Posted on 12/03/2007 5:50:33 AM PST by bigjoesaddle
A "virtual fence" to defend our border with Mexico? You know, detectors and sensors and cameras and the like, but not a physical barrier?
That's the considered policy position of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, which he shares with such homeland security experts as Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security. All of them support a virtual fence -- because any fool can see that walls don't work.
Bricks, concrete, barbed wire, all that: overrated! We don't need physical boundaries between us, only virtual boundaries. That's why we'd never put up a real fence, for instance, if we wanted to keep our children or pets from wandering away.
So why should our government do any differently? Why clutter up the border vista -- it's a great view, from Laredo to Nuevo Laredo, and vice versa -- with some big ugly wall?
Maybe you think I'm kidding. But don't take my word for it: Here's Giuliani, quoted in an Associated Press story from last week, headlined, "Giuliani promotes virtual fence." Explains the former mayor, "Frankly, the virtual fence is more valuable, because it alerts you to people approaching the border, it alerts you to people coming over the border."
That sounds like a good plan, doesn't it? After all, you use a virtual lock on your front door, right? That way, when intruders approach your house, you can spot them. And when they walk in, well, a police SWAT team is on the way. The key to this enforcement strategy, to be sure, is to respond after the crime has occurred. So it's strange, therefore, that Giuliani insists that he wants to build at least some physical wall.
Because virtuality works better, Giuliani assures us. After all, that's why we have virtual prison walls and jail cells, right? You see, when the bad guys escape, an alarm goes off, satellites up in space look down, and helicopters fly over and scoop them up. And if the inmates try it again, well, we just repeat the apprehending process till they cry uncle.
So that's the plan for fending off terrorists from around the world -- not to mention any of the 500 million South and Central Americans who might wish to come to this country illegally. We'll spot 'em and nab 'em before they get to Des Moines.
Some see weaknesses in this virtual approach. A headline in The Washington Post from Sept. 21, 2006, declared: "Plenty of Holes Seen in a 'Virtual Fence'/Border Sensors Not Enough, Experts Say." And this headline from the AP on Sept. 20 of this year: "Glitch renders 'virtual fence' unworkable." But President Giuliani can fix any technical challenge. After all, as mayor, he solved the problem of radio interoperability between the police and fire departments long before disaster struck on Sept. 11, 2001.
I like this idea of "virtuality," as opposed to "reality." So here's another modest proposal: Let's have a virtual border patrol. I mean, sending out actual law enforcers to interdict unknown persons coming across the border -- that's a formula for trouble.
But with the virtual border patrol, we won't have any repeats of the violence that occurred Feb. 17, 2005, when two all-too-real border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, shot and wounded a suspected drug smuggler as he was fleeing from them.
Ramos and Compean were convicted of unjustly shooting Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. So the two border patrolmen received long prison sentences, which they are now serving, while Aldrete-Davila went free.
So you see where I'm headed: If Ramos and Compean had been virtualized, then poor Osvaldo would never have been shot. Guns? We don't need no stinkin' guns -- or walls.
Instead, let's have all-virtual law enforcement, all the time. Too bad Giuliani didn't think of this idea when he was mayor. If he had, he could really have cut crime in New York City.
James Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday. You can reach him at jim@jamesppinkerton.com.
I don’t know about that...those collars seem to work well on pets when they stray close to the edge of the property.
;-)
There are construction issues with building a fence or wall. I am in the construction industry, and I have been involved with fence projects, and it’s not as easy as people say it is, especially Jim Pinkerton.
The cost is also staggering.
The cost is also staggering.
Aren't the funds already approved?
The cost of being overrun with illegals and terroprists is also staggering.
Let's rid our government payroll of all of the security officers, etc. at each office and building.
Just think, get some wiring around each, complete with scanners, alarms, whistles, etc. and have some people sitting in front of computers watching screens.
When or if anyone is "caught" entering prohibited "space," well just phone for a couple of patrol cars to head in that direction, nab those nasty "invaders" and put them in time out, or some other "nasty" detentions, nothing of course like Gitmo, lest we get labeled torturers by John McCain or the U.N.
