You really should get your own usename. sparkle is so much better than you.

Sparkie, you’re wrong as usual. The fence would have and already has had an effect—A negative one on our international relationships.

Now I grant you that shouldn’t be the only consideration. But in a world economy, it needs to be one of the considerations. Ignoring the effect of perceptions on your business partners is just a poor way to run a business or a country.

Robert Perry, in your examples, somebody lives in the house nearby the fence. I can guarantee you that fences in the countryside of any sort never stopped me—while growing up in a rural area— from going where I wanted to go.

Make a great tourist attraction

Kept the Mongol hoards out, well mostly, ok not at all.

I personally don’t mind the money transfers–whether here legally or not, they did earn the money, right?

They stole the job to earn the money. I don’t consider it their money.

Robert,

Carrick, even if you knew the farmers, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were OK with you crossing their fences

We knew the farmers/ranchers/etc, and had their permission up front. In many case, I grew up with and was a friend of their kids. My family was often the ones who called them when their cattle broke through the fences, since our land bordered some of the range land, and since our commute into town ran parallel to one border of their land.

And I know how to cross fence lines without damaging the wire, or pulling it loose from the fence posts. The chief techniques are use a downed tree near the fence to hop over, or to slip under where a stream has undercut the fence. Once you know the weak spots, it doesn’t even slow you down.

If course, my point is fences of any sort work to an extent, if they are backed up with enforcement. Physical barriers plus extended surveillance just extends the range over which you can detect infiltrators. Either case needs boots on the ground.

In some places along the border (towards the San Diego/Tiajuana side) where fences still exist, there is a myriad of tunnels that have been built by border crossers (some illegal immigrants, some drug smugglers). The tunnels work because the area patrolled by the border guards is relatively a thin line. If you extend the line to miles deep via surveillance cameras, tunneling won’t help you.

To thread a number of comments together. It is a fact that the 9/11 hijackers crossed over from Canada, and is well known that terror cells have operated out of Canada for over a decade. Any security plan that addresses national security must include security for both the north and the south borders.

I happen to favor virtual fences. When I have raised this in the past, I noticed a degree of circular reasoning. One of the strongest negative responses I’ve seen is that “it depends on enforcement”. So too, of course, does a single chain-linked fence.

Without enforcement, neither idea would be effective. With enforcement, I claim that the virtual fence would be far more effective, especially in combination with physical barriers.

In fact, this sounds like what the official was saying:

“We might do away with it, or look at (integrating it into) SBI Net,” he said, “A virtual fence rather than a real one.”

The problem is or has been with enforcement, not whether an easily surmounted physical barrier is in the way or not. Carlos Mencia had something rather witty to say about this (of course I paraphrase, he’s funnier):

“So these beaners trek north through jungles, over mountains, across deserts, then … holy sh@t! ‘They put up a fence! Man, we’re f@cked! I wish those gringos had told me they were going to put up a fence! Go back guys! It’s hopeless! No way we can get over that.’”

Robert Perry:

Carrick, your apparent disregard for private property rights aside, walls and fences work.

Don’t be an ass.

I knew the people whose land I was on.

Sparkie, those of us who’d like to protect our country are not Mexican Haters. Would YOU like to be blown to bits in an airplane?

Groovy:

Who cares what the world thinks of us?

How about the fact that we’re business partners with most of them?

One thing that R108 and I agree with is you need to do a cost-benefit analysis. Potential effect on trade is certainly something you have to consider, even if you eventually argue it’s a non effect.

WOOF:

Make a great tourist attraction

Only if it’s “neighbor friendly” fence.

Sparkie, you’re wrong as usual. The fence would have and already has had an effect—A negative one on our international relationships.

The Mexican government will bitch and groan, and won’t do much more; …like a barking dog that doesn’t bite..

Rob is right that local law enforcement being empowered to deal with illegal immigrants is the key to gaining control of this problem. What are the odds of it happening regardless of who is in office? The federal government does not let go of or share any of its power easily.

Two: Exactly! A “border fence” definitely doesn’t mean a chainlink fence, but one that will do the job. Duh.

Moreover, even if the fence only stopped 10% of the illegals, it would pay for itself many times over, just from the economic perspective.

Robert: Excellent post, to which I would add two things:

Don’t forget Hadrian’s Wall. Pretty effective, as well.

You forgot to mention all the money sent back to Mexico by illegals every year. I have heard estimates from $20-50 billion.

Carrick, even if you knew the farmers, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were OK with you crossing their fences. Most I know (including my in-laws) get rather testy when people cross fences (often damaging them), bother livestock, and damage row crops. That’s why they put the fence there in the first place, and why they put “gates” in the fence.

Never mind that your example clearly demonstrates how fences work. I’ve crossed a few myself (both respectfully and not), and I always slow down, and as often as not I decide to cross somewhere else because I value my “Wranglers” over 30 seconds saved by crossing at point A.

Regarding international diplomacy, the same thing applies. Do we really want to “negotiate” with those who view the elimination of our property rights as a starting point for discussion? You’re more or less proposing such a scenario.

Carrick, you and I have had this converasion several times, let me clarify.

I do not want a cyclone fence from Sears&Roebuck. I want a concertina feild, 10 meters wide and 5 meters high, with bunkered sallyports 3000-5000 meters apart. Command detonated claymores and directional napalm canisters and a full infantry company manning each 10,000 meter section.

Once that is emplaced, then we can move on to “virtual” border security.

Carrick: How about effective fence+no enforcement; not as good as effective fence+enforcement?

So, a fence=no fence? That just doesn’t track.

Boob:

A) Big flipping deal.

B) If you want to posts links like that get a reader blog and post them. Don’t randomly insert off-topic links into comment threads.

Whistler,

Kept the Mongol hoards out, well mostly, ok not at all.

The wall was built by the Ming dynasty back in the 14th century, and it actually worked wonderfully for two centuries until a traitorous general was bribed into opening the gates for the Mongols.

I don’t believe the fence will have no effect.

Its alot of money to spend on something that probably won’t have no effect… But hey, Bush loves to spend money eh?