Posted on 02/27/2006 8:57:03 AM PST by devane617
MEXICO CITY - ''The wall'' does not yet exist, and it might never be built, but already its 700 miles of fencing and electric sensors loom like a new Berlin Wall in the Latin American imagination.
The proposed barrier along the Mexican border was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in December and is scheduled to be debated by the Senate next month. In Spanish, they call it el muro.
El muro has been a focus of news for weeks not only in countries such as Mexico and El Salvador that are increasingly dependent on the dollars migrants send back home, but also faraway Argentina and Chile. Across the region, el muro is seen as an ominous new symbol of America's unchecked power.
''The U.S. government has fostered an atmosphere of collective paranoia, given a green light to its spies . . . and institutionalized torture,'' Salvadoran novelist Horacio Castellanos Moya said. ``The only thing missing was a wall.''
The brainchild of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., H.R. 4437 envisions two ''layers of reinforced fencing,'' new lighting, cameras and underground sensors similar to those in place near San Ysidro. One new stretch would seal off nearly all of the 350-mile length of the Arizona-Mexico border.
The beefed-up barrier aims to bring order to the chaos caused by an estimated 1 million people crossing illegally each year.
The bill also elevates illegal crossing from a misdemeanor to a felony and includes new provisions to limit hiring of undocumented workers.
The House approved the bill by a vote of 239-182.
In the lands south of the proposed barrier, news of the vote has been greeted with expressions of confusion, sadness and official concern. On Monday, the foreign ministers of 11 Latin American countries meeting in Colombia agreed to formulate a plan to lobby the U.S. Senate to kill the plan.
Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo Stein, whose center-right government is close to the Bush administration, made an unusually strident statement against the bill last month.
''It seems to us a real affront that a government that calls itself a friend and regional partner only wants our money and our products . . . treats our people as if they were a plague,'' Stein said.
Only a minority of commentators have suggested that Latin American governments share at least some of the blame for the disorder on the U.S. frontier.
''The diatribes (against the wall) are a poor substitute for adequate policies,'' Sergio Aguayo Quezada wrote in the Mexico City newspaper Reforma. ``The long era of open borders is over, and the escape value is slowly closing.''
Others point out that the walls already in place for more than a decade in Tijuana; El Paso, Texas; and other border communities have driven illegal crossers into the Sonora Desert, where hundreds have died of exhaustion.
Fearing that more fences will result in more deaths, Archbishop Renato Asencio León led a prayer Mass in Ciudad Juárez against the proposal. ''We pray to the Lord that this wall not be raised,'' the archbishop said.
The president of Mexico's National Commission for Human Rights, Jose Luis Soberanes, called the proposal an act of ``idiocy.''
The Guatemalan newspaper Prensa Libre took a sounding of the country's artists and athletes, who unanimously condemned the fence.
''It's one more slap in the face from the gringos, an example of their cynicism,'' actress Patricia Orantes told the newspaper. ``The walls are falling now. Berlin's fell, and [the Americans] still haven't learned yet.''
Bristling over repeated comparisons across Latin America between the Sensenbrenner fence and the wall built by East German Communist leaders, U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza responded with an angry letter last month.
''Comparisons of proposals to alter our border policies to the Berlin Wall are not only disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, they are personally offensive to me,'' Garza wrote in a release issued by the U.S. Embassy here. ``The Berlin Wall was built to keep its own people trapped inside, and was created by an oppressive authoritarian government.''
The United States, Garza wrote, has an inherent right to defend its security.
It will not be long before the U.N. Rights commission is scheduled to investigate it as a criminal matter.[not really sarcasm]
"probably asking too much for paper to remind us what the function of the berlin wall was, who built it, and compare and contrast that with any hypothetical wall on the mexican border."
There is a wall in front of me, where I am typing this on my computer. Now I ask, who are the gringos who have taken away my human rights! I demand this wall in front of me be taken down!
I agree. Real reform in Latin America isn't going to happen until we tell them they can't come here-illegally- to escape their problems.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see how many Americans would come out to help build the wall?
"If we're that bad, then why would you want to come here?"
If you're not in charge of your country, if international law is the rule, what's to be afraid of then? American law is of no concern to Mexican nationalism. Their elites believe they can transcend it.
I completely agree with you that it doesn't work on military application, but I question the effectiveness for illegal immigration as well. This proposed wall protects our Southern border with Mexico, right? I don't think it answers these other questions:
1. Legal visa-holders becoming illegals (I think most if not all 9/11 terrorists fit in this category).
2. Crossing over from Canada.
3. Underground tunnels from Mexico (recent story about a man-size, paved tunnel going to a warehouse in San Diego).
4. Crashing a boat onto the coastline (a few years ago, Chinese illegals used that ploy).
Again, I don't want to be misconstrued. I'm for the Southern wall, but I'm not sure about it's effectiveness to capital ratio as it's currently proposed. It seems more like a kneejerk reaction from Washington because of the border states and the Minutemen.
Granted, the wall in its current form is useless against a concentrated tank attack, but so far the illegals have not used that technique.
"Do we know for a fact that this is what our border guys want?'
At this stage, we know that the illegals DON'T want a wall, and that's a good enough reason to build one.
Points 2 - 4: Some will still get in. Just not millions.
I like it.
Well, it's only "ominous" to those planning to come here illegally. The LEGAL immigrants and/or guest workers won't have a problem.
Like if you were from Guatemala trying to sneak into Mexico?
"Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain of "double dangers" of extortion by Mexican authorities and robbery and killings by organized gangs."
"The State Department's Human Rights Practices report, released only last month, cites abuses at all levels of the Mexican government, and charges that Mexican police and immigration officials not only violate the rights of illegal immigrants, but traffic in illegal aliens."
That's my point.
It is ominous. However, reading omens is best left to the pros. Buy gold!
I think it was Henry Cabot Lodge who said that the test of any government is to build a wall around its country and then observe. Are people climbing over the wall to get out, or are they climbing over the wall to get in?
Fair enough. So this wall will stop the horde but may not stop the next 9/11.
Then again, in my opinion, a perfect defense is untenable and taking the the fight to them is our best option.
I know. I was having fun.
Considering the Superfund cleanup that would have to be done on the entire country of Mexico to make it inhabitable under current EPA regs, a 700 mile wall will be much cheaper. Let them keep their crapheap country and clean it up (environmentally and politically) themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.