“are you counting both new and replaced or repaired “wall”/fence?”
Most places that need barrier, already have something, of some sort - even if it is just triple strand barbed wire for cattle. The new stuff is really no comparison to the old, So repair or replacement are not really significant considerations, to actually controlling traffic. They will put effective barrier where traffic is highest first, and those places will mostly be “replacement” (something that works, for something that doesn’t).
The big exception is about 150 miles in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, that does not have existing barrier. The hydrology of the shifting river, the hurricanes they get, and the water treaty with Mexico made engineering approval hard, and extensive private property claims also made it especially difficult - so it missed out on previous efforts.
I don’t really know how much will be double or single layer (double layer is mainly in the cities), but the barrier itself is a big upgrade, as is the dramatically improved surveillance built in with the new stuff.
You sound like you’re really living it, but what is there, something like 500 miles of, yes, often negligible fencing as it is?
Barrier and wall are both bad euphemisms in my mind: I haven’t seen anything along the border that is other than a fence.
I’m just not buying it that we don’t need the vast majority of the border seriously fenced—30-feet high and double is roughly the dimension I think we are looking at too. Otherwise, they will just alter their paths to a somewhat more arduous, but still far too rewarding route.
Last I knew Trump had got funding to increase the border patrol staffing, but again, Kelly and his successor appeared to be slow-walking that as well. Do you know if they have filled the additionally funded openings?
A significant portion of old fence has been replaced by the new good fence. One of the reasons Ann C. kept whining. But the old fence was in the most critical areas. Now we are building new miles of fence.