Since the enforcement rests with the BP or other law enforcers (not with the fence), wouldn’t any enforcement activity be subject to lawsuits regardless of who’s plan it is?
Also, do we control the airspace over Indian reservations? If so, then the real-time aerial surveillance technologies should help stop drug trafficking.
“Since the enforcement rests with the BP or other law enforcers (not with the fence), wouldn’t any enforcement activity be subject to lawsuits regardless of who’s plan it is?”
Numbers game. A fence stops thousand of potential lawsuits coming across the border by its nature, minimizing said enforcement suits...thus saves the American taxpayer Billions.
“Also, do we control the airspace over Indian reservations? If so, then the real-time aerial surveillance technologies should help stop drug trafficking.”
See above.
Real time surveillance yes...then what? Lawsuits and media hype. Now you have the added screaming of Tribes claiming they are being threatened and Democrats screaming more abuse/lawsuits.
Or we just prevent them from getting in with a fence to begin with without all the media and lawyers, saving a fortune in wasted tax dollars on frivolous suits that help elect MORE Democrats.
Just so I understand where you’re coming from, what specifically is your opposition to a complete physical fence?
Sorry, I missed your reason at 136.
In response, I just refer to the Dems obstruction and the social/political/financial costs incurred once again.