Political rhetoric ignores reality at United States border with Mexico

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you overestimate the cost of securing the border and underestimate the cost of not securing the border. Note that my plan could easily be implemented with the current border patrol. Mainly I'm suggesting a change in equipment and tactics. It wouldn't be free but it also wouldn't be unfeasibly expensive.

You suggested patrolling a 10 mile buffer zone along the length of the border using the US military to do it and treating the whole area like the Korean demilitarised zone? How on Earth can you even guess how much this will cost, much less make pedestrian statements to the effect that it "wouldn't be unfeasibly expensive"?

If you have no idea of the scale of the task or the manpower, equipment and infrastructure required to enact it, suggesting that it won't be prohibitively expensive is just so much BS.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Most western militarys have actually outlawed these. I'm guessing the US has not.

It has not, neither has Russia.

[mawilson 2,133]

You suggested patrolling a 10 mile buffer zone along the length of the border using the US military to do it and treating the whole area like the Korean demilitarised zone? How on Earth can you even guess how much this will cost, much less make pedestrian statements to the effect that it "wouldn't be unfeasibly expensive"?

If you have no idea of the scale of the task or the manpower, equipment and infrastructure required to enact it, suggesting that it won't be prohibitively expensive is just so much BS.

Israel's 500 mile fence cost $2.1 billion (originally estimated to cost $1 billion).

2000 miles = 500 miles times 4 is $8.4 billion. We all know how "efficient" the US government is,

so multiply that by 2 or 3 - let's say it costs 20 billion dollars. Furthermore, let's assume

that guards and maintenance will cost us another 20 billion dollars - $10 million per mile per year.

Guess what, it's *still* less than 1% of the Federal budget.

Edited June 22, 2010 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Israel's 500 mile fence cost $2.1 billion (originally estimated to cost $1 billion).

2000 miles = 500 miles times 4 is $8.4 billion. We all know how "efficient" the US government is,

so multiply that by 2 or 3 - let's say it costs 20 billion dollars. Furthermore, let's assume

that guards and maintenance will cost us another 20 billion dollars - $10 million per mile per year.

Guess what, it's *still* less than 1% of the Federal budget.

Let's pull numbers out of our backsides and assume that they add up. Wonderful.

[SMR 368]

You suggested patrolling a 10 mile buffer zone along the length of the border using the US military to do it and treating the whole area like the Korean demilitarised zone? How on Earth can you even guess how much this will cost, much less make pedestrian statements to the effect that it "wouldn't be unfeasibly expensive"?

If you have no idea of the scale of the task or the manpower, equipment and infrastructure required to enact it, suggesting that it won't be prohibitively expensive is just so much BS.

The wider the buffer zone, the easier it is to patrol since you only have to stop people at any point in the buffer zone. Really, we're just talking about a perimeter. The perimeter is 2000 miles long. If every 5 miles there is a 3 man team that's only 1200 men. Even a 3-man team every mile is only 6000 men. Considering the size of the border patrol and the 3000 national guardsmen recently allocated, this plan could be enacted without increasing the amount of manpower allocated. The point is, what's required is a policy change, not an entirely new strategy. Once we start to view this as an invasion of enemy combatants, it becomes much simpler.

My estimate that this is not unfeasibly expensive is based on my belief that this could be achieved with the resources currently allocated as long as the bureaucrats in Washington were serious about actually preventing invasion instead of just giving it the current lip service it receives.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The wider the buffer zone, the easier it is to patrol since you only have to stop people at any point in the buffer zone. Really, we're just talking about a perimeter. The perimeter is 2000 miles long. If every 5 miles there is a 3 man team that's only 1200 men. Even a 3-man team every mile is only 6000 men. Considering the size of the border patrol and the 3000 national guardsmen recently allocated, this plan could be enacted without increasing the amount of manpower allocated. The point is, what's required is a policy change, not an entirely new strategy. Once we start to view this as an invasion of enemy combatants, it becomes much simpler.

My estimate that this is not unfeasibly expensive is based on my belief that this could be achieved with the resources currently allocated as long as the bureaucrats in Washington were serious about actually preventing invasion instead of just giving it the current lip service it receives.

Firstly, I don't think you've done your numbers right as you're talking about a 10 mile wide strip across 2000 miles - that's 20,000 square miles. If you divide that into areas of 5 miles square you're looking at 4000 distinct areas. 3 man teams? Well that's 12000 men...

Again, I ask how you can possibly know how much this will cost on a day to day rolling basis?

Secondly, once you start viewing illegal immigration as an invasion of enemy combatants you might as well go the whole hog and declare war on Mexico.

(all of this assuming that the US has no economic relationship with Mexico whatsoever, which it does).

[mawilson 2,133]

Let's pull numbers out of our backsides and assume that they add up. Wonderful.

