Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.
Please explain how ending subsidies for illegal immigrants will prevent terrorists from sneaking across an open border.
Directly, it won't.
But it will reduce the numbers of foreign nationals entering U.S. territory illegally and make it significantly more difficult for actual foreign terrorists to blend in among the millions of illegal aliens present within U.S. borders.
There is no way, outside of going completely isolationist, to "prevent" *foreign* terrorists from crossing into U.S. territory, or in other words, guarantee with exactly 100 percent certainty that no *foreign* terrorists can cross U.S. borders. And speaking of domestic terrorists, would you prefer that the U.S. become a police state in order to "prevent" *domestic* terrorists from committing crimes within U.S. borders?
The best that can be done to reasonably ensure the security of U.S. territory and lawfully-present persons within said territory, while simultaneously preserving their individual freedom and liberty, is three-fold: one, enforce valid immigration law; two, remove the incentives for foreign nationals to enter and reside in the United States illegally, or, i.e., no more public benefits, no more anchor baby citizenship, no more free education, etc; and three, abide by the Second Amendment, which defines the unconditional right of the individual to bear arms, whether in defense of self, household, and property or in defense of community (via a militia).
I don’t know if a wall is feasible or not.
If not then the army/national guard should patrol the entire length of the border.