311 wk3 rly2

Please respond to a least 2 other students. Response should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. When addressing the topic questions, you are to state the question followed by your response. Do this for each question posed.Responses Due Sunday, by 11:55 pm ET

Define pay riding. What is free riding? Over time, can the unilateral solution likely turn into a multilateral one? This will require outside research.

Pay riding is when people or nations offer assistance and support to another for a common goal.  Free riding is when a person or nation directly benefits from another without offering any assistance or support.  “Free riding and pay riding have similar outcomes in that they generate equilibrium solutions that deviate from the optimal cooperative solution” (Fratianni & Kang, 2004).  As long as all parties involved share a common goal or interest, then a unilateral solution can be turned into a multilateral solution.  In many instances, it is better to free ride because the free riders are better off because they benefit more from the work and contributions of others (Lee, 1998).  Whether by choice or by force, the United States is in a position to place economic or other international sanctions and countries that continually look for a free ride.

What is the "Hardened Border Paradox? What is the "Open Border Paradox? How can both be overcome?  This is a COMPARE AND CONTRAST requirement.

The Hardened Border Paradox and Open Border Paradox both speak to supply and demand.  For the Hardened Border Paradox, the more rules, regulations, and enforcement that is put in place, the higher the demand for an individual to need to cross the border, thus creating the proverbial double-edged sword.  In the 1990’s the United States started to drastically fortify the border which in turned raised the cost of goods that were smuggled into the country, ultimately creating new business opportunities for those in the business of illegal crossings (Bean, 2012).   With the increased security on the border, there will likely be an increase in the number of “coyotes” or other professional smugglers to get people and illicit goods into the country.  “Hardened borders also transform the cost-reward structure so amateur crooks are replaced by sophisticated criminal enterprises and corruption issues become more pronounced” (Flynn, 2004).  The Open Border Paradox refers to very lax or even no existent border security.  Having a border without any security can pose a direct threat to national security.  If terrorist, other unsavory individuals or illegal contraband can enter the nation without any impediment, then it is only a matter of time before another major terrorist attack or large-scale drug epidemics plague our nation.  The answer as to what type of border control is necessary lies somewhere in the middle.  There must be sufficient border controls in place as well as willingness and a desire from nations on both sides of the border to want to control what enters and leaves each country; whether it is people, drugs, or other contraband the control of movement is necessary.  Over the last 100 years, history has shown us that having strictly one extreme type of border control or the other – hardened paradox or open paradox – will lead to various national threats to each country sharing the border.

References

Bean, A. (2012, June 30). Ten Years of Waste, Immigrant Crackdowns and New Drug Wars”. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from Friends of Justice: https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/tom-berry-ten-years-of-waste-immigrant-crackdowns-and-new-drug-wars/

Flynn, S. (2004, March 23). Rethinking the Role of the U.S. Mexican Border in the Post-9/11 World. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/report/rethinking-role-us-mexican-border-post-911-world

Fratianni, M., & Kang, H. (2004). Borders and International Terrorism. Bloomington, IN: Kelley School Of Bussines, Indiana University.

Lee, D. (1998). Free Riding and Paid Riding in the Fight Against Terrorism. The American Economic Review, 22-26.