If New Dehli can figure it out, why can't Washington?

[Byron Quick]

Border security is not a "communist policy" any more than ownership of a firearm is "acting like a Nazi". Every nation has the right to secure borders.

I don't have a problem with border security. Nor do I have a problem with a type of border security that prevents illegal aliens from entering.

I do have a problem with barbed wire fences, minefields, and the rest of the paraphernalia...border guards in towers armed with sniper rifles and such. All techniques used by communist nations amongst other totalitarian regimes.

It's just like firearms. I think you have a right to own firearms. I think I have a right to own firearms. I think communists have a right to own firearms. I just don't think they have a right to shoot unarmed people in the backs of their heads with a pistol.

There's a lot of discussion of how to maintain the Constitution as a safeguard to our liberties. The Bill of Rights takes several legalistic tools which can be used for dictatorial purposes by governments. I have no desire to hand the government too many physical tools of such, either.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I do have a problem with barbed wire fences, minefields, and the rest of the paraphernalia...border guards in towers armed with sniper rifles and such. All techniques used by communist nations amongst other totalitarian regimes.

It's just like firearms. I think you have a right to own firearms. I think I have a right to own firearms. I think communists have a right to own firearms. I just don't think they have a right to shoot unarmed people in the backs of their heads with a pistol.

There's a lot of discussion of how to maintain the Constitution as a safeguard to our liberties. The Bill of Rights takes several legalistic tools which can be used for dictatorial purposes by governments. I have no desire to hand the government too many physical tools of such, either.

Border security is a legitimate Constitutional function assigned to the Federal Government.

As for the details, you're ascribing features to border security that nobody is seriously proposing. I doubt that we'd see minefields, snipers shooting illegals in the back of the head, etc. Enforcing the border can be done without the excesses of the Berlin Wall.

 

[Byron Quick]

Cool Hand Luke,

To reiterate:

I don't have a problem with border security. Nor do I have a problem with a type of border security that prevents illegal aliens from entering.

Best

 

[spartacus2002]

I do have a problem with barbed wire fences, minefields, and the rest of the paraphernalia...border guards in towers armed with sniper rifles and such. All techniques used by communist nations amongst other totalitarian regimes.

Those regimes did not use those measures to keep people OUT; it used them to keep people IN.

 

[Byron Quick]

Those regimes did not use those measures to keep people OUT; it used them to keep people IN.

Exactly why I don't wish to have an equivalent infrastructure in place. Just in case. What's that quip about the security of your perimeter? "If the enemy can't get in, then you can't get out"?

Oh, just for comment. Do you really believe that if someone from the West had strolled into the shoot on sight grassy strip that they would have been left unperforated? If we could call up the shade of Congressman Larry McDonald; I believe he would definitely tell you that KAL flight 007 was not trying to leave the Soviet Union when it was shot down by a Soviet Mig.

 

[LeonCarr]

Drastic times take drastic measures, and the border is one place we need to take drastic measures to insure our survival as a nation.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[BeLikeTrey]

This was one of the best ideas so far

"the best solution to illegal immigration is the prosecution of employers. After all it is a felony. Once the job market dries up for illegals, no more problem."

Also no more gimme's on health care or "driver's licenses" (wow thank you California!) no more of anything without proper documentation. Start drying up reasons they come here as was stated before and they will eventually stop. The cool thing is that whether they stop or not our tax burden of siupporting them will be gone when the freebies like medical etc are gone.

This may sound insensitive to some and I'm sorry if I don't tickle anyone's warm and fuzzy side but I think this is a burden that will kill this country's economy.

The only other thing I can think of is annexing the country of Mexico and running it for them then they'd have no reason to leave... I can tell you which would be more feasible but....

 

[sturmruger]

I think we should enforce the laws we have on the book. I also think the BP should be able to deputize regular citizens to help watch the border. Hell I would go down and help for a few weeks every year. They could put some dormitories in to house everyone, and then they could buddy up a deputy BP agents with full time agents.

 

[roo_ster]

Sorry, a bit long

Note: All responses are to Byron Quick

I assume that the acronym COTS stands for Commercial Off The Shelf.

Yup. I shouldda made that more clear.

You say you've spent six years studying this problem. I've a few questions:
1) Exactly what would the interdiction consist of?
2) Installation costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs?
In other words, what's your concept of cost-effective? Remember that the government would be running the show.

I have worked similar issues in the past. My experience has been turned to the issue of perimeter security by my employer & customers.

1. How & What
Specific hardware and manning issues would be dependant on local circumstances:
a. Terrain
b. Illegal alien activity
c. et cetera

More generally, you would have a mix of complementary sensors & sensor types (video, II, IR, RF, audio, seismic, magnetic, etc), sensor platforms (stationary, UAV, ground mobile, etc), a commo (data, voice, images, video) network (directional & omnidirectional), processing HW & SW to chew on sensor feeds (to include a good user interface), and personnel trained to take advantage of the equipment. The development of new concepts of operation to fully utilize the system is paramount. The answer to every problem is not, "throw more equipment at it!"

It is definitely NOT a bunch of cameras out in the desert with some poor schlep staring at a video wall. The average guy is good for about 20 minutes in front of a bank of sensor feeds. Afer 20 minutes, he is in la-la land & useless for preventing intruders.

In some places, fencing might be part of the answer so as to slow down the infiltrators & give the responders enough time/space to deal with them. This is dependant on local conditions.

