with a 12 gauge.  Noisy, might look impressive to an observer but would it really do the job?  I think not.  It looks almost Zenophobic from my angle.


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 Sep 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Worrying about closing our border effectively would seem to me to be akin to hunting mosquitoes with a 12 gauge.  Noisy, might look impressive to an observer but would it really do the job?



Only in Manitoba during the summer...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (15 Sep 2006)

A long time ago in a land far away another country built a wall.  It wasn't very good at keeping the undesirables out but it sure was great at stopping them from fleeing with their loot.  There was absolutely NO way to stop a focused attack across such a very long border.  Israel had a smaller area to cover and people still managed to break through.  Same with that Berlin wall. And if we look at that Mexican wall ... wow it sure is effective!  It is completely beyond the resources of the Americans to guard even a third of a Canadian-walled-border assuming they don't cripple the economy trying to erect some ridiculous fence that would do nothing but make sure the wild life stays on this side of the fence. 

But on the other hand,  China built that wall to keep the war mongering barbarians out,  I don't think they would have objected too strongly if the Mongols decided to put the wall there.      And hey,  who do you think they'll get all that steel,  gas, wire and other resources?  From us of course,  at a new 'fair market rate'.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Sep 2006)

JJ - Your initial post wasn't regarding effectiveness or practicality, in my perspective, you were ridiculing the concept.

As someone who lives in this country, I don't find the concept that outrageous, nor does much of the populace. I'm not even endorsing the idea; my offense was at your "pooh-poohing" it...

Funny how people whine and complain when the Americans try and meddle in their affairs, but plenty line up as self-established experts on the Americans' affairs...

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic. We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Dare (15 Sep 2006)

It's their territory. They're saying they only want the people in they allow.. which strangely, is just what we expect, as well.

I'd say the negative attitude that some have about the fence is a base reason why the US is considering it in the first place.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Sep 2006)

I'm all for it... electrify it, and put guard towers every 200 metres, plant Bounding Frag A/P mines in a 200 m wide belt of death... help keep those nasty deserters out of Canada...


----------



## warspite (15 Sep 2006)

They want to build a wall. Just let them do it. Not like it's going to be our money, debt, responsibility, time, failure....


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Sep 2006)

Okay,  my previous post on this topic was fairly flippant.  I guess the quickest way of dealing with a disagreeable idea is to mock it.  
Now,  a more reasoned approach.

Every choice in government has its costs and benefits.  There are unlimited wants for the governments spending,  but, despite some who think otherwise, limited resources.  So you have to measure the Needs.

I just wanted to point out the enormous impact on the environment the fence would have,  how feeble it would be to even a half arsed attempt to cross it because you can't defend the entire thing.  So,  look at it from a cost benefit analysis.  How much would it really improve things?  How much would it cost? What would be the secondary costs? All of those answers depend on what you perceive as necessary.

If you honestly believe that a non-fenced border is the real reason that you now have terrorists in your country. ( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=aa4a4449-9f41-4e1c-8021-12f8c1c726a9&k=56437 ) Then to you there would be a much greater need to close that border up and a higher value in closesing it. Now if you look at the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorist were on the 'no not allow into the country' list and they smiled and walk into the states, (not even a fake passport)  one might conclude that maybe just maybe that should be looked at before you build a fence in the middle of nowhere.  (Much easier to make a convincing passport than to march 4 weeks in the middle of nowhere and hopefully not get eaten by a bear)  And that is of course assuming that we let in every tom, dick and osama.  How many of the terrorist for 9/11 sunk into the country?

Of course it is their country,  and honestly if they really really wanted to they could build a 600 Yard deep fence with sensitive devices to detect tunneling and then man the entire thing.  It would be extremely costly though,  and use up resources that could likely be better used elsewhere to greater effect.  Imagine a billion or two spent on rebuilding Haiti insted.  :-D


----------



## DBA (16 Sep 2006)

They voted to conduct a study of the matter. It only makes sense if you increase the security of one border that you would look into others that might be subject to side effects as well. If problems develop on other borders at least some ground work was done as to what is feasible and the possible costs involved with different options. A study also tends in poltics to be meant to send a signal that something is taken seriously but without actually doing anything. Unless it becomes a pure pork project in some districts or events transpire that more in the US support the idea it's never going to materialize on any large scale.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Sep 2006)

muskrat you are right on both counts.  I was ridiculing the concept.  I am on the outside looking in and as such perhaps I have a skewed line of sight to the vision and need.  Who knows...  And yes, we shall have to agree to disagree on this particular subject.


----------



## Dare (16 Sep 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> If you honestly believe that a non-fenced border is the real reason that you now have terrorists in your country. ( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=aa4a4449-9f41-4e1c-8021-12f8c1c726a9&k=56437 ) Then to you there would be a much greater need to close that border up and a higher value in closesing it. Now if you look at the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorist were on the 'no not allow into the country' list and they smiled and walk into the states, (not even a fake passport)  one might conclude that maybe just maybe that should be looked at before you build a fence in the middle of nowhere.  (Much easier to make a convincing passport than to march 4 weeks in the middle of nowhere and hopefully not get eaten by a bear)  And that is of course assuming that we let in every tom, dick and osama.  How many of the terrorist for 9/11 sunk into the country?


