A wall is a wall. What you have described is only the difference in which way the guns are pointed.

Yes, and it is a very big difference.

Building a wall on the Mexican border is a fool's errand. It is a huge Crony project that can never accomplish the advertised and ballyhooed intent.

To think that our government has the operational expertise to build and efficiently manage (without massive waste, corruption, cost overruns, and destruction of property rights) is, at best, irrational. One might as well agree with the insanity that the fedgov has a successful track record on other major projects it has undertaken.

'Wall believers' are being played in the name of protection. They should remember how these ideas historically manifest themselves in reality.

And you would not feel like a prisoner? Maybe not until the guns turn.

The Berlin Wall was not built to keep East Germans in. It was built to keep the "western fascists" out. Perhaps a bit of history is in order here because there us a fundamental misunderstanding of the Berlin Wall pervading this page.

The Berlin wall surrounded West Berlin. It did not surround East Germany or East Berlin. It surrounded West Berlin because Berlin was inside East Germany. It was built on the (false) assertion that the western governments were fascists and thus the wall was needed to protect the East Berlinians from the fascist governments which administered West Berlin. Specifically these were the U.S., England, and France. It should also be noted that the position of the western countries was that East Berlin was also under their control per the accord. Indeed, western soldiers patrolled in East Berlin as well as Eastern soldiers patrolling in West Berlin's three sectors as Berlin was still legally considered occupied territory.

The guns were always pointed out from the perspective of East Germany because West Berlin was not sovereign soil for East Germany. Nor was there a time when they were "turned in" toward East Berlin or East Germany. Indeed for years after the wall and checkpoints were built East Berlin citizens had free travel to West - it was West Berlinians who were limited.

I'm not saying the East Germans under Soviet rule were correct in their assertion of the governance of West Berlin being fascists, but that was their belief at the time and they faithfully acted on it. In that one regard the two walls share a common purpose: keeping outsiders out. Thus the comparison to a prison is not exactly apt. I know we in the west like to think the Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans in, and our political leadership certainly perpetuated that myth, but it is factually incorrect. Indeed, as many note it was not particularly effective in keeping East Germans in the country.

As to keeping emigration down, all the wall really did later was serve as a filter to East Germans getting into West Berlin where they could freely travel to the West w/o further

That isn't to say that those who fear the "conversion" of a Southern Wall to be one of keeping Americans in have any rational and objective basis, they frankly do not. For such a purpose the proposed Southern Wall is wholly ineffective and incomplete for it. The U.S. is geographically divided into three sections separated by rather vast distances. The southern border is one of the smallest ones we have - the only smaller one being Alaska <-> Canada.

As noted in another comment all that "converting" a southern wall to "point" the other way would accomplish is making undocumented/illegal U.S. -> Mexico crossings more difficult - which it will do anyway. Raising the bar for crossing an area is, after all, what a wall does. Would it be any different than Mexico building a wall to keep Americans out? Nope.

In my opinion, if you want to make a comparison the more appropriate German border would be the Inner German Border (IGB). It was essentially what is being proposed for the southern U.S. Border: a series of fences and/or walls to stop the unchecked flow of border crossings between two countries. In it's entire existence the Berlin Wall had barely five thousand crossing attempts. In less than one year early on the IGB had over a million crossings from East to West, and nearly a million more over the rest of it's official lifetime. Any of these make the crossing attempts of the Berlin wall pale in comparison.

The similarities between the IGB and the US/Mexico border - ranging from the various proposals to "secure" it to the economic drivers and direction of migration are quite eerie, IMO. If you want to get a good idea of what the southern wall would be like if it were actually implemented, dig up the history of the IGB.

It is a question to hear people's thoughts and to hold a discussion. Someone may learn something. :)

Mexico/US border and territory History is more like:
Native American nations -> all Spanish -> Mexican independence battles and some US territory claims and grabs during Mexico/Spanish fighting.

The US ended up with large Spanish claims that look very similar to the East/West Germany split - but about a 100 years earlier.

I didn't lock them but I do now. But if those doors were too costly I would need to find another way of keeping people out. Would a wall be effective and also cost effective is a question to be answered prior to building. And what about the other borders? Not looking to argue. Looking for answers.

I kind of agree with you. And just think of the cost savings to the taxpayers. Save on the construction and entitlement spending.

Do you mean ALL social benefits like work, school, medical care (other than emergency), etc., not just entitlements?

absolutely, no muslims allowed!

It's already happening. And 20 million of them are already here legally, so it's a little late to try to lock the barn door even if it were moral.

All our immigration laws accomplish is to ensure that any bad guys (criminals, terrorists) who want to get in will have an easy time of it, because the border patrol isn't looking for them in particular but for everybody who wants to enter. The real crooks get lost in the noise.

That is only the difference in which way the guns are facing. When the guns turn, it's too late to be concerned.

I thought of that but it likely did both. I still wonder if there is really that much different. Simply trying to open a discussion. :)

Apparently, you haven't heard of FATCA.

We do not have a government that I would really want to trust with a wall.

I'm simply not sure. I've spent much time thinking about a wall and I wonder how good it would be even if it was erected. Would it stop people from getting in? Would we be able to pay for the cost by keeping people out? Or would it be just like throwing money at (non-existing) global warming. A complete and total waste. Seems to me it may be another crony capitalist scheme to construct a wall that likely would have no affect. I'm interested to hear people thoughts.

But those communists didn't want to keep anyone out.

Not arguing but we have a border patrol now that I understand has not been allowed to do their job. Would we need a wall if they could do their job??

I find little reason for you to be so rude. This was a simple question to open a discussion and nothing more. If you can't be a productive member of a discussion please don't comment at all.