There are issues with every construction project. Those associated with building a physical barrier on our Southern border are not insuperable. A physical barrier is just a force multiplier. You need less people to secure the border and you slow down the numbers coming in. We have the engineering skills to meet the challenge. It is not exactly rocket science.
The cost is also staggering.
Do you know how much it will cost? What are those costs compared to the costs of the 12 to 20 million illegals already in this country? Or the amount of drugs coming in? Or the national security risk posed by terrorists entering this country? The BP apprehended and sent back over a million people last year trying to enter our country on the southern border. Another 500,000 to 1 million got thru.
The costs of the fence pale in comparison to all these other costs.
It really would not be that hard to get past a physical barrier, especially once the word gets out about how to do so. To me, it makes more sense to have the whole virtual fence, since that tells where people are crossing and enables you to capture them before they get here.
They’re gonna get past the fence either way, so it’s better to know where they are so we can pick them up.
This requires you to trust the government to have the manpower (or the will) to go get the illegals once they are seen.
Walls are an all-or-nothing deal. They can remain intact, in which case, they keep everybody out, or they can be breached, in which case they will keep nobody out. That is why people who say there is "too much" illegal immigration do not like them. They can not be used to reduce the flow. They can only be used to stop it. And stopping the flow of illegal immigrants is not what they want to do.
A Virtual Fence, on the other hand, can be used to meter the flow of illegal immigrants and set the level of illegal border crossings at whatever level is desired. When the quota of illegal immigrants is exceeded, the Border Control can simply round up the excess and send them back to Mexico. If the quota of illegal immigrants is not being met, the Border Patrol can stay back in the barracks and play Eucre until enough have passed unimpeded.
So, it really is a matter of picking the right tool for the job. If you want to reduce illegal immigration to zero and funnel all immigration through legal channels, you would choose a wall. If you want to limit the flow of illegal immigration but permit it at a lower, controlled level, then you would choose a Virtual Fence.
I choose a Wall. Rudy, President Bush, Chertoff, et al, choose a Virtual Fence. The way people answer the Wall/Virtual Fence question will reveal whether they think illegal immigration should be eliminated or merely reduced and controlled.
We have spent Billions of Dollars and built thousands of miles of useless sound barriers along Interstate Highways in this country, and they serve no purpose whatsoever. Surely we can scrape together a few bucks to fence the border.
A virtual fence WILL stop 100% of virtual illegal border crossers.
Now if you want to stop a physical, flesh and blood, illegal border crosser than any 3rd grader will tell you that you need a REAL fence.
By Mike Janes
A joint effort involving a group of Sandians to test and evaluate various types of fencing along the US border with Mexico is helping decision makers determine appropriate fencing solutions.
The effort got under way in April with a series of crash tests to evaluate how the fences will look and perform. The tests stem from the government’s commitment to deploy hundreds of miles of fencing along high-traffic, high-risk stretches of the border.
Sandia was tapped by the Fence Lab, an initiative within SBInet, to help develop and execute its fence evaluation program. A part of the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) directorate, SBInet is the technology network component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and is responsible for integrating personnel, infrastructure, technologies, and a rapid response capability into a comprehensive border protection system.
As successful as the fence tests were, Sandia has the capability to include other aspects of intrusion delay and detection and other advanced security technologies, says Brian Damkroger (8130). Brian leads Sandia’s Borders and Maritime Security program, an element of its Homeland Security & Defense Strategic Management Unit, which functions as a virtual organization spanning — and drawing upon — both sites and several centers. Sandia’s border security efforts range from systems analysis and R&D on new detection technologies to field testing of deployed systems.
Brian was originally contacted by Fence Lab project managers in late 2006 to explore potential collaborations. Though CBP program managers were aware of Sandia, notes Brian, they hadn’t yet visited the lab and wanted to learn more about its capabilities. A December meeting convinced CBP that Sandia could clearly provide the technical depth needed for the project.
