When is it ok to wall in your citizens?

[Dill]

(06-04-2019, 07:48 AM)xxlt Wrote: You can't endorse a policy that stops people leaving Mexico if you opposed a policy that stopped people leaving East Germany because people are either free to be self determining or not. In the Germany case, it really didn't matter which side built the wall, what mattered was it oppressed East Germans. Same with US Mexico wall or other policy restrictions on Central Americans. You either support oppression and suffering and denying freedom or you don't. 

Of course, in a perfect world every policy that suppresses freedom and encourages war would enrich an American corporation. And I get it. After being greeted as liberators in Iraq and building freedom there, the Haliburtons of the world need fresh contracts. So let's build a Mexican wall, a Canadian wall, and a Pacific Ocean wall just the other side of Hawaii, and an East Coast wall as well. And let's conveniently forget that Reagan said, "tear down that wall" and pretend that when WWII ended the Marshall Plan was to build world wide walls. Of course that liberal clap trap failed but now America is finally put first. Wall us in! Wall us in!

I think you have a couple of good points in here, if they are that

1) it's inconsistent to laud East Germans fleeing their homes to find security and freedom, but not see the similar motivation in Guatemalans fleeing violence in  that country.

2) the wall advanced as a policy may indeed be closely connected to corporations who would profit from government contractors, though the average MAGA voter has no interest in the profiteering angle .

But when you equate the totalitarian commie wall with the partly built corporate American one, you create an uncontrollable analogy. You'll spend the rest of the thread explaining what you didn't mean.

I think a Marshall plan for Central America would be well worth the money. Much more effective than a wall.

And decent.