Report National Borders in Domestic United States Politics Posted February 16, 2019 Trying to find an “Objectivist” position in public policy debates is usually frustrating. I find it useful to fall back on Ayn Rands admonition, ”Check your premise.” Given borders are an attempt to separate something from something else I assume the 1st poster was stating premises in his threats list. So, let’s look at the other "threats"... Cartel violence -- Key word here is cartel, not violence. The issue then is the organized resistance to law enforcement. Organization is about the flow of information not product. (The crime may be about product or violence, the organization and its reach is not.) Arbitrary lines drawn on a map have next to NO impact on information in a world with a global information network with largely sub-second latency. This threat is pertinent only to other topics about limiting unethical people from bad behavior, not walls. Human trafficking ("Coyotes")-- The key question here should be efficacy. The initiating question is pro<>con a border wall, so the issue boils down to, “CAN a wall impact the currently successful methods of these ‘Coyotes’?”. Currently -well over- 92.5% (three full standard deviations) of the successful border crossings of smuggled humans is by, a) legal port of entry, b) at a coastal port, c) flying, or d) tunneling. Quantities, I am given to believe, are in that order but that’s from memory so look it up. ROI on a wall near zero. Sex Trafficking-- Here again, a complex criminal behavior. For the “trafficking” part see above, for the “organization-cartel” part see above, and for the rest, violence, sex, and coercion, I see little that a wall even could impact. ROI on a wall near zero. Foreign Terrorists-- The key point of premise three seems to be a juxtaposition of “old” invading armies Vs terrorists toting “suitcase nuclear devices”. Please, I wish we could put this myth to rest. Allow me to explain. Yes, fusion based nuclear devices have been shrunk to remarkably small dimensions. But using only well known high-school level physics, it is easy to estimate real physical limits on that device. Without boring you with gory detail, suffice it to say the lightest functional fusion device will be very close to one hundred pounds. Portable, but requiring planning. It can be revealed without triggering a visit from MIB that there have existed so-called “back-pack” devices but they were packed in a minimum of three packages and they have never been actually used because the deployment was difficult enough that the primary risk was providing an enemy with fissile material. In order to smuggle one across a border, you are dealing with a cylindrical device of approximately 100 lbs plus a half ton (non-negotiable, laws of physics again) of shielding or your presence can be detected with a $25 Geiger-counter. Our government does not buy consumer grade Geiger-counters. Basically, nucs still face “invading armies” style obstacles. Walls are ineffective at keeping out chemical bombs as well. “Suitcase nuclear devices” do not and can not exist. Anyone well informed, using them as a premise, is fear mongering. Ill-informed? Well, that is its own problem.