For the recent Fence Lab activities, the team assembled personnel from 6400, 6700, and 8100, with Mark McAllaster (6422), a member of Sandia’s Active Response and Denial Department, serving as principal investigator. Following the crash tests and initial evaluations, the Sandia team and its collaborators provided their assessments and recommendations on May 11.
“CBP was delighted with our work,” says Mark. He says CBP was particularly impressed with the team’s ability to pull together all the project elements — materials procurement, fence installations, vehicle purchases, and the crash tests themselves — in the required eight-week time frame. “It required an extraordinary effort by a lot of people,” says Mark.
In addition to the tight deadline, weather emerged as a factor in the test and evaluation activities. An unusually wet April and May led to several close calls, Mark says, and a staff member at the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) is routinely assigned to observe weather radar information to keep test and evaluation staff up to date on changing conditions. Still, tests were occasionally in jeopardy of being postponed, and a severe downpour occurred only 10 minutes after the conclusion of testing on one particular day. “When you have to pull off nine tests in eight weeks, every day on the schedule counts,” Mark says.
Sandia has more than 50 years of experience developing and testing physical security systems for the nation’s nuclear stockpile and facilities, including the execution and documentation of many tests of both commercial and custom vehicle barrier designs. Its researchers conduct physical security activities for DOE facilities as well as special DoD sites.
Mark and other Sandia team members, applied that expertise to the testing of candidate fence technologies at TTI. The tests involved nine separate fences being developed and constructed under the direction of CBP.
The fences, six of which were designed by commercial companies around the country and constructed onsite in Texas (the other three were designed and recommended by CBP), were selected from a much larger group of proposals submitted in response to a solicitation from CBP and Boeing. Last year, Boeing was awarded a contract to perform as the lead system integrator for the overall SBInet effort.
The vehicle barrier component of the fences evaluated by Sandia at TTI came in three varieties: cable-style, surface-mounted, and bollard-style. Though the evaluators aren’t at liberty to reveal how each of the tested fences performed, border locales such as those in El Paso or San Diego have different terrains, population densities, or other environmental factors that necessitate pedestrian fences and vehicle barriers with different characteristics than a barrier that would be deployed in the wide open, rural areas of southern New Mexico.
“The border agents we interacted with were extremely helpful to us,” Mark says. “They gave us some really useful insight into how current barriers are being defeated by the adversaries, intelligence that we can then use when recommending future barrier designs.”
Now that the eight-week first phase of the fence test effort has been completed, Brian and Mark anticipate that the next phase of the Fence Lab project will begin quickly.
“Discussions have already begun around next steps,” Brian says. “A lot of things are happening at once, but we’ll probably be looking at some mix of design, deployment, and additional testing. Right now, we’re waiting for the green light from SBInet management.”
Brian and Mark emphasize that physical fences are only one component of a comprehensive border security system, and only one of several areas where Sandia is involved in border security work.
“Sandia doesn’t merely analyze fence barriers,” Mark says. “Our capabilities are truly state of the art and encompass the full spectrum of physical security, including intrusion detection alarm assessment technologies, performance testing, technology evaluation, vulnerability assessment, design, development, installation, and training.”
“The work along the nation’s borders is just beginning,” Brian adds, “and this Fence Lab testing work is only one component of an integrated technology solution for the problem at hand. We think Sandia can continue to play a valuable role.” -- Mike Janes
'Staggering'?
No offense, but, about five years ago the cost of building one mile of a 6 Lane Expressway in my good ole IL was approx $1,000,000.00. That's $189.94 per linear foot. If we can't build a 20ft high wall for that something is drastically wrong.
BTW, I'm in construction too, have been since 1970. Mechanical Engineering of Commercial buildings mostly now. Have also been a Project Manager and Chief Estimator - from 57 Floor Hi-Rises to schools. And IMO the structural aspects of building a wall are not all that daunting, especially with Pre-Cast Planks (not poured Concrete).
The lives and safety of Americans are worth it.
The cost of not building is more staggering - 20 million more illegals flooding across the border and sucking at the government socialism teat.
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.