I'm pretty sure they understand that others may have entered. The idea is to prevent more terrorists entering in the future. It's not a time machine. It's a fence.


> Of course it is *their country*,  and honestly if they really really wanted to they could build a 600 Yard deep fence with sensitive devices to


----------



## HDE (16 Sep 2006)

I'd imagine there's a large amount of politics involved.  If the U.S. concentrates only on the Mexican border there'll be howls of outrage from the Mexican-American community and cries of "racism/dicrimination", etc.  If there's effort put into toughening up both the North and South borders it'll be less of a lightening rod.  Then you toss in the potential for pork barreling, consulting, engineering, legal services, etc and the potential for a lot of folks to make a killing on such a project  I'd imagine there are all sorts of people pushing  "a wall" on the border.  FWIW i'd say it has potential to be a massively overpriced white elephent.  I'd love to see the logistics of putting up a "wall" several thousand miles long. ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Sep 2006)

They have to worry not only about their Northern border, but also that very important Eastern border - separating Alaska and Canada's North.  Otherwise there will be hordes of red checkered shirt wearing lumberjacks dogsledding across the frozen tundra lustfully singing in the land of the midnight sun:       

_I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
I sleep all night. I work all day.

Mounties : He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
                He sleeps all night and he works all day.

I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
And have buttered scones for tea.

Mounties: He cuts down trees. He eats his lunch.
               He goes to the lavatory.
               On Wednesdays he goes shopping
               And has buttered scones for tea.

Chorus : I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) okay.
             I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day.

I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars.

Mounties : He cuts down trees. He skips and jumps.
                He likes to press wild flowers.
                He puts on women's clothing
                And hangs around in bars?!

Chorus : I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) okay.
             I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day.

I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie,
Just like my dear Papa 

Mounties : He cuts down trees. He wears high heels,
                Suspendies, and a bra?!

Chorus : I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) okay.
             I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day.

             Yes, I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) ok-a-y.
             I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day. _


----------



## rmacqueen (16 Sep 2006)

I would like to see how they propose to build a wall through the Rockies.  The engineering on that one would be fascinating.

The reality is that a project of this magnitude would take so long to even get to the building phase that you are probably looking at a couple of changes in administration in the meantime.  Once started it would take decades to complete.

On the other side of the coin, building such a wall would be a public relations nightmare for the US.  Very few countries in the world will take them seriously as a inclusive,open society when the background is the shot of a wall reminding people of past era in Europe.


----------



## Centurian1985 (17 Sep 2006)

You didnt even cover all the environmental studies that have to be conducted - that would take at least five years!!  Impact on wildlife, cross-border migrations, effects of barriers on marinelife, etc. 

What a nightmare!  Just goes to show how stupid people are for bringing it up.


----------



## rmacqueen (17 Sep 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> You didnt even cover all the environmental studies that have to be conducted - that would take at least five years!!  Impact on wildlife, cross-border migrations, effects of barriers on marinelife, etc.
> 
> What a nightmare!  Just goes to show how stupid people are for bringing it up.


Something for our grandchildren to worry about?


----------



## rz350 (17 Sep 2006)

let them go for it, as long as its 100% on American Soil and not one millimeter of Canada is taken up, who am I to complain? They're nation. They can put guards in steel helmets with great coats too. And mines.. Make it two walls, with a kill zone with no cover and freshly raked gravel in between the two, so no cover, and you can spot the foot prints. Give all the guards orders to shoot on site anyone in between the two walls.


wait, wait, I think that was done already. Oh well, we can bring it up to the 2000's with IR to spot the targets so we dont miss even one.


----------



## safeboy43 (17 Sep 2006)

I believe this to be utterly pathetic. The United States and Canada share the longest unarmed boarder in the world. Why break this? As our political ties are OK so far with the US, what is so wrong about us Canadians? 

It just goes to show how some people can become paranoid. As mentioned before, perhaps they are worried about illegal immigration. I don't see it as a problem as most Canadians live respectable lives. Not to put a diss on the US, but look at the Soviet Union and the Berlin wall. We all know how that went over :

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Koenigsegg (18 Sep 2006)

The Berlin Wall divided a country, and was put in place against the wishes of NATO during hostile times.  The wall between the USA and Canada, would not divide a country, and really has nothing to do with us in the sense that if it is on their side, we have no say.  and There is no hostility between our two nations.  One point that I have been informed of in terms of their motivation, is that the US does not want to appear anymore discriminatory than they already do by cracking down on the Mexicans.  They want to show that they feel the same way about us, so that not too many people get up in arms over how unfair it is, or how discriminatory it is...


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Sep 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060915/border_fence_060915/20060915?hub=Canada
> 
> Someone in the Homeland Security line of work is feeling, well..... insecure about us scary Canadians.  Sounds like government make work projects gone mad.   :



Its not us they are worried about, but its the shyte we've let into our country through our pisss weak immigration laws. As much as I think it would be a sad event to have the world's longest unfenced border be fenced. Its their right to guard themselves against any potential threat. We can thank radical islam for that.

Regards, Wes


----------

