After my post, “A Different Take” about “The Wall.” i have received several comments from friends who are for building the wall. Their reasons vary but all are logically thought out. i also discussed this with my golfing buddies yesterday after our round (beer, of course, included).
i think my most salient point from that post is a grossly underestimated cost (in many ways). In my latest discussion with my friend Jane Couch Boyer, we considered the problem again. Below is a redacted version of that exchange after Jane sent me a video of the Texas Attorney General claiming his statistics show El Paso’s wall works because of high crime rates in Ciudad Juarez and a huge decrease in crime rates in El Paso.
Hmm, statistics from very political Republicans. Hmm, i’ve seen similar “statistics” claims of just the opposite from very political Democrats. So i’m not going to argue political statistics period. After i watched that video, here is our discussion (Thanks, Jane):
No, they (border walls) don’t. They intimidate. They get the fervor up. We have the technology to keep anyone from crossing the border illegally much more effectively and much less expensive than a wall. Satellites, GPS, drones, video systems, and weapons that can immediately eliminate illegal entry. This (the wall) is a purely political position, once endorsed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans. If we want to stop illegal entry, then give me and a couple of my SEAL and SPAWAR friends (and one very savvy former Army artillery guy who was at the cutting edge of using the available technology above) the mandate with no restrictions and we can do it.
I like your solution. Do you think a couple of you could cover the entire border?
i suspect it would take about a hundred of us. But if it became a government project, it would require an additional five or six thousand.