Border Patrol Controls Just 44 Percent of South

[CARLHAYDEN]

Border Patrol Controls Just 44 Percent of South

A new report says only 15 percent of the southern border is air tight

By Paul Bedard

Posted: February 16, 2011

While they've made strides in arresting illegals and building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico line, the Border Patrol only has "operational control" of 44 percent of the southern border, and of that only 15 percent is air tight, according to new General Accountability Office report.

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/02/16/border-patrol-controls-just-44-percent-of-south

[Iosif]

That's disgraceful. There should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border occupied by marksmen armed with high calibre sniper rifles taking pot shot at any and every Mexican crossing the border. They're all drug dealers, murderers and rapists anyway. America is not a country of immigrants who left poverty in search of a better life. That ship sailed from Europe a century ago. America is now closed for business.

[CARLHAYDEN]

That's disgraceful. There should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border occupied by marksmen armed with high calibre sniper rifles taking pot shot at any and every Mexican crossing the border. They're all drug dealers, murderers and rapists anyway. America is not a country of immigrants who left poverty in search of a better life. That ship sailed from Europe a century ago. America is now closed for business.

Hmm.

"America is now closed for business."

According to the federal government (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/immigration.shtm) in 2009, the size of the legal permanent resident population was 12,450,000.  Are you suggesting they have all disappeared?

Oh, and how many legal aliens reside in the United Kingdom?  Please provide url.

As to your statement that "That ship sailed from Europe a century ago."

Not too many legal residents (proportionately) from Europe, and doubt many of them "sailed."  Of the ten nations with the largest proportion of the Legal Permanent Resident Population (2008) only one, (the tenth) was European (see table 4, previous cited url)

As to your assertion that "They're all drug dealers, murderers and rapists anyway" I must inquire if you are asserting that comprises the totality of illegal entrants?  Do you really mean to say their are NO child molesters, thieves, rapists?

Turning next to you statement that "There should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border occupied by marksmen armed with high calibre sniper rifles taking pot shot at any and every Mexican crossing the border," I have several questions.

First, are "pot shot(s)" to be taken only at "any and every Mexican crossing the border."   Are you advocating discriminating against other nationalities?

Second, you suggestion that "(t)here should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border" is a new one to me.  Would you please cite your technical qualifications for this assertion?  Oh, and once you have done that, would you be so kind as to provide hard cost estimates for construction of those watchtowers?  And, how long it would take to put all of them in place (schedule).

Third, please provide your definition of "marksman."

Fourth, please specify the "high calibre sniper rifles" you advocate being used.  Make, model, caliber and costs.

[Iosif]

You're a strange man, Carl.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You're a strange man, Carl.

So, not qualifications and no specifics.

Not surprised.

Oh, and I believe that a few of your suggestions were a little "strange," but hesitated to use that term as the moderators tend to be a little politically correct (i.e. biased).

[RI]

Ideally, they would control zero percent of the border.
That was my troll post for the day. =P

[Brittain33]

How high a wall would you need to make the border air-tight? Air extends pretty high up!

[they don't love you like i love you]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLwb9NePt94

[RI]

How high a wall would you need to make the border air-tight? Air extends pretty high up!

We should just put a dome over the US. That'll work, right?

[Lief 🗽]

I agree with you Carl, this really is disgraceful. Forty-four per cent is much too high!

[Redalgo]

I imagine that ports and the northern borders are even less secure. xD

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm surprised it's that high, actually.

[ag]

They are probably fudging the numbers - unlikely to be that high. As it is, their definition of "in control", probably, is something like "we have a general idea of what's going on" and "airtight" must be "crossers have chosen to abandon the area because it is easier to cross elsewhere".

To properly secure the border you'd need to go the Sovet way. You can't really make it truly airtight unless all residents of San Diego and other border towns are required to wear and ID that's regularly checked and as long as you don't need a permit to come within a few miles of the border itself. Perhasp, a 10-mile exclusion zone (it was broader, in most places in the USSR, but ok) , where you need a permition from Washington to visit (with roaming patrols checking for permits throughout the zone), or smthg like that might work - not to eliminate all crossings, but a big chunk of those.

[King]

That's probably the highest it has ever been.  Having a closed border has only recently become an issue so it's interesting that they've managed to develop it that much in the past few years.  It wouldn't surprise me if it was 0% in the late 80s/early 90s.  People in border towns used to have dinner/go to church across the border not too long ago.

