Why Do People Oppose Border Walls Despite Securing Their Properties with Locks and Fences?

It's a common argument that if people can secure their homes effectively with locks and fences, then building a border wall should provide the same protective measures. However, such analogies often fail to capture the complexity of the issue at hand. Let's explore why people and even experts might oppose border walls despite valuing the use of locks and fences at home.

Poor Analogies and Realities of Immigration

First, the analogy of a house's security measures doesn't align well with immigration policies. For starters, the reasons for securing one's home and the reasons for controlling national borders are quite different. Locks and fences around a house are primarily meant to deter unwanted intruders and ensure the privacy and security of its inhabitants. However, immigration involves a much larger set of considerations, including legal status, global economic factors, and cultural and social ties.

It's also important to note that while locks and fences can make a house more secure, they are not a guarantee. Similarly, walls at the border can deter illegal crossings but cannot completely prevent them. As one user pointed out, a 30-foot ladder could bypass even a 25-foot wall. This highlights the fact that no security measure is perfect and that there are often alternative methods to circumvent such barriers.

Complexity of Immigration Law and Practice

The argument that people "invite" overstayers to stay indefintely, thus implying that walls are unnecessary, overlooks the complexity of immigration law and the practices of those seeking to enter a country.

According to various studies, a significant portion of unauthorized immigrants enter the United States through legal channels and overstay their visas. In fact, the issue is not about allowing people to enter through the front door, but rather about screening and managing those who obtain legal entry and then remain unauthorized.

Moreover, immigration policy is not solely about preventing unauthorized entry; it also involves humanitarian considerations, economic factors, and international relations. Building a wall alone, without addressing these broader issues, may seem like an easy fix but overlooks the deeper complexities.

Security Measures for Privacy and Control

Another argument used to rebut the idea of building a border wall is based on the idea of privacy and control. Security measures around homes, such as fences, are usually designed for the same reasons—to maintain privacy, separate the space we control from areas we don't, and deter unwanted activity.

However, this analogy is flawed in the context of border control. While fences and walls create a clear demarcation, they do not eliminate the need for complex and often impenetrable security systems. Security measures at a border, such as checkpoints, surveillance, and diplomatic negotiations, are part of the larger security framework.

Furthermore, the structure of a 650-mile border with a national park, cliffs, and deserts presents unique challenges that simply building a wall cannot solve. As the examples from Israel and other security measures demonstrate, even the most advanced walls and fences can be overcome with the right technology and motivation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the analogy of home security measures to border control can be tempting, it simplifies a highly complex and multifaceted issue. Immigrant policy needs to consider legal frameworks, human rights, economic factors, and diplomatic relationships. The effectiveness of security measures at the border must also take into account the physical limitations and creative ways individuals might seek to bypass those measures. Understanding and addressing these complexities is essential for crafting effective and humane immigration policies.