The Security Fence (you'll never guess where)

War to Mobilize Democracy, LLC ^ | December 15, 2003 | Diana Appelbaum

[forty_years]

The new security fence runs 3,034 miles along a contorted path that lurches east, then west, and then doubles back - the antithesis of a straight line as it contrives to include this village and exclude that one. Many in the international community charge that in addition to being a grievous breach of human rights, the fence is part of a scheme to monopolize water resources, stealing the flow of rivers and further depriving people who already have little access to water. The course of the security fence divides families, separates herdsmen from their traditional grazing land and it can only be built by confiscating homes, farms, and property, leaving hardship and bitter resentment in its wake. When finished, the government claims that the security fence will block terrorists from access to their intended victims and staunch the flow of illegal immigrants. Large numbers of illegal immigrants have, in recent years, crossed the border and moved into crowded Muslim neighborhoods where they are difficult for the government to locate and deport, but where they place a tremendous strain on an economy already struggling with high unemployment.

The demographic threat posed by Muslim immigration, is ultimately, worse than terrorism. If allowed to continue, the illegal Muslim immigration, combined with high Muslim birthrates, will eventually produce a Muslim majority in India. Yes, India.

You have probably not heard much about the controversial security fence that India is building to wall itself off from Bangladesh. The course of the fence runs along the international border drawn by Lord Mountbatten when the British withdrew from India in 1948. It divides families, tribes, and farms not so much because Mountbatten did a poor job, as because the task he was given was impossible. Hindu and Muslim populations were distributed across the map in a patchwork that also included tribal groups that predate the advent of Hinduism to India. Any line inevitably put some Hindus in Muslim areas and some Muslims on the Hindu side, and necessarily divided families, tribal land, villages, and farms. Some of these impacts have been mitigated by the ease with which people in remote areas have crossed the border. The new fence is designed to make that border very difficult for unauthorized persons to cross.

The fence is being built in large part to stop terrorism. Most of the terrorism in question is committed not by Muslims but by over 50 armed insurgencies representing tribal, ethnic, and religious groups in the seven states of northeastern India. Some of these armed groups are small, and some are little better than bandits, but others are serious independence movements capable of large-scale violence. Being able to withdraw across the border into Bangladesh makes it easier for them to evade the Indian authorities. To take one example, the National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Christian group noted for its brutal attacks on non-Christian villages. Since 1998 it is accounted responsible for driving 59,000 people from their homes, kidnapping 1,430 and killing 900.

The Hindu – Muslim divide is more familiar to westerners. One aspect that may be unfamiliar is the fact that at independence tens of millions of Hindus lived in what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh, while tens of millions of Muslims lived in India. In a series of waves that still continues, almost all of the Hindus and Sikhs left Bangladesh and Pakistan. The Muslims of India, by contrast have largely remained. The obvious reason for the difference is that India treats its Muslims decently, for the most part, whereas Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are subject not merely to gross forms of political and economic discrimination, but to brutal pogroms.

India treats Muslims so well that 20 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants have entered India in recent years. The dual goals of the security fence are to stop terrorism and staunch the flow of illegal immigration.

Bangladesh denies that its citizens are entering India in huge numbers. It also denies that it harbors terrorists. And it claims that India is diverting water that legally belongs to Bangladesh. The accusation about water may have some truth to it.

You have not heard about the security wall that India is building to surround Bangladesh for two reasons. The first is that the American media hardly covers India. The second is that, despite the fact that the issue has roused substantial controversy in the subcontinent and outrage in Bangladesh, the world in general sees a wall along an international border as a matter or right. It is widely acknowledged that India has the right to control its borders, to protect its citizens from terrorism, and to stop illegal immigration. Israel, unfortunately, does not have an international border dividing it from the Palestinians because of Arab refusal to establish a Palestinian State. It is probably time to do as Lord Mountbatten did: draw a line on the map. Then Israel can build a good security fence, treat it as an international border, and wait for the Palestinian leadership conform to reality and take on the responsibilities of statehood.

[Slings and Arrows]

Ping!

[vpintheak]

Aint that some sh!t!

[optik_b]

Sad that even a 3rd world country like India can recognize the importance of having secured borders but the USA fails to see that having a secure border is worthwhile.

[SpaceBar]

The bottom line on all these wall stories is that China has had the right idea for 27 centuries.

[LibKill]

Landmines are cheaper and more cost-effective than fences.

