Turn on thread page Beta

Is trump wanting to build a wall racist/completely wrong? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lots of countries have walls, it's called a border.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    The difference between the Berlin Wall (and the whole fortified border between West Germany and the DDR) and Trump's putative barrier, is that one wall was built to prevent people leaving the country.

    And the other is planned to prevent foreign nationals entering.
    So what? From the perspective of the person trying to cross the wall, they seem the same.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    So what? From the perspective of the person trying to cross the wall, they seem the same.
    You think there is no moral difference between a regime that builds a wall then shoots its own citizens who try and escape over it, and another which builds a wall to attempt to prevent the citizens of another country from entering illegally? And if they succeed in crossing it, merely deports them?

    Seriously?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    You think there is no moral difference between a regime that builds a wall then shoots its own citizens who try and escape over it, and another which builds a wall to attempt to prevent the citizens of another country from entering illegally? And if they succeed in crossing it, merely deports them?

    Seriously?
    Are you really in favour of spending massive amounts of taxpayers money on what in all likeliness will be an ineffective measure?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    You think there is no moral difference between a regime that builds a wall then shoots its own citizens who try and escape over it, and another which builds a wall to attempt to prevent the citizens of another country from entering illegally? And if they succeed in crossing it, merely deports them?

    Seriously?
    I'm going to separate this into two sections. Firstly, the brutality of the methods used. True, I would regard a regime that didn't shoot people trying to cross a border wall to be more moral than one which did. But the implication that the US is an example of the former simply isn't true - US border guards do indeed shoot and sometimes kill border crossers - 33 were killed from 2010 to 2015.

    Secondly, the question of which state is doing it. Do I think there's a moral difference between State A forcibly preventing people from moving from A to B, and State B doing the same thing? No, I see none at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes there should be no borders whatsoever

    everyone should go where they please

    in reality...

    All other people will have borders, but only White majority nations will not as its "racist"

    Look at Japan as an example. They're not even tolerant of other Asian like Korean. They wish Japan to stay Japanese. You go to Tokyo, the only non-Japanese you'll see are largely tourists.

    You go to many parts of London and you'll see few White faces.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)

    If you percevie there to be a problem with illegal immigrants and drugs coming over the border then it is natural that you want to stop this from happening. How can you stop it from happening? physcially stop things coming over the border.
    This is what happens
    1. You sum up the ills of society like unemployment, poverty, crime and violence
    2. You find a group of easily identifiable people who have little or no standing in society or a collective voice. Immigrants or religeous or racial groups are perfect.
    3. You blaim the ills societyon them.
    4. Finally you propose concrete and simple solutions like locking them up or building a wall to keep them out.

    The problem is that the ills of society are generally caused by policy of unintended consequences over many years and the solution is definitely not simple. But a narrative of simple solutions to complex issues naturally plays very well amongst voters and that is what it ultimately boils down to. Disappointment at the cost and lack of success with the wall will not take long to grow.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm going to separate this into two sections. Firstly, the brutality of the methods used. True, I would regard a regime that didn't shoot people trying to cross a border wall to be more moral than one which did. But the implication that the US is an example of the former simply isn't true - US border guards do indeed shoot and sometimes kill border crossers - 33 were killed from 2010 to 2015.

    Secondly, the question of which state is doing it. Do I think there's a moral difference between State A forcibly preventing people from moving from A to B, and State B doing the same thing? No, I see none at all.
    On your first point 33 shootings (assuming your data is correct, I note you didn't provide numbers of deaths) is a tiny percentage of the illegal border crossings during the period. We can't know how many that was, obviously, but the Department of Homeland Security estimates that there were 6,650, 000 illegal Mexican immigrants living in the US during that period. All of them crossed the border, none of them was shot.

    By contrast very few East Germans "escaped" to the west. If you have data of how many did emigrate please provide it, but I refuse to accept the scale is at all comparable. The population of East German was only 16 million at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    Why? There was an official shoot to kill policy, everybody knew that, it was publicly stated, so few dared to try. I repeat, the situations are not morally comparable.

    As for your second point we will have to agree to disagree.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Are you really in favour of spending massive amounts of taxpayers money on what in all likeliness will be an ineffective measure?
    As it happens I am not, but that is not relevant to whether the putative US border wall is racist and wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    As it happens I am not, but that is not relevant to whether the putative US border wall is racist and wrong.
    So you can criticise Trump!

    It's not racist, though it is wrong due to the pure stupidity of the idea as well as wasting huge amounts of taxpayers money.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you can criticise Trump!

    It's not racist, though it is wrong due to the pure stupidity of the idea as well as wasting huge amounts of taxpayers money.
    Well it is not our call, it is the American people's decision to make. We don't get to vote in American elections and it isn't really any of our business.

    I don't think it is feasible, but that isn't because a wall in itself wouldn't be an essential first step to stop illegal immigration. The issue is that the measures necessary in addition
    are too immoral and inhumane. No-one (serious) says the border walls built by North Korea and in the past, the DDR don't, didn't work. They are, were, ruthlessly effective. But obviously, no civilised democracy can just shoot from watchtowers like that. If anyone from the US asked me (no-one will) I would say, you don't go to the expense of building a wall over thousands of miles that the "wetbacks" will simply climb over or tunnel through. And the worst that can happen is that they get sent back over the border to try again the next night.

    That qualitative difference between how a totalitarian state operates border security and how the US ever would is why the comparison made by my other interlocutor on this thread between this and the Berlin Wall was so absurd.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Well it is not our call, it is the American people's decision to make. We don't get to vote in American elections and it isn't really any of our business.

    I don't think it is feasible, but that isn't because a wall in itself wouldn't be an essential first step to stop illegal immigration. The issue is that the measures necessary in addition
    are too immoral and inhumane. No-one (serious) says the border walls built by North Korea and in the past, the DDR don't, didn't work. They are, were, ruthlessly effective. But obviously, no civilised democracy can just shoot from watchtowers like that. If anyone from the US asked me (no-one will) I would say, you don't go to the expense of building a wall over thousands of miles that the "wetbacks" will simply climb over or tunnel through. And the worst that can happen is that they get sent back over the border to try again the next night.

    That qualitative difference between how a totalitarian state operates border security and how the US ever would is why the comparison made by my other interlocutor on this thread between this and the Berlin Wall was so absurd.
    I agree. Won't stop him wanting me though and throwing his toys out the pram when Congress won't fund it.

    It's already been pulled from the budget and will likely just be shelved.

    Doesn't really enhance Trump's image of being this tough guy negotiator who gets what he wants, especially after his incompetency on helathcare.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Not inherently, a border between the US and Mexico exists, there is a substantial amount of illegal immigration coming from Mexico and illegal immigration is by definition illegal. The wall (it's actual effectiveness aside) serves to further enforce a law that already exists and that is not itself based upon race.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 4, 2017
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.