[Poohbah]

I totally disagree with your analysis of the wall. A 30-foot wall could be built and maintained with fewer personnel than a "wall of guards."

Most of the border region is unsuitable terrain for building a 30-foot high concrete wall on.

You say the people will destroy the wall if not guarded.

He's quite correct.

It WILL be watched with cameras.

Care to guess what the first pieces of the wall to be destroyed will be?

What are the people going to bring with them out into the desert to use to break down this steel-reinforced concrete wall?

They don't need to attack the wall itself--they merely need to (a) disable a lot of cameras and (b) dig out enough soil from UNDER the wall to make a section collapse under its own weight. Those in the coastal regions of Mexico can merely go AROUND the wall on a boat or ship and swim ashore.

A section of border wall is already in use in California. It has forced border-jumpers to go elsewhere.

Only because it is easier to do so. The wall of guards had exactly the same effect.

The 30-foot concrete wall makes a great

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The coastal area can be more heavily guarded. You reply as if no humans would be monitoring any of the wall. If cameras are destroyed, would you not expect a patrol to be dispatched to investigate before the tunneling collapse of the wall is accomplished? We do have helicopters. Terrain too tough to accommodate a wall could have aerial surveillance.

I don't understand why the oldest form of perimeter control - fences and walls - are rejected by people out-of-hand when they have been effective throughout history. We are not looking for perfect security. A wall would give vastly IMPROVED security.