But the basic principle of a secure border is sound, no matter how it is achieved. I wish we had a secure border.

[Ramius]

What would you do to secure the borders?

[sarasmom]

ping

[Ramius]

I would wish for a secure border too. I'm just not sure how we're going to "secure" 22,000 miles of border.

It's easy to say. Hard to do.

[4Freedom]

It's a sad day when India's leaders show more common sense than our so-called leaders do.

India does what the RINOs claim is impossible. No wonder we're not hearing anything about it.

[4Freedom]

Start with the land borders. Make them swim to get in here illegally.

There's no way that 1 to 1 1/2 million illegal aliens enter our country illegally every year, like they do now, if we secure our land borders.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I was hoping our Politicians came to their senses and built them here...I should have known better. Seems India can afford them, but not the richest nation in the world. If we took half of what we spend subsidizing illegals in this country, both our borders would be protected.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Walls work, and if we had one on the Southern border we could save millions of dollars over many years in manpower costs alone. Not to mention all the money saved from keeping out drugs and illegal aliens...

[JustPiper]

Bump, you got that right!

[JustPiper]

Bump to one smart country!

[Tolik]

BUMP. Very interesting.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

"demographic threat"...That wraps it up.

[optik_b]

"What would you do to secure the borders?"

Utilize modern technology and develop a security system that is monitored 24/7 and deploy forces which have a system to detain and remove trespassers. Certainly if a poor underdeveloped country like India can at least secure its massive borders we can do a first rate job if it was import to our policy makers. Repeated trespassers can be worked into a system of controlled immigration. If they are not secured we will see the flood of illegal immigration continue and intensify and the results will be disastrous. With controlled migration, our leaders can hopefully make careful decisions about how many immigrants we can absorb and plan for it better.

Failure to secure the borders will lead to:
1. the further Mexicanization of California and the eventual "Reconquista" of the American southwest and Texas.
2. The steady decline of American culture and a new Mexican mentality that will seep into all aspects of American life.
3. Increased crime and poverty.
4. The loss of English as a national language.
5. Lack of security and lack of protection from Al Qaeda movements into USA as the terrorist war progresses.

[dalereed]

"It's easy to say. Hard to do."

Make INS round up illegals, put them on the border for a year of hard labor BUILDING THE FENCE and then deport them.

We either get a quick fence or there will be millions of illegals fleeing north and south to avoid a year of hard labor building the fence.

[squidly]

Landmines are cheaper and more cost-effective than fences.

Finally, someone I can agree with on the subject of border security.

[Ramius]

Yes, of course there's some new technology that we can put to use, and from what I've seen that is in fact happening.

There is a fence. There is border patrol, and they're better at their job than they get credit for, at least around here.

I agree completely with both of you that border control is essential, and I also agree that we're not doing as good a job as we should with illegals. That's not the same as "sealing" the borders. I see all this chatter around here about "sealing" the borders... and frankly it's a little disappointing. It strikes me as naive, and that's why I get angry about it.

The U.S. has 22,000 miles of "border". Sealing that is about as realistic as sealing the equator. No matter what we do... minefields or otherwise... some will always get through. There is no "seal".

What these people are *really* saying is that they want only citizens and approved immigrants and travelers inside this country. Sure, a reasonable thing. What it *really* means in the real world is that since some illegals will always get through we'll have to get tougher on citizenship everywhere around the country. Everywhere we go, we must then have to prove our citizenship. We have to carry our "papers" and any government agent must have the right to request those "papers" of anyone, anytime.

That's the only way to "seal" the country.

[optik_b]

Using Land-mines would be counterproductive. They could endanger the lives of border patrols and would create greater sympathy for the undesirable immigrants that are overflowing into California, Texas, etc...this would be playing into the liberals hands. The liberals would rejoice and make martyrs out of the first Mexican kid that gets his legs blown off by a land-mine. If there ever was situation where the Mexican government was openly hostile and developed a military threat to the USA we could take offensive military action that would wipe this threat out and land-mines would be unnecessary.

[optik_b]

"Make INS round up illegals, put them on the border for a year of hard labor BUILDING THE FENCE and then deport them. "

Now we're talking. Once they build that fence, have em build a few more. How about an electrified series of 20 foot super fences. We could also use our massive criminal element enjoying life in our prisons watching TV and reading books. Put that massive criminal element to work building fences.