It wasn't until a combination of free trade bankrupting the farm industry, a US drug war upstarting a cartel economy, and the legal immigration of self-righteous rich white elites (also known as Scottsdale) that an open border became a problem.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ideally, they would control zero percent of the border.
That was my troll post for the day. =P

Got to save this one!

[CARLHAYDEN]

How high a wall would you need to make the border air-tight? Air extends pretty high up!

Hmm.

The old Nixon argument of attributing something to others.

I never advocated a 'wall,' but, please tell me just what is the altitude of "pretty high"? 

[CARLHAYDEN]

How high a wall would you need to make the border air-tight? Air extends pretty high up!

We should just put a dome over the US. That'll work, right?

Another one which needs to be saved.

Please keep up the absurd posts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I agree with you Carl, this really is disgraceful. Forty-four per cent is much too high!

The posts on this thread by the left have been a gold mine.

Thanks fellas for finally coming clean and admitting your opposition to border security.

[Redalgo]

Well in all seriousness then, what can be done about it? There is seemingly an iron law on this issue involving the affordability of security measures, their effectiveness, and how much freedom our people get to retain. You can enhance two at a time at the expense of whichever is left out. Or might I looking at this from a badly flawed perspective?

The U.S. apparently has 19,924 km of coastline along three oceans and 12,034 km of land borders if one doesn't count the edges of Gitmo in Cuba. Up north, the US-Canadian border is more than two and a half times longer than the one down south with Mexico. There are many seaports, more airports here than any other country in the world, and amongst the population of 308+ million there are mixed, conflicting signals about what they do and do not want.

It would be great if something could be done about it, but what exactly? Are we not stuck with having a porous border and imperfect security? Is it even worthwhile provided illegal immigration has some benefits for the economy? It would be great to hear your ideas if you have some and discuss the matter but at least from my standpoint right now securing the borders ranks high up there in terms of futility beside winning the War on Drugs or getting me to eat mayonnaise.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well in all seriousness then, what can be done about it? There is seemingly an iron law on this issue involving the affordability of security measures, their effectiveness, and how much freedom our people get to retain. You can enhance two at a time at the expense of whichever is left out. Or might I looking at this from a badly flawed perspective?

The U.S. apparently has 19,924 km of coastline along three oceans and 12,034 km of land borders if one doesn't count the edges of Gitmo in Cuba. Up north, the US-Canadian border is more than two and a half times longer than the one down south with Mexico. There are many seaports, more airports here than any other country in the world, and amongst the population of 308+ million there are mixed, conflicting signals about what they do and do not want.

It would be great if something could be done about it, but what exactly? Are we not stuck with having a porous border and imperfect security? Is it even worthwhile provided illegal immigration has some benefits for the economy? It would be great to hear your ideas if you have some and discuss the matter but at least from my standpoint right now securing the borders ranks high up there in terms of futility beside winning the War on Drugs or getting me to eat mayonnaise.

Redalgo,

You are new to this forum and are thefore presumably unaware of the proposals I have advanced in the past with respect to border security.  As others can tell you, I have been quite specific.

Now, lets examine your assertions.

First, I am under no illusions that we can win "the War on Drugs," have no interest whatsoever in whether you consume mayonnaise, but do believe there are a number of rather specific steps which can be taken which will dramatically decrease illegal entry into the United States by foreign nationals. 

Second, as to your presumption that "illegal immigration has some benefits for the economy," I notice you omitted the critical word 'net.'  While certain businesses may profit from illegal, the economy as a whole is NOT benefited (and yes, some liberal economists have come to that conclusion after considerable study).

Third, you fall into the definitional chimera that an Illegal alien is an 'immigrant,' which simply is NOT the case.  Approximately half of the illegal aliens in the United States have no desire to remain permanent in the United States, and are more properly termed 'sojourners.'

Fourth, you are quite correct that the borders of the United States are very porous around the entire periphery.  So, yes, we need improvements just about everywhere.  However, practicality suggests that we should devote our efforts first to areas experiencing massive illegal entry now, which means the southern border.

Fifth, you are quite correct that there is a cost effectiveness issue in border security.  As I have tried to make it clear (repeatedly), I do NOT favor a wall, but rather a more cost effective (and integrated) security system, incorporating a ditch and berm system, backed by access roads for Border Patrol use paved with pea gravel (asphalt is too expensive), reliable communications systems for Border Patrol personnel, adequate number of trained personnel armed with necessary weapons.

