A ranching economy based on, say, 10,000 A. ranches and river access as their only source of water wouldn't take kindly to being fenced off from the river. This describes a lot of Texas border counties.
Understand that ranchers don't like illegals traipsing across their property, trashing it out...and shooting at them...either.
Please understand that, in Texas, the situation is not the same as it is in California, Arizona and New Mexico -- simply because of geography.
In the cities, there is a fence along the river. Along with a battalion of Border Patrol vehicles and personnel. Illegals don't swim the river between El Paso and Juarez. Because they can walk thru a border crossing gate that allows maybe a million legal crossings a day.
Then, they can disappear into El Paso...and get transport to anywhere in the USA. Border control thru the cities is then exercised on the highways exiting El Paso -- perhaps 50 miles out. Most border cities are located in desolate territory and highway access is relatively limited and controllable. Far from perfect -- but the only practical solution when the two cities are wed together commercially. Cut off access between El Paso and Juarez...and both cities would die economically.
I'm taking the time to explain all this to you because you're obviously unaware of exactly what the border conditions are in Texas. And that, while most Texans want the border secured, like you, building a fence isn't necessarily the best way to achieve that security.
Instead, why don't we consider why people are coming across the border? e-verify and a more aggressive policing of employment practices would go a long way toward stemming the traffic. As would federal, state and local cooperation on enforcing immigration law (a la Arizona). Plus, a policy of denying welfare money and government services to illegal aliens.
In all cases, effective border security is dependent upon a federal government that has some interest in performing its duties under the Constitution. A simple 180 degree change in federal policy would have a far greater impact than 2000 miles of fencing.
I've seen interviews with border ranchers who want a fence built because illegals constantly cross their property and cause damage and commit theft as they cross. And I expect there are solutions to the water problems some ranchers might have.
Unless there are significant natural, physical barriers in a section of the border, then double fencing and personnel are the only way to control that border short of stationing BP or a military guards several per mile. And that won't happen for many reasons.
But it's the US/Mexico border and not the Texas/Mexico. If some local priorities must be trumped by national priorities, that's precisely what should happen.
And as I've said several time already, letting border state politicians determine what is or isn't done has been and would continue to be a huge mistake, assuming there is ever a real intent to control the border.
Don’t waste your time explaining the border to me. I’ve been to El Pas and Juarez and know the situation along the border is vastly different in different locations. Mainly what you’re doing is giving the local border residents’ point-of-view and that has been too dominant for too long.
Border control is one part of the problem and internal enforcement of immigration laws (including visa overstays) is another part. But problems of internal enforcement are no reason to leave large sections of the border wide open.
If anyone can just come across a legal border crossing, why are there huge numbers of illegal crossing led by coyotes, and tunnels dug under the border and some who try to come by the ocean? Well, the drug smugglers as well as people smugglers, which make it all the more important to control ALL the border where anyone might conceivably cross illegally for any reason.
And there are many people who can’t just enter through a legal border crossing: such as illegals from nations other than Mexico and would be terrorists from other nations.
It’s ridiculous to try and make a case for not controlling the border.