Yup. 90% effective isn't good enough for RINO Rick so his faithful followers blindly agree. They then suggest other strategies they know will never be employed...like landmines. They seek to keep the borders open. Heck, even RINO Rick is on record as saying he "embraces" Vicente Fox's vision of an open border. So we know where his/their allegiance lies.
In this thread we have heard excuses for opposition to fencing like "tunnels" and "differing terrain". We know fences work as the fence in SD has proven it. As for the terrain...
90% effective? Um, no.
“In fact, the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that the border walls have not brought about a decrease in illegal entries. The border patrol uses the number of border crossers apprehended in a given sector to gauge the overall number of attempted crossings. Apprehensions dropped dramatically between 2005, the year before the Secure Fence Act was passed, and 2007, the year after.
But the decrease did not occur in areas where border walls had been built. On the contrary, the greatest reductions in apprehensions, which according to the Border Patrol would indicate a successful strategy for stopping undocumented immigration, were seen in sectors that did not have walls.
Texas’ Rio Grande Valley sector saw a 45.3% decrease in apprehensions, bringing them to a 15 year low. The Del Rio, Texas, sector saw a 66.5% decrease. Neither sector had an inch of border wall before 2008. In sectors such as Tucson, which saw walls built shortly after passage of the Secure Fence Act, the reduction in apprehensions began before any wall posts were erected.
The areas that saw an increase in crossings were California’s San Diego and El Centro sectors, both of which have had border walls for over a decade. At the same time that the unwalled border witnessed dramatic decreases in crossings, heavily fortified San Diego saw a 20.1% increase.”
That 90% nonsense appears to be, well, nonsense.