Just so I understand where you’re coming from, what specifically is your opposition to a complete physical fence?From my post #136: "I don’t think it is necessary or efficient to build a fence all the way from the Gulf to the Pacific. The manpower and surveillance technologies, such as aerial drones, are the most important pieces to get in place ASAP. Fences can be built where and when needed. And if it proves necessary to build it the whole length of the southern border, it can be done."
I don't oppose it per se. If it proves to be necessary it can be done. From my perspective it's about prioritizing resources. More fence means more cost and more manpower for maintenance (we know how proficient the government is at maintaining roads and bridges ... ). The only way to know how much fence is necessary is to build as needed.
I could split the difference if it came down to it and not be totally depressed ;)...Build about 100’ish miles on either side of every metro area, make them work for it and then patrol the hell out of the rest... but again, there’s that Dem problem with the patrol/enforcement.
But remember what the Democrat/Libs pulled when we brought the fence up for Cali years ago? “This will only lead to deaths as poor unfortunate children seeking a better life die in 140 deg heat in the most inhospitable desert in the western hemisphere...” And a billion articles showing or discussing dehydrated people/puppies/babies that were ‘our’ fault..
And their non stop ranting caused how many millions in delays etc?
Part of my ‘do it all’ position is that we would have to refight the thing from scratch every single time...and then deal with the issues I mentioned before on top of it.