The California, Arizona and New Mexico borders are easy enough to fence. With few exceptions (Tijuana, Mexicali, Nogales) the border is simply a line in the Sonora Desert. There's literally nothing but cactus on either side of the border. A fence doesn't block access to anything of value -- for either people or animals.
The Texas-Mexico border, however, is different. It's defined not by a desert -- it's defined by a river. And, as any geographer can tell you, rivers make bad borders -- they're subject to heavy access and use on both sides.
Commercial traffic across the river in Texas is immense. El Paso counts on Juarez. Laredo counts on Nuevo Laredo. Del Rio counts on Ciudad Acuna, Brownsville counts on Matamoros, etc. There is no way to effectively stem the traffic between the city pairs.
But the river represents a bigger problem outside the cities. For 1248 miles, the river wanders through the desert -- and usually represents the only water source within 50 miles. Much of the borderland is rugged and uninhabited. But much of it is ranch land, as well, or heavily cultivated farm land in the valley.
How do you fence off a water resource under these circumstances? On both sides of the border, ranchers (and their livestock) and farmers (and their crops) depend on access to the river.
I'm all in favor of "securing the border". But, in Texas, a fence isn't necessarily the way to do it.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
Bump!
There is a big part of the problem right there, with you and all the apologists for Perry's de facto open borders policies. It is not the Texas-Mexico border, but the US-Mexico border. But that Texas-Mexico border state-of-mind is the reason GHWB and GWB and Juan McCain and many other border state politicians are such a liability, even a danger to the rest of the USA.
Border state politicians can't get beyond their narrow, pandering Tex-Mex view of the problem and they end up inflicting their narrow view and all the problems that accompany it on all the non-border states in the US.
And now you even advocate putting the priority of some rach above the prioty of the rest of the fifty states.
Can folks see why it is such a danger to the rest of the US to allow border state politicians and residents to determine immigration and border enforcement policies???
snip...
To some Texas folks, a border fence seemed like a good idea before it was built. As a solution toward preventing millions of illegal immigrants, Mexican and otherwise, from entering the United States, it appeared a simple answer, relieving pressure on overburdened American hospitals, prisons, and schools. It promised the added bonus of stopping the unstaunchable flow of illegal drugs and corresponding crime and violence from Mexico. The reality fell far from the speculation.
Most folks, quite reasonably, assume the fence is actually on the border. In some parts of Arizona, California, or New Mexico, where the border is “dirt to dirt,” that is true, but not in Texas. The fence does not follow the border, but was placed largely on a levee built to prevent flooding from the Rio Grande. The meandering river, area topography, the levee system, and political considerations combined to result in fence placement that is, in some places, as much as two miles from the border. As a national security tool it’s a bad joke — full of gaps and in some places non-existent. But it’s no joke to the Texans affected by it — namely those whose homes and businesses are trapped in a no-man’s land between the fence and the river/border. The people could leave, but their homes and businesses can’t. Where would they go?
snip...