Replies

Pooh, you yourself made very broad statements in your last that themselves can give you a credabilty problem. Saying that cutting off illegal immigration from Mexico will not stop one single terrorist from entering this country, is just such a statement.

Such a statement must logically presume that not one single terorist infiltrate from Mexico...which is not a credable statment.

As to it giving you the highest chance of getting caught...I can't say statistically, but I do not believe that such a statement is supported by the stats. Even if it were...the statistical chance is what is important given the numbers coming across.

I grant that coming ashore and coming through Canada are vulberabilities as well. We need to do the best we can do on all fronts and we can do more in each area. That's all. We are all on the same side here.

Pooh, you yourself made very broad statements in your last that themselves can give you a credabilty problem. Saying that cutting off illegal immigration from Mexico will not stop one single terrorist from entering this country, is just such a statement.

Such a statement must logically presume that not one single terorist infiltrate from Mexico...which is not a credable statment.

No, Jeff. It means that not one single terrorist needs to use Mexico as an infiltration path, and that closing that path will not actually stop a terrorist from using other infiltration paths, which they will undoubtedly do, especially if you actually do manage to secure the US-Mexican border.

As to it giving you the highest chance of getting caught...I can't say statistically, but I do not believe that such a statement is supported by the stats. Even if it were...the statistical chance is what is important given the numbers coming across.

The number of Border Patrol officers is much higher per mile of US-Mexican border than anywhere else. Number of officers per mile is a sound metric for determining probability of capture. Thank you for your input.