You have a problem with my numbers, let's see you produce something better.

$2.1 billion or $4.5 million per mile is a very real number. That's how much it costs to build a real fence that works.

As for maintenance, do you seriously think that we need more than 20 million dollars per mile per year?

How many people do you need to patrol a mile of border? How many people can you hire with $20 million?

Edited June 22, 2010 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You have a problem with my numbers, let's see you produce something better.

$2.1 billion or $4.5 million per mile is a very real number. That's how much is costs to build a real fence that works.

As for maintenance, do you seriously think that we need more than 20 million dollars per mile per year?

How many people do you need to patrol a mile of border? How many people can you hire with $20 million?

I have a problem with you pulling numbers out of the air.

SMR isn't talking about a fence - the idea presented was about deploying the National Guard across a 10 mile buffer zone over 2000 miles.

[SMR 368]

Firstly, I don't think you've done your numbers right as you're talking about a 10 mile wide strip across 2000 miles - that's 20,000 square miles. If you divide that into areas of 5 miles square you're looking at 4000 distinct areas. 3 man teams? Well that's 12000 men...

Again, I ask how you can possibly know how much this will cost on a day to day rolling basis?

As I said, you're not trying to patrol every square mile of the buffer zone, just maintain the perimeter. A wider buffer zone just makes it more difficult for the invaders to cross. My estimate is how many men per linear mile of border.

As to how much it will cost, not more then we are spending right now since we already have the people there. We just need to actually let them do their job.

Secondly, once you start viewing illegal immigration as an invasion of enemy combatants you might as well go the whole hog and declare war on Mexico.

(all of this assuming that the US has no economic relationship with Mexico whatsoever, which it does).

Are you asserting that the Mexican government is encouraging, aiding, or authorizing illegal immigration? If you are that is grievous indeed and perhaps cause to war. Otherwise I fail to see your point.

Actually, all of this is assuming the US does have an economic relationship with Mexico. The predominate part of this relationship is illegal Mexican immigrants sending money back to Mexico.

[mawilson 2,133]

I have a problem with you pulling numbers out of the air.

I gave you a worst-case estimate.

You want real numbers? $8.4 billion for a 2000 mile fence.

Less than Cash for Clunkers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said, you're not trying to patrol every square mile of the buffer zone, just maintain the perimeter. A wider buffer zone just makes it more difficult for the invaders to cross. My estimate is how many men per linear mile of border.

As to how much it will cost, not more then we are spending right now since we already have the people there. We just need to actually let them do their job.

Oh we're talking about linear miles are we - why don't we have the National Guard link arms along the border and stand there all day?

Are you asserting that the Mexican government is encouraging, aiding, or authorizing illegal immigration? If you are that is grievous indeed and perhaps cause to war. Otherwise I fail to see your point.

Actually, all of this is assuming the US does have an economic relationship with Mexico. The predominate part of this relationship is illegal Mexican immigrants sending money back to Mexico.

Erm... YOU suggested treating illegal immigrants like enemy combatants - if you're doing that you might as well declare war on the entire country, because that's exactly the impression it creates.

If you weren't aware, a lot of the US' manufactured goods come from Mexico. Militarising borders, pissing off foreign governments tends to have adverse impacts on things like that.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh we're talking about linear miles are we - why don't we have the National Guard link arms along the border and stand there all day?

Yes, let's pull a fictitious 10 mile wide strip out of our backsides and assume it makes sense.

Of course linear, #######. Have you even seen a real border?

Here's what it looks like:

[SMR 368]

Oh we're talking about linear miles are we - why don't we have the National Guard link arms along the border and stand there all day?

Well, because that would take several thousand people per linear mile instead of half a dozen or so.

Erm... YOU suggested treating illegal immigrants like enemy combatants - if you're doing that you might as well declare war on the entire country, because that's exactly the impression it creates.

Not unless the government is sending the people across. Otherwise, you are waging war on individuals.

If you weren't aware, a lot of the US' manufactured goods come from Mexico. Militarising borders, pissing off foreign governments tends to have adverse impacts on things like that.

I am aware of it. However, more money enters Mexico from workers sending money back than from export revenues.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, let's pull a fictitious 10 mile wide strip out of our backsides and assume it makes sense.

Of course linear, #######. Have you even seen a real border?

That's what SMR was talking about (which I was responding to) - No fence, 3 man teams patrolling 5 mile areas (you think they're just going to drive from point A to point B and back?)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, because that would take several thousand people per linear mile instead of half a dozen or so.

Yes....

Not unless the government is sending the people across. Otherwise, you are waging war on individuals.

Wage war on individuals. That's a new one.

I am aware of it. However, more money enters Mexico from workers sending money back than from export revenues.

I'm sure it does. The question surely is whether Mexican (and South American) trade is worth more to the USA than the cost of illegal immigration.