A fence need not be 100% perfect to be good. It is a specious argument that says because a solution is not the perfect solution it should not be employed even though it is a good solution.
A fence is to be regarded as a force multiplier, that is fewer people are required to defend a border, whether in war or border security, because the fence is there. The author implies that the fence will require more personnel when the opposite is the case.
If the terrain is too rough to build a wall, build a fence if the terrain is to rugged to build a fence, it is undoubtedly to rugged for the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants pass through. Those rugged areas can be surveilled by drones which are efficient and cheap because they not require extensive manpower.
If a fence intrudes on private property, the federal government always has the power of eminent domain and federal government does not require a rancher to agree to give up his land, the federal government need only fairly compensate the owner for the very little that would be lost to the rancher of very sandy, very dry, very unproductive landscape.
The contention that, "a wall would stave the flow of undocumented (does the author mean illegal?) Immigrants is preposterous." Did the Berlin wall stop the flow?
The contention:
Hurts whom? Does it hurt workers who have been displaced by jobs that have been shipped to Mexico? What is the balance of hurt and who should bear the pain?
The author insists that a wall is not feasible and the proof of that is that one has not yet been built. The fact that one has not yet been built is rather proof of a lack of will on the part of the Washington establishment and their fat cat Benefactors.
No one suggests that a wall along the Mexican border will stop "undocumented immigrants" from flying into American airports and jumping ship. Will the author tell us that not all remedies for this are perfect and therefore we should attempt none?
