Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Price for border fence up to $49 billion
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 8, 2007 | Tyche Hendricks

Posted on 01/08/2007 4:27:22 PM PST by Dane

The cost of building and maintaining a double set of steel fences along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border could be five to 25 times greater than congressional leaders forecast last year, or as much as $49 billion over the expected 25-year life span of the fence, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

A little-noticed study the research service released in December notes that even the $49 billion does not include the expense of acquiring private land along hundreds of miles of border or the cost of labor if the job is done by private contractors -- both of which could drive the price billions of dollars higher.

The Congressional Research Service also questioned the effectiveness of a fence in preventing people from crossing the border illegally, especially if it does not span the entire 1,952-mile border. Secure fencing of some kind already exists along 106 miles of border, mostly in short stretches around cities.

The findings did not deter Congressional backers of the border fence, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, the fence's principal proponent.

"Mr. Hunter firmly supports expanding the San Diego border fence across the U.S.-Mexico border," said spokesman Joe Kasper. "This doesn't have to be and should not be as costly an endeavor as some are suggesting."

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: aliens; borderfence; bordersecurity; duncanhunter; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: Antoninus

"The findings did not deter Congressional backers of the border fence, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, the fence's principal proponent.

"Mr. Hunter firmly supports expanding the San Diego border fence across the U.S.-Mexico border," said spokesman Joe Kasper. "This doesn't have to be and should not be as costly an endeavor as some are suggesting."

PING!


21 posted on 01/08/2007 4:59:32 PM PST by WatchingInAmazement (President DUNCAN HUNTER 2008! http://www.house.gov/hunter/border1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
Much more like the Great Wall of China than the Brandenburg Gate.

Not the best analogy - the Great Wall didn't stop the invaders.

22 posted on 01/08/2007 5:01:27 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dane
$49 billion for 25 years or $2 billion a year. How much do the 500,000 to 1 million illegals cost us a year? What are the cost savings in border personnel for 25 years since fences or physical barriers are nothing more than force multipliers in terms of personnel requirements? We have a $2.6 trillion dollar annual budget. $2 billion a year is almost a rounding error, especially as it compares to the budget 25 years from now.

The true measure of the physical barrier is not costs, but effectiveness. If we can reduce the number of invaders, the costs are well worth it. What are illegals costing us in terms of our social welfare, educational, penal, and medical systems or the additional infrastructure to support them?

23 posted on 01/08/2007 5:01:38 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

There's a difference between "wanting in and wanting out," as Pres. Reagan said, and he did bring down the iron curtain. And shooting those trying to cross that wall was more or less emblematic of what the tryants are all about. We haven't found the solution to the problem of our borders yet. We might not even find it after our second Pearl Harbor.


24 posted on 01/08/2007 5:05:27 PM PST by Ilky Hucktar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Yep. All the time.


25 posted on 01/08/2007 5:08:25 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VastRWCon
A must view
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&hl=en

26 posted on 01/08/2007 5:13:51 PM PST by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Gee, this is turning into a bargain!! Last week, it was $60 billion!!!






(What a buncha maroons!!)


27 posted on 01/08/2007 5:14:35 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Observation towers and bullets would be much cheaper.

ML/NJ

28 posted on 01/08/2007 5:20:45 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

"How much do the 500,000 to 1 million illegals cost us a year?"

Center for imigration studies:
>http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html<

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.


29 posted on 01/08/2007 5:24:18 PM PST by STE=Q ("Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." (Will Rogers))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster

$49 billion presumes we have absolutely no costs currently borne to patrol or enforce the border.

The "estimate" is grossly inflated to alarm the unwitted. $49 billion would work out to $1.96 billion annually to patrol the border. That's $2,685 per mile per day. Which BP agents get that kind of monitary support?

We consistantly construct major four-laned highways for $13-15 million/mile, inclusive of land aquisition. There is no reason maintenance and patrol costs should be anywhere near price-per-mile invested.


30 posted on 01/08/2007 5:25:19 PM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine
 
A must view
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&hl=en

31 posted on 01/08/2007 5:26:05 PM PST by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Notice how the price went up as soon as the Dems won the erection? Yada yada yada. They should capture 10,000 of the 20 million illegals and out them to work building it. That would cut the costs down, way down.

Nothing like free labor!

32 posted on 01/08/2007 5:36:13 PM PST by Candor7 (The hope of the West disappears into liberal flatulance, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Good on your history; now study logic.


33 posted on 01/08/2007 5:37:27 PM PST by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

You linked to this FR page. Why?


34 posted on 01/08/2007 5:40:42 PM PST by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

Never mind. Thanks.


35 posted on 01/08/2007 5:42:19 PM PST by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: patton

So we should do nothing? I think sponsorship would be more effective and cheaper than a border fence, although the fence is still required.


36 posted on 01/08/2007 5:50:34 PM PST by Fierce Allegiance (SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: highball

The border fence probably won't either, but it will slow them down.


37 posted on 01/08/2007 5:52:30 PM PST by Fierce Allegiance (SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
I don't know what we should do. But a fence is a lost cause.

Well, unless one also controls demand, along with supply.

Never has been a case of a fence stopping smuggling, that I know of.

38 posted on 01/08/2007 5:57:05 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Why don't we just let the illegals build the fence - hard labor for breaking our laws. When they are done, we can ship them home.


39 posted on 01/08/2007 5:57:32 PM PST by GunNut1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patton

There meeds to be a multi-prong attack. Jail time and MASSIVE fines for employers of illegals, a 2 zone fence with a land mined defensive zone between (It's a DEFENSIVE measure!), and sponsoring for any new immigrants, with the sponsor fully responsible for any crimes committed by the sponsoree.


40 posted on 01/08/2007 5:59:55 PM PST by Fierce Allegiance (SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson