The fences at the U.S. Mexico border.
Posted on 06/21/2005 12:41:10 PM PDT by robowombat
The fences at the U.S. Mexico border.
Operation Gate Keeper, designed by the military, was launched on October 1,1994. It was our test to see just how effective we could be at stopping illegal immigration.A three tier line of defense including double fences (some concrete and steel), guard towers, flood lights infrared cameras, under ground sensors, patrol roads, night scopes, horse patrols, ATV patrols, 16 helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, trucks, and a ratio of 32 guards per mile were incorporated.
It was successful in reducing the number of immigrants crossing at that sector. Most just went further East to cross, but still about two hundred thousand are caught each year trying to cross, and another estimated 30 to 40 thousand make it across undetected. They dig under, climb over and break through the fences. That’s an average of 454 to 606 per mile per year.
Extrapolating the cost/benefit results of Operation Gatekeeper to the entire 105,000 mile coastline and land borders of the United States, at 32 guards per mile at $175,000 per guard, it would cost $588 Billion Dollars per year and still 47 to 63 Million people could cross undetected into the U.S. each year.
The Inspector General's Report On Operation Gatekeeper found in part:"For the first six months of 1996, the average daily low estimate of effectiveness was 17 percent and the average daily high estimate was 27 percent. The lowest estimate was 10 percent, the highest, 41 percent."
How confident was the government that Operation Gate Keeper would seal the border? Here's what our friend from the Terrorism Commission said at the time:
There are no legitimate studies showing that it is possible to seal the border. The problems of illegal immigration are going to have to be addressed at the destination of the border jumpers.
What percentage of our 2000 mile land border with Mexico looks like your picture? Exactly where is it?
What is the logic of putting a bank vault door on one window of a house with 30 windows and five outside doors, if the rest of them are wide open?
"What is the logic of putting a bank vault door on one window of a house with 30 windows and five outside doors, if the rest of them are wide open? "
To see if the vault door works. If people keep breaking in through the bank vault door you know that it would be a waste of time to put vault doors on the other 30 windows.
That's what happened with Operation Gatekeeper. The original plan was to have those double and triple fences stretch all the way from San Diego to ElPaso, but the plan was abandoned when the test showed that the fences didn't work.
They kept vehicles from going through and marked the borderline but they didn't even slow down border jumpers. Don't you think you could get past those fences?.
Check it out yourself. Once you see what the actual facts are you will no longer have any respect for people who think that we can seal the borders with fences.
I agree with you about people intoxicated at work and elsewhere.
That's why that also is against the law. Yep~
Stalking would be mild compared to business relations between a drug supplier and a drug dealer.
They are starting to use the racketeering laws against them. :-)
"So who are all the violent people carrying all the illegal drugs across from Mexico to the United States?"
And again you miss the point. Who is the identifiable victim in a drug transaction? And would you use a smiley if they were using anti-terrorism laws? That's not what they were for, and it isn't what RICO was for, either. Well, the ends justify the means, right?
But intoxication in one's own home is legal (so long as no minors are in one's care), as is the making, selling, and possession of alcohol ... so there's no reason for more stringent rules to apply to other drugs.
That might make sense, if the intoxication were identical of all drugs.
Otherwise you're comparing a butter knife to a nuclear weapon.. Which you always do with drugs.
Why does this sound like we're at war right here?!!!!
That's another of your silly statements; the more one takes of any drug, including alcohol, the more intoxicated one gets.
Gee, I wonder why their not crossing our borders, setting up trafficking routes, and committing hundreds of murders for tequila? Hmmm...
This article's not about alcohol. Can you ever talk about drugs without mentioning it? I know you can't, but seriously.
Intoxication is not the same between all drugs. If they were, nobody would use different ones. Comparing them like you do is so damn stupid.
No, it makes perfect sense in the context of A CA Guy's pro-WOD argument, "drugged people violate the rights of employers and employees regarding their personal safety and liability risks to all around them", since the same statement is true for the drug alcohol.
Again, it might make sense to someone with an altered mind..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.