[derenrich]

I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things.

Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends.

Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that.

Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none.

Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not.

Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.

[legostormtroopr]

My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).

[derenrich]

Gated communities mean they are unimpacted? What is it you think the impact of the wall is? Most of it the justification for the wall I'm hearing is based on economic ("they're taking our jobs") or fairness ("they are stressing our social safety net") arguments. Gated communities don't shield you from those things.

Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.