Only supposed to cover parts of the border. Will just change the traffic flow to different spots. Means nothing.
well.. it means when they build the rest of it, they'll already have part of it done :)
They already tunnel under the Rio Grand to smuggle drugs, so why not to smuggle people?
""Only supposed to cover parts of the border. Will just change the traffic flow to different spots. Means nothing.""
with respect i totally disagree, if I may. This again is the point of view, that it is better to do nothing than to start doing some things, even though 'some things' may not be the complete solution. A physical barrier means no go through that sector, so deterrent resources will be able to be focused and applied elsewhere. So smugglers now have to use the sea more than before to get here, perhaps. Well, we have the coastguard. Can they then become part of the solution. We don't become defeatist, we start step by step to increase deterrents and make it harder and costlier for the illegal activities.
There is no magic bullet. The problem must be addressed from all angles at once. When the other required steps are put into place and succeed, (internal controls) maybe the discussion will become how to remove the walls.....
"Only supposed to cover parts of the border. Will just change the traffic flow to different spots. Means nothing."
Sure, it needs to run the entire length of the border. But as Tancredo stated, this is an incremental first step. Just to get this commitment on paper from the House (we'll see if we can get enough heat on the Senate to have it passed there) is a major step forward. It means a great deal.
Precisely. The first reason given was to stop immigrant deaths. So, they'll put up a fence on the areas with the least amount of water, forcing the illegals to cross in an area where they have a better chance of surviving. It wont stop anything.