[[So in other words, you said what literally everybody in the country already knows, for reasons known only to yourself. Since you're not denying that illegal immigration would go down drastically as a result of building a barrier along the border like the one that already exists in the San Diego sector, and since doing so would involve a rather small cost, that part of problem isn't quite so "complicated" after all.]]
Your first sentence is a non sequitur and adds nothing to your point. At least, now you have gotten down to presenting an idea, but your idea is still based on assumptions, comparing a small segment of wall in a heavily populated and patrolled area to the many miles of sparsely populated and not as heavily patrolled areas is a making a great leap of faith. You assume the cost is minimal, what is minimal (small cost) ? What are the geopolitical ramifications ? Certainly Mexico and other Latin American countries would oppose it and Mexico sells us a lot of oil. What are the economic ramifications ? How much more will things cost due to higher labor costs ? That is provided this wall would make a severe inroad into illegal immigration. Do we then build a wall along the northern border, too ?
You open a whole new industry, shipping illegals to Canada so they can enter from the north. Where there is a will, there is a way, where there is a demand, there is a market. Rope ladders to get over the wall in the dead of night in sparsely populated areas. Tunnels under the wall with a fee for access. More boats seeking to bypass the border for illegals. What percentage that walk across the border do so only to work and return to their families versus those that come in smuggled in semis, boats or get through border crossings ? The wall would also certainly provide an impediment to return to Mexico once across. Sounds like a Berlin Wall isolationist concept, minus the guns to prevent people from escaping out of the country.
Don't get me wrong, it is a start for dealing with the issue, but I don't think it is the end all and be all that you seem to think it is. The only real solution, barring a cooperative agreement with Mexico, has to include significantly more border patrols, but that is not cheap.
The only "comparison" that needs to be made for the purposes of this idea is how much illegal border crossing there would be with a barrier, versus without. Whatever the number would ultimately end up being, it's pretty tough to make the case that it's as easy to cross a properly fenced border than an unfenced one. Without doubt, it would be considerably more difficult.
You assume the cost is minimal, what is minimal (small cost) ?
Less than one half of one percent of one year's federal budget, if you extrapolate the cost of the fence in the San Diego sector to the rest of the border.
What are the geopolitical ramifications ? Certainly Mexico and other Latin American countries would oppose it and Mexico sells us a lot of oil.
Mexico and other Latin American countries would have a lot more to lose than we would by a cutoff of trade with us.
What are the economic ramifications ? How much more will things cost due to higher labor costs ?
The fence would do nothing to inhibit legal immigration. If current quotas are insufficient to keep the economy humming along right, then I have confidence enough that the American people can be persuaded to agree to set them at whatever level is necessary to keep the economy from tanking. But none of this is any excuse for circumventing the law. It needs to be enforced.
Do we then build a wall along the northern border, too ?
That option would at least be on the table, as far as I'm concerned. That still wouldn't break the budget.
You open a whole new industry, shipping illegals to Canada so they can enter from the north. Where there is a will, there is a way, where there is a demand, there is a market. Rope ladders to get over the wall in the dead of night in sparsely populated areas. Tunnels under the wall with a fee for access. More boats seeking to bypass the border for illegals.
Tell me something I don't know. All these things would make getting into the country more difficult, and hence reduce quite noticeably the number of people getting in.
The wall would also certainly provide an impediment to return to Mexico once across.
There are legal points of entry and exit, and I don't think our authorities are going to stop anyone from going out. But if they do find they can't go back very easily, that will be another deterrent from coming here in the first place.
Sounds like a Berlin Wall isolationist concept, minus the guns to prevent people from escaping out of the country.
Pure hyperbole. Every rational person knows the difference between a barrier designed to keep people out and one designed to keep people in. And having a barrier to illegal entry in no way isolates us from the fully legal trade and travel that goes on all the time between us and the rest of the world.
The only real solution, barring a cooperative agreement with Mexico, has to include significantly more border patrols, but that is not cheap.
Those aren't that expensive either, compared to the overall cost of the federal budget. We currently have about 11,000 BP agents on the border. Considering the millions of federal employees, that really isn't all that much. We could go to three times that number without any real strain on the budget.