Robert Park wrote:
3. MEXICO: "SOMETHING THERE IS THAT DOESN'T LOVE A WALL." The bipartisan immigration reform bill failed in the Senate in the early morning hours today. Other "Great" walls have not worked well.
That is incorrect. Park probably made that up. Why does he comment on subjects he knows nothing about?
The Great Wall of China, the Roman Wall in England, and the modern Berlin and Israeli walls were remarkably effective, and cost-effective. They were the cheapest way to defend a long, hostile frontier. (The East German wall was a defense against its own citizens, but the principles are the same.)
The ancient walls were not intended to be "airtight." That is to say, they were never intended to stop everyone, or make it physically impossible to cross the frontier. That is readily apparent to anyone who visits the Chinese wall today. There are sections of it which even I could climb over from the frontier side. A body of armed men and horses could build a dirt ramp or destroy a section of the wall and cross in a few days. It clear from the construction that the wall is mainly meant as a highway, rather than an impediment. It allows rapid movement along the border, and surveillance from the watchtowers. Also, the weak points of the wall are obvious to both the attacker and the defender, so it will channel an attack into a known area, like a deep river which has only a few good fords. You can predict where the attack will come; you can keep an eye on that spot, and rush reinforcements to it. Hitler could have done the same thing with the Atlantic Wall, but he was outfoxed by Allied intelligence. If he had moved the Panzers in the first hours of D-Day, the attack would have probably failed.
A wall without a well-trained defensive army is useless, needless to say, but a good wall allows a small army to keep tabs on and defend against a much larger force. There have been badly designed and obsolete walls, such as the Maginot line. Modern walls work better against untrained civilians than against military forces.
Modern walls are remarkably "airtight," especially when combined with electronic surveillance and motion detectors. They reduce the number of incursions by orders of magnitude. I am sure the U.S. could build a wall along the Mexican border that would reduce the daily influx of people from thousands to a few dozen. It would be expensive, and I do not know whether it would be politically wise or humane, but the technology is readily available. One of my concerns would be the effect on migrating wildlife. Perhaps we have a right to exclude people, but we have no right to impede buffalo, mountain lions and other species.
- Jed