NOTE: no mines are involved. We're not talking about stopping the Nork horde from invading.

2. Costs
Finesse-ing the answer:
Other countries with terrain as/more difficult as the US borders are doing this...though they have fewer resources than the USA.

A better answer:
a. COTS
Using COTS and not re-inventing the wheel (as so many gov't beauracracies do) is a savior.

(The following exmples are not "THE" solution, just examples of how something could be done on the cheap & why it can be done without breaking the bank.)

Sensors
Thermal sights have fallen in cost dramatically, as have image intensifiers.

Processing Power
Moore's Law to the rescue. No longer do we need a supercomputer to crunch the data, as a rack full of COTS PCs can do that handily.

Commo
Processing power helps here, too.

Fusing the voluminous data input into the system and developing a perceived reality is a job for software.

Food for thought: last year the record for transmission of an 802.11b/g signal (WiFi/Airport) was around 40-50 miles. Unamplified. Using a directional antenna, of course. But that is a pretty fat wireless pipe down which to send data. Also, remember that every sensor or platform is also a transmitter/receiever.

b. Modeling & Analysis

Heavy use of modeling & automation to optimize sensor mix/placement/platform given the terrain as well as modeling of commo...all hooked into a costing model can give a rough order of magnitude. The better the input data (terrain, sensor models, hardware costs, etc), the better the output data. Also, input from guys on the ground is invaluable for a reality check.

The analysis does not stop at deployment. All these sensors are going to generate lots of data that can be analyzed to see where the holes are, where the infiltrators go when pressured, what tactics worked, which did not, etc.

The multi-tiered system you alluded to has elements that make much more sense than: Let's build a fence! I don't have too much faith in static defenses or barriers.

Agreed. Static barriers have their place, but as a part of the system, not as the totality of the system.

[FWIW, I built a fence for my German Shorthaired Pointers and the female still managed to tunnel* underneath. A hot wire 4"-6" off the ground ought to give enough standoff to prevent tunnelling* under the fence.]

* I do mean "tunnel." I built the wooden fence with horizontal boards that go from 4"-6" into the ground.

Don't get me wrong. I've got no problem with securing the borders. But since I'm planning on moving close to the border; some folks' suggestions get my back up. Minefields...sheesh!

I think most are joking about the mines...I hope!

 

[Randy in Arizona]

sturmruger

I think we should enforce the laws we have on the book. I also think the BP should be able to deputize regular citizens to help watch the border. Hell I would go down and help for a few weeks every year. They could put some dormitories in to house everyone, and then they could buddy up a deputy BP agents with full time agents.

I think this is a great idea! Too bad the powers that be wouldn't think so, because that would be admitting there is a problem.

jfruser

I have worked similar issues in the past. My experience has been turned to the issue of perimeter security by my employer & customers.

Thank you for your reply to the thread and Byron Quick. May I ask what ballpark figure do you think the system would cost? (WAGs OK)

 

[roo_ster]

I can't give you a rough order of magnitude, as the inputs are undefined...and nobody is paying me to do so. Talk to your congresscritter.

Since it is within US borders, non-exportable systems (Read: more capable, but more expensive) can also be called upon. This will effect cost in ways that are not easy to predict.

My main point is/was: other countries with similar problems and fewer resources are working viable solutions. The problem is not one of money or lack of technology.

WRT HLS cash, we are too busy spending it on NBC First Responder gear in the burg of Unlikely Target, Wyoming...and another thousand burgs that have influential congresscritters but little to fear from terrorists.

(No offense to Wyomingans, but the way Congress decided to parcel out HLS $$$ ensured that very little of use was accomplished with the expenditures.)

One thing I neglected to mention was the aspect of human intel on the other side of the border(s). A small expenditure here could pay large dividends.

**********

To give you an idea about what is currently being spent (2004):
Dept HLS Total: $31.6B
Customs & Border Protection: $5.9B (5/6 of that is for salaries & expenses)
Dept of HLS Budget

Fed budget: $2,292B
Total Fed Budget of USA

********

Going after the employers of illegals is a fairly cheap way to get some results. Strike fear into the hearts of employers with stiff fines & jail time and a lot of the jobs open to illegals would close. It is effective...if allowed to be done. GWB's Arkansas toady (one of the Hutchinson weasels ) put a stop to actual enforcement after it proved effective last year.

They don't want effectiveness, they want to look like they are being effective.

 

[DRZinn]

rather than say "lazy ******", they say welfare queen. But they mean the same thing.

Bull?????. If I talk about "welfare queens,", you can be damn sure I'm talking about people who are soaking up my money because they are too lazy to work for themselves, and too dumb to stop having kids.

And the whole northern border thing. But few seriously suggest mining that because "Thems white people".

No, few suggest mining the Canadian border because there aren't millions of them sneaking in every year.

When will this asininity stop?

 

[Glock Glockler]

DigitalWarrior,

Nowadays it is often described in different terms, rather than say "lazy ******", they say welfare queen. But they mean the same thing

Does it really matter what color someone is if they are on welfare? No one has a right to a dole at my expense, and people have a legitimate right to be angry at welfare kings and queens regardless of their color. Oh BTW, I know several welfare queens who are white.

It's also rather pathetic that you are using a leftist tactic to try to brandish those who oppose illegal Mexican immigration as racist. I don't see hordes of Canadians flooding ERs, getting on the dole, and enrolling their kids in public schools on the taxpayer's dime