I'm not trying to make this political, but I've always found it ironic that people in Southwest cities who talk big about border walls not keeping people out very often live in communities or cities where every house being surrounded by a wall is the norm. And the richer they are, the taller and more elaborate the walls get.
Again, this isn't about politics. It's about irony and how rich people in California often seem to say one thing and do another.
There's a huge difference between having a wall around your home so your neighbors/peeping toms can't look at you and having a wall on the border to keep immigrants out.
These things aren't even comparable, I have no idea where you think the irony lies.
These things are very similar. In one case, your defend your personal property (a house), in another, you defend your collective property (a country). In both cases, you rightly feel that you have the privilege of using that property that you want to be in control of, personally or collectively.
I think you completely misunderstand why people build fences or walls around their homes.
House wall:
- keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass
- keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool
Border wall:
- attempt to keep Mexicans from immigrating into the country illegally
I fail to see how these use cases are at all similar. Please, if I missed a use case for a house or if your home is constantly being attacked by barbarians let me know, but I don't think anybody in California builds a wall to "defend" themselves.
>House wall: - keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass - keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool
Not according to what I read on Nextdoor. The people talking about making their walls taller, better, covered in more cameras don't care about the neighbors. It's about keeping strangers out.
As someone who grew up in a very much not-rich neighborhood, in a very much not-rich household that still got broken into, I'll have to disagree haha.
The only thing similar about these two contexts is the word "wall".
I don't think a border wall is a good idea because it will cost a lot, not solve the immigration problem, it symbolically means a lot in terms of diplomacy and there's better solutions. Also, a lot of these people just want to escape from local conflicts, poverty, etc.
My parents bought window railings because although they hated how they looked, they were cheap, solved the problem and, I mean, these people just wanted our TV and my mom's jewelry.
In my case it was railings cause we didn't live in a house with the square footage for a garden lol. But I guess for all the well-off folk with gardens and steal-able stuff in their gardens, fences ("walls") serve a similar purpose?
You think it's ironic that people with fences around their houses think a 1,954 mile wall 30 feet high is impractical? What makes that ironic?
Are you suggesting that in these heavily walled Southwestern cities, people are using fences primarily as a form of defense against immigrants, and it's therefore ironic that they think their home walls will successfully protect them from large scale immigration, but not a wall along the border of two countries?
Without wading into the politics of the gesture, I'd point out that in the Southwestern US there's a strong influence of Spanish Colonial architecture, which is based on a central courtyard with high walls (in turn influenced by Arabic architecture in Andalusia). Which doesn't mean that what those high walls mean now is necessarily the same, but there is a general pattern[1]
Also consider that these people are much more likely to own their houses and would more stand to benefit from the rising housing costs that come from immigration.
Any influx of residents puts pressure on local and regional housing markets. Extra pressure on even low income rentals has an appreciating effect on the rest of the housing chain, because on the short term housing supply is inelastic, and space in desirable areas is relatively finite.
There is of course, some effect but it's relatively minor for the middle class. Someone who's making a good income is not going to settle for the same conditions an illegal immigrant does, they're not competing in the same market. Your analysis leaves out a bunch of realities, for example: Most illegal immigrants share housing, reducing pressure compared to the normal. They also tend to stick to immigrant neighborhoods due to language barrier and need for cash transactions, this reduces their impact outside these areas. There is such a thing as homelessness more population on the lower income scale doesn't always mean that property values go up due to resources being taken since some will end up homeless. People tend to get the best they can afford, if illegal immigrants are taking the lower end of the market the legal people aren't just going to start buying "better" places.
Illegal immigrants have a negligible effect on the property values of the type of property people putting up walls and fences around their homes own. And lastly I highly doubt anyone who's against the border wall is realistically thinking "this will keep my property values up!"
>There is of course, some effect but it's relatively minor for the middle class
This was my only point, because low and middle class markets and income are continuous spectra, and displacement at the base puts pressure on the rest of the continuum. People don't typically end up homeless because of a couple percent increase in rent, they find a way to pay it. Now, the exact quantitative effect on pricing throughout the market is something that neither of us can likely provide.
>Your analysis leaves out a bunch of realities...outside these areas.
And what happens when these areas fill up and start to influence surrounding neighborhoods? What about the increased strain on infrastructure, including roads, schools, police, fire, etc, especially by those who do not pay taxes?
What about the effect on markets cause by middle income flight post spillover, when these growing low income neighborhoods bring with them crime and other undesirable activity?
No amount of arguing over left out "realities" changes the simple fact that more people create increased local demand in housing starved locales, which puts upward pressure on all markets, although of course the derivative of income pressure vs population decreases with increasing housing prices.
>People tend to get the best they can afford
"Best" is highly subjective and dependent entirely on market rates. People will pay more for less if the whole market is inflated by pressure from below.
To be clear, I am not interested in blaming immigrants, legal or otherwise, for any of societies problems. I am simply arguing that more people>increased demand>higher price.
Again, this isn't about politics. It's about irony and how rich people in California often seem to say one thing and do another.