One need look no further than the recent refugee crises in Europe to see what could easily result without strong border security. We are talking of a future where that level of mass migration will seem like small potatoes. A wall being merely one part of a secure border, by itself it would do little.
Now that it's been a few years, have there been any studies into macro effects from the refugee crisis in Europe? Most of what I saw (from a US perspective) mostly treated it as a humanitarian and logistical crisis along with some relatively, shall we say, "culturally defensive" responses from local advocates, but I haven't seen a concrete "x damage was done by migrants to the societies they ended up in".
The humanitarian crisis (concern for the migrants themselves) and logistical crisis (where do we put the migrants) would, to a global perspective, be a concern whether or not those migrants got stopped by a wall at the US's southern border.
You might say Brexit is a self inflicted wound, but it was sparked by that refugee crises.
You're right that proper border security doesn't solve the humanitarian and logistical crises. But I don't think that's a good argument for doing away with border controls all together. Your position seems to be that uncontrolled migration causes no harm, which seems a pretty extreme position to take.
Most of these countries have excellent social safety nets and public services which are now available to any migrants who achieve legal status. While contributing little in taxes back. If they don't get status they also don't pay any taxes.
I would argue the burden of proof is on you to establish that those migrants do no harm to the society rather than assuming they don't until proven otherwise.
Brexit was one of the defensive responses I was referring to.
I'm not arguing it causes no harm; I'm asking whether anybody has established any damage in the data. This is an opportunity to do a natural experiment; different places had different policies for integrating a large number of migrants, ranging from "don't let any in" to "find ways to integrate them viably into our society". Now that it's been ~5 years, what data do we have for which of those policies was beneficial for whom?
I'd add that I'm neither an economist nor a sociologist, nor do I speak any of the languages of Central Europe, so I'm not in a very good position to be able to surface good data.
>Most of these countries have excellent social safety nets and public services which are now available to any migrants who achieve legal status. While contributing little in taxes back. If they don't get status they also don't pay any taxes.
If they have can establish legal status to draw on the social safety net, they pay taxes, and presumably have the opportunity to stabilize their lives and contribute more taxes. Has that happened in the places where they were given legal status?
What are the means by which we could secure the border? Some parts of the border have had physical walls for decades but they don't seem to be very effective. People go over, under, around, or through.
I have never understood the rejection of walls as an effective means of preventing access. Ladders, tunnels, battering rams, and 'going around' have all existed for millenia, but we've kept on building walls the whole time. How could the whole world be deluded about that for so long?
If you enter your bank password over unsecured public wifi, someone there could steal it. But my advice to someone who does banking in a wifi cafe would not be "don't use a password at all, it does nothing for you".
All banks use HTTPS so there is no real risk that someone will steal your password over unsecured wifi.
Border walls can only prevent access if there are actual guards and sensors monitoring the wall and responding when people attempt to go over, under, or through. That would be extremely expensive. Is it a good use of public funds?
What's the alternative, give up on border control? How fair is it that people from India wait 20 years for a green card for following the rules while others just walk across illegally?
I don't understand the seeming position by some on the left that there's no need for border security.
I'm not opposed to border security. I just don't think that building a wall would be a cost effective means of achieving that goal. Plus there would be some negative environmental impacts.
