Donald Trump wanted a 30 foot wall that could be seen from the moon. Even the enormously expensive wall he will settle for is not supported by his own party. The money would be better spent on infrastructure.
Any wall would give a false sense of security. Drug dealers in Tijuana prove that they can engineer and build sophisticated tunnels under the border.
There's a better, less expensive way, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
We'll need more border guards, concentrated in strike forces that are supported by high flying drones. Not the answer in all cases, but see-thru walls and surveillance cameras where required.
Not being expert in this field and only offering my opinion, I'm open to debate and education in this thread.
Not an expert either but just for the sake of discussion. Perhaps somebody has better information
I suspect the military can/could watch vast lengths of the border by drones or eyes in the sky, so to speak
I have no idea how much it would cost to monitor 2000 miles 24/7 by drone useage.. Not only do you need drones but people who will monitor the TV screens 24/7
Then the problem might be, say a group of 15 people are spotted. You have to get real people to the area and if they split up into small groups of 2 or 3 then how many border guards do you need to round up the people, plus the coyote, who may be an American national or citizen and thus can not be arrested just because he is in the area. Then once you have the border guards at spot X the coyotes in many other places will know by means of radio that vast stretches of the border are wide open due to a lack of people to respond to another group or groups of people making a run at the border. You may know where they are but you need people to make the arrest.
I suppose you can use ground sensors or such other equipment but what is that cost plus you still have to get border guards to the area in time for an old fashion round up of people [not cattle]
I don't know how sensitive ground sensors are but you would think a ground sensor would monitor some considerable distance for under ground tunnel activity during construction
I know a wall sounds good for the base of voters but if we can monitor voices from considerable distance through cement walls and glass and other material, surely we have the means to monitor the border
I suspect it all comes down to what works for the least cost
" ... the coyotes in many other places will know by means of radio that vast stretches of the border are wide open due to a lack of people to respond to another group or groups of people making a run at the border."
Thanks for your response, Wayne. What I had in mind would be roving groups of military personnel, who are already being paid. If that is not presently legal, it shouldn't need an executive order to secure our border from entry by terrorists.
I've never been a fan of the idea of a walled in border.
If you wall a section of the border, nothing will stop entry from another point. We have thousands of miles of borders. Much of it on the ocean. So, for a wall to work, we'd need it around the entire country, from sea to shining sea. With guard towers at strategic points. Not sure I want to live in that country.
Roving bands of military would help. Drone, and other forms of surveillance would help. But in the final analysis, if I am living in a country with rampant poverty next door to a country where the poor generally live better than the middle class in my country, I am going to find a way to get me and my family in.
As long as employers can hire without risk, as long as government benefits are available, and long as there are sanctuary cities, there will be illegal aliens.
As long as employers can hire without risk, as long as government benefits are available, and long as there are sanctuary cities, there will be illegal aliens.
Bingo!
On a market forum, shouldn't this be the first thought that comes to mind? Take away the incentive to enter the country illegally.
As for the drug problem, I don't really know. It is a demand problem. IMHO, the first priority of government should be to protect the citizens - from people needing money to buy drugs. Here, again, I wonder if what is needed is to somehow take away the incentive for drug suppliers. Make drugs cheap? - along with a concerted effort to make them as unglamorous as possible?
Most people don't agree with me, but I don't think the government has any business telling me what I can or can't drink, smoke or sniff while I'm sitting on my couch. It's a different matter when I get behind the wheel of my car.
Legalize everything, tax it and use the proceeds for rehab.
Solves a lot more problems than it causes.