Simplistically, here is a layman’s partial solution – a very rough and ‘non-expert’ draft which would, of course require significant ‘fine tuning’ …
Of course, all of the above are simply the estimates of a layperson, who has no expert knowledge in the costs of the physical items involved. But I believe those estimates to be not unrealistic. Neither do I suggest that I have covered all financial considerations that would be involved.
And you brought up the need for administrative expenses, etc. How big do you think those figures would be compared to the major ones she has covered (the wall, the stations, the guards, their training and equipment, etc.)?
You also say that she has only covered 2,000 miles of our borders "at great expense" and not the remaining 17,000. That was not her purpose (the remaining 17,000). First things first. And anyway she showed that her proposal was subject to tuning, but still only involved 15% of the annual cost of supporting the illegal immigrants here already. Don't you suppose the northern and sea borders could be taken care of with the remaining 85%?
Just a rhetorical question. I'm sure the answer would be just as critical as your first reply.
"And you brought up the need for administrative expenses, etc. How big do you think those figures would be compared to the major ones she has covered (the wall, the stations, the guards, their training and equipment, etc.)?"
Based on what I've seen in the federal government, a lot. She low-balled her manpower requirements by a very large margin, and then low-balled the cost per man by 50%. She also low-balled the construction costs (Israel did not have to pay Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" rates). The wall is likely to cost about 10 times the amount she estimated to build and maintain.
"You also say that she has only covered 2,000 miles of our borders "at great expense" and not the remaining 17,000."
Exactly.
"That was not her purpose (the remaining 17,000)."
Considering that, honestly, the illegal aliens and their smugglers are far more likely to be intelligent, creative, and clever than the people who low-ball construction and manpower costs to get their pet ideas to work, she'd BETTER get the other 17,000 miles under control.
"First things first."
Something half begun is not done.
"And anyway she showed that her proposal was subject to tuning, but still only involved 15% of the annual cost of supporting the illegal immigrants here already."
After low-balling her estimates by a generous margin. And when the illegals still get in rather easily by going around or under her undermanned wall, we'd still get stuck with the welfare costs as well.
"Don't you suppose the northern and sea borders could be taken care of with the remaining 85%?"
No. First, most Americans will not support building a wall all the way around this country. (People who live near the coast would LIKE to go to the beach every now and then.) Second, the cost for full coverage is likely to be astronomically high. Third, we'd have to restart the draft, and draft both sexes. (We'd have to draft the men to man the far-more-than-four-per-mile posts on 19,000 miles of wall; and then we'd have to draft the women to whelp the next generation of border guards. Unauthorized inferitility will become a court-martial offense.)