Shootings and explosions in Paris.
- Thread starter Dennisch
- 915 comments
- 45,519 views
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
No, for a start we'd say "realise"
Imagine closing every state border in the US and Candaland, that's the technical challenge that would face Western/Northern Europe when trying to do the same. Discovering those acting illegally and monitoring their movements makes absolute sense, spending billions and billions of Euro on 40 million miles of fencing to stop 0.0001% of the landmass's population from crossing borders to do harm does not.
- 4,221
- Louisville, KY
- ukfan758
Gun control is a completely different issue...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 4,221
- Louisville, KY
- ukfan758
My point is that no matter how many rules and restrictions you put up, there will still be people who get around those rules.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
- 4,221
- Louisville, KY
- ukfan758
Nice job using the division fallacy pal. Where did I say that I was an anarchist?So we should have no rules? Brilliant idea!
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The same thing applies to gun control. Or driver's licenses. Or any regulations meant to stop people from harming themselves or others. That doesn't mean that you simply throw up your hands and do nothing about it where you know there is a risk and some action or legislation may lessen the risk.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Your point is irrelevant if you're not, unless you're just pointing out the obvious. Of course people will be able to get around those rules, people will find a way around pretty much any rules you put in place for most things, that's hardly an argument for not having them.
Very few rules we put in place completely solve a problem, they're meant to reduce it, in this case not having open borders and putting border checks in place would limit criminal activity across borders and make it harder for terrorists to move from country to country unnoticed.
It wouldn't stop them all together and no ones saying it would, but it also wouldn't stop legitimate refugees (although you could argue that it would stop refugees at lower risk to others as we would be able to pick the most vulnerable to let in rather than having our resources stretched by those with the money to pay to get here) and would only be a minor inconvenience to everyone else.
Oh, and I'm not your "pal".
Last edited:
- 4,221
- Louisville, KY
- ukfan758
Let the building of border fences proceed then
. And not just that chain fence stuff, 5 m high concrete walls. Enjoy your tax hikes too like we will if Trump wins and decides to build his wall.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Let's not mix American policy into this. The very blunt difference between what Trump wants to do compared to the EU at large is that our border fence has been law for nearly 10 years. In other words, he wants to enforce our laws.
The EU is simply playing catch up with border security.
The EU is simply playing catch up with border security.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Let the building of border fences proceed then
Good job completely blowing my point out of proportion and not actually addressing it. No, we wouldn't need concrete walls, that would be stupid, chain fencing would do fine with check points at border crossings. Not massively expensive especially when the cost would be spread out over years and between neighbouring countries. That should reduce criminal's ability to smuggle weapons, drugs and people, etc across borders, like when Germany stopped the guy with 8 AKs who was going to Paris.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Using figures from the San Diego fence (here) basic chain fencing would cost $425,000 per mile.
With 9500 miles of border to protect that's, um, $4,037,500,000. That's without the resources to patrol/monitor those borders and build working checkpoints and without the costs to maintain/repair the fences... just for a "reduction in ability".
Commercial air and sea travel via establish entrance points would still work as would fake passports. Tunnels would still work and so would private boats/planes - unless you're proposing massive extra defence spending on air and sea patrols too.
Let's say you stop 100 people using those fences. You'd have spent $40,000,000 stopping each person and I'm willing to bet that several thousand others could have moved via existing routes.
Last edited:
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
@Spurgy 777 - The maintenance and lifetime of a chain link fence is relatively short, they're also easily bypassed by bolt cutters or even hand held grinders that smugglers will willingly provide.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
I'm going to assume that 9500 miles is the length of all the land borders of EU countries? If so, that $4 billion would be spread over 27 countries (UK wouldn't have any fencing obviously) which is about $150 million per country on average. That's also pretty much a one off payment so if you spread the cost over several years it wouldn't be that big a cost.
I agree that there are lots of ways around it as you rightly pointed out, but there's only so much we can reasonably do. However to your last point, I think 100 is a very low estimate for the amount of people you would stop out of a population of 500 million. And it also shouldn't be compared to the initial one off cost, ideally you would compare the yearly costs with the yearly amount of people stopped. Now if that number turned out to still be too high then I'd agree it wouldn't be worth it,but I don't think we have any estimates on that.
Barra333
Premium
- 6,521
- London, ON
- barra333
How is putting up fences between EU countries going to achieve anything? At least 7 of the Paris terrorists held French passports, so they were already inside these theoretical fences. Yes, some stuff was planned in Brussels, but if there was a fence between France and Belgium, the planning would have been done in a suburb of Paris instead. There are reasonably solid border controls on entering the EU at all the places I have seen, so unless a Schengen member turns rogue, closing internal borders helps no-one. The US has always had fairly solid border protection, but 9/11 happened.
Also, how are you going to put a fence on this section of the Dutch-Belgian border?
Also, how are you going to put a fence on this section of the Dutch-Belgian border?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Yes, with another 45,000 miles of coastline. Why "obvious" that there'd be no fence for the UK? What are you going to do about pleasure craft? What about private aircraft? If you're only going to fence inside the mainland then you'll have to fence the coasts too. That's what seems obvious.
Last edited:
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
@Spurgy 777 - Except it's not a one off cost. A chain link fence needs constant maintenance to prevent holes being opened up, general wear and tear and even weeds and animal damage.
I've very briefly worked on a border security project, though it was largely a vanity project. The physical barriers are cheap, 10ft concrete is relatively affordable, but want to observe your wall? That'll be optics. Then towers to place the optics. Then comms to communicate the information seen. Then people and vehicles to respond to any issues.
It adds up, quickly. Walls don't work, unless your Israel, and then they do but for all the wrong reasons...
I've very briefly worked on a border security project, though it was largely a vanity project. The physical barriers are cheap, 10ft concrete is relatively affordable, but want to observe your wall? That'll be optics. Then towers to place the optics. Then comms to communicate the information seen. Then people and vehicles to respond to any issues.
It adds up, quickly. Walls don't work, unless your Israel, and then they do but for all the wrong reasons...
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
[sarcasm]
Portugal has only two borders.
1) West and South with the Atlantic Ocean, that's a Schengen coastline, closed and surveilled. No ismlamic terrorists (or indeed refugees) are known to come from the Atlantic, all we shot so far in that border were drug dealers.
2) East and North with Spain. Since the Spaniards robbed us of our little North African possessions we don't have many muslims, but they do.
I say, let's build a fence and control anyone coming from Spain. You never know, but radical islamists sometimes have strange names like Sainz, Alonso, or even something unpronouncable but definitely suspect like ... Al-Guer-Suhari
[/sarcasm]
Europe's problem lies within Europe, setting up internal borders will prevent nothing, and saying the contrary is like saying that 9/11 could've been prevented if each State from the US had its borders closed to all others.
Portugal has only two borders.
1) West and South with the Atlantic Ocean, that's a Schengen coastline, closed and surveilled. No ismlamic terrorists (or indeed refugees) are known to come from the Atlantic, all we shot so far in that border were drug dealers.
2) East and North with Spain. Since the Spaniards robbed us of our little North African possessions we don't have many muslims, but they do.
I say, let's build a fence and control anyone coming from Spain. You never know, but radical islamists sometimes have strange names like Sainz, Alonso, or even something unpronouncable but definitely suspect like ... Al-Guer-Suhari
[/sarcasm]
Europe's problem lies within Europe, setting up internal borders will prevent nothing, and saying the contrary is like saying that 9/11 could've been prevented if each State from the US had its borders closed to all others.
Similar threads
