What incredible brain-dead arguments from the no-fence crowd.
As if building these difficult and complicated and tiny tunnels is no harder than strolling across an open border of hundreds of miles and results in the same amount of illegals and drugs and terrorists coming over.
For some reason we are supposed to believe that the same boots on the ground would find it no more difficult to defend a completely open border than they would a properly fenced border with a patrol road aided by other technology.
A fence is a barrier to entry. We already have a barrier, called the Rio Grande. Yes, it has some shallow places, but most of the length, it is pretty effective as a barrier. That is one reason you do not hear much about illegals wandering through Big Bend park, as you do about that park in Arizona. The shallow places on the Rio Grande are well known.
So why not add a fence?
The notable fences along international borders, the Maginot Line, the Wall of China, the Israeli fence around the west bank, all have been less than effective when considered over a long period of history. The time periods when they were effective were the time periods when there were lots of boots enforcing the effectiveness of these barriers.
So, since we already have a barrier in the form of the Rio Grande, and we will need “boots on the ground” anyway, no matter what additional barrier we might add, why not just go for more “boots on the ground” right now?
Just take advantage of the barrier we already have.
Dredge the shallow places in the Rio Grande, put up numerous observation towers (like we have for forest rangers in east Texas), use electronic surveillance and drones, add fences in areas where they are appropriate, but most importantly, have lots of forces strategically placed along the border to respond to and apprehend anyone crossing the Rio Grande.
We could do all of that fairly quickly, and it would have a very big impact. We do not need to wait on a fence along the entire length of the Rio Grande.
The following analysis of Texas Border Security was written by two military experts, who each have extensive experience. They essentially recommend the same sort of thing. The report seems long, but one can get the meat of it by reading pages 8-15.
Why do I think this approach would work?
We have had illegals cross some land we own which is 70 miles from the border. They have made a mess and obviously are a security concern. Certainly we want that to stop. However, the incidence of illegals crossing our land has decreased significantly in the past several years, including before the current economic downturn. The reduction in illegals on our land directly correlates with the increase in patrol activities by authorities at Laguna, Bracketville, and Barksdale, all towns between our property and the border.
It seems to me that increasing in boots on the ground has had an impact, at least in the area that I know something about.
If the above suggestions do not work, then spend the time and money to build another barrier. I just respectfully suggest we try something that seems to work first, because it is faster and probably cheaper.