Next, we need to reduce the incentives for illegal entry, which means enforcing existing laws on employing illegal aliens.  This can be done in many ways by the quick, and inexpensive use of the enhanced E-verify system.

I can go on, and on with further specifics.

However, the question raised by the article is whether the existing border security is sufficient (I think not) and whether we should take steps to improve it (which I support),

If you review many of the posts on this thread you will see that many other are opposed to border security per se.

[Zarn]

I think we should form a 'border patrol' patrol. We round up border patrols and ship them off to Siberia, deep in the Amazon, the Sahara, or Wales.

[Brittain33]

Carl, thank you for providing specifics solutions.

What is the cost of the ditch-and-berm solution? Initial build and physical maintenance?
How many people would be required to staff it? What is the annual cost?
How would it work at the Rio Grande? Would the government commandeer private property to do this?
What ways might smugglers and migrants use to circumvent it?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I agree with you Carl, this really is disgraceful. Forty-four per cent is much too high!

The posts on this thread by the left have been a gold mine.

Thanks fellas for finally coming clean and admitting your opposition to border security.

CARL, what's this coming clean nonsense?  Many here have openly supported an open border position. 

[RI]

I agree with you Carl, this really is disgraceful. Forty-four per cent is much too high!

The posts on this thread by the left have been a gold mine.

Thanks fellas for finally coming clean and admitting your opposition to border security.

CARL, what's this coming clean nonsense?  Many here have openly supported an open border position. 

I support completely open borders, at least ideally. The concept of an illegal human being is revolting to me. Granted, there would be some technical problems that would need to be solved, and it couldn't happen all at once, but I think that our eventually goal should be the elimination of all borders everywhere.

[Redalgo]

You are new to this forum and are thefore presumably unaware of the proposals I have advanced in the past with respect to border security.  As others can tell you, I have been quite specific.

Now, lets examine your assertions.

First, I am under no illusions that we can win "the War on Drugs," have no interest whatsoever in whether you consume mayonnaise, but do believe there are a number of rather specific steps which can be taken which will dramatically decrease illegal entry into the United States by foreign nationals.  

Second, as to your presumption that "illegal immigration has some benefits for the economy," I notice you omitted the critical word 'net.'  While certain businesses may profit from illegal, the economy as a whole is NOT benefited (and yes, some liberal economists have come to that conclusion after considerable study).

Third, you fall into the definitional chimera that an Illegal alien is an 'immigrant,' which simply is NOT the case.  Approximately half of the illegal aliens in the United States have no desire to remain permanent in the United States, and are more properly termed 'sojourners.'

I did not make any presumptions about what you think about the War on Drugs or my eating habits, and avoided the use of a word like "net" because I am poorly educated on this issue and find that using phrasing of limited certainty reduces the likelihood of me posting anything terribly ignorant or stupid. My choice of words may have still been poor however because I was never under the impression that all illegal aliens are here with the intent to stay as immigrants - though in fairness I didn't realize that such a large number of illegal aliens are here temporarily.

Fourth, you are quite correct that the borders of the United States are very porous around the entire periphery.  So, yes, we need improvements just about everywhere.  However, practicality suggests that we should devote our efforts first to areas experiencing massive illegal entry now, which means the southern border.

Fifth, you are quite correct that there is a cost effectiveness issue in border security.  As I have tried to make it clear (repeatedly), I do NOT favor a wall, but rather a more cost effective (and integrated) security system, incorporating a ditch and berm system, backed by access roads for Border Patrol use paved with pea gravel (asphalt is too expensive), reliable communications systems for Border Patrol personnel, adequate number of trained personnel armed with necessary weapons.

Next, we need to reduce the incentives for illegal entry, which means enforcing existing laws on employing illegal aliens.  This can be done in many ways by the quick, and inexpensive use of the enhanced E-verify system.

I can go on, and on with further specifics.

However, the question raised by the article is whether the existing border security is sufficient (I think not) and whether we should take steps to improve it (which I support),

If you review many of the posts on this thread you will see that many other are opposed to border security per se.

I had not encountered your proposals before so this is very useful to me. I have some questions, but for now just want to see where the thread goes. Thanks for taking the time to reply Carl.