Your words indicate that you've given up on trying to bring our border under control.
I think that a wall would do well in showing Mexico that we care about our sovereignty.
The cartels will very likely find another way to bring drugs and illegals into the U.S.
But all the other ways are going to be more labor-intensive and cost more money. This will drive up the price, which will in turn drop the demand. They will also be more difficult, which will raise the failure rate.
That question was anticipated and answered in #4: a fence doesn't solve "the tunnel problem"; but you haven't defined exactly what "the tunnel problem" is. Tunnels are extremely expensive to dig, and new ones must be dug as old ones are detected. Where today people hop over the fence and order a cold one in the first American bar, after a proper fence is built entry must occur through expensive tunnels.
Criminals, being as capitalistic as the rest of us, only dig tunnels when it's profitable to do so. That means illegals will need to pay $5,000 each instead of the $50 they pay today for a guide to hoist them over the fence. Raise the price, lower the demand; illegal traffic must at least decrease, even if it doesn't stop entirely.
... and to look at the bigger picture, just how would the billion-dollar boondoggle solve the overall problem of drug smuggling ?
The fence is intended to prevent illegal immigration, not drug smuggling. It will increase the cost of drug smuggling, which is a side benefit, but as was pointed out expensive tunnels will be used for cocaine, not for illegals.
By your logic, banks might as well remove their vault doors and unlock the front doors, fire the guards, and dismantle the cameras and alarms, "since commandos could just tunnel in anyway."
For that matter, commandos could tunnel into your house. Does that mean you are going to take off your doors and windows? Of course not. You still want to stop the casual thief from an easy entry, correct?
If a fence stops 99% of the casual "just walk on in" illegal immigration, it will pay for itself in one year.
The fact that drug cartels will still spend millions to move billions in dope under it is not a deal-breaking factor. Tunnels leave a "footprint" on both sides and are found all the time, and shut down, which really smacks the cartels hard, when they lose their entire "investment." Compare that to the current casual ease of moving dope across the unprotected 95% of the border by just driving or walking in. Stop a load, who cares? Another load will walk in tomorrow.
Which is better for us, from all points of view? To allow unbridled foot traffic of illegal immigrants and easy surface dope smuggling (with no fence), or to shut down the illegal immigration with a fence, and force the cartels to spend millions to tunnel under to move dope?
You argument is a classic rhetorical ploy. It usually, not always, comes from folks who would like to retain the status quo but don't want to make that argument directly. That argument holds perfection up as the standard and then argues that, because we cannot be perfect, we should do nothing at all.
In reality, nothing is perfect and, if we followed this approach, we would throw up our hands and never do anything. The leftist approach to Reagan's Star Wars and to the ongoing missle defense program is a great example of this. In short, that argument was: "It won't knock down every missle every time. Therefore, we should not defend ourselves against missles."
That said, an argument about the realitive effectiveness and the cost of the fence is appropriate. But the argument from non-perfection is usually an attempt to avoid engaging directly in this argument because the proponent thinks he will lose it.
I think the other poster who responded to you had it pretty locked: (1) The fence stops almost all illegal aliens; and (2) It greatly increases the cost of and chance of capture for druggies. I would add to that, it greatly increases the cost of and chance of capture of terrorists trying to come across.
" Just how would the billion dollar version of the same thing solve the tunnel problem ?
"
Tunneling is a different issue that can easily be solved. In fact, as part of the barrier idea tunnel sensors can easily be installed,so, in effect, the barrier idea can have built into it an anti-tunnel capability.
Besides, do you not lock your doors and windows at night just because there might be other ways to get in? Why can't we lock our border?
I wonder how much money from the Chinese, Arab oil shieks, and Mexican drug smugglers goes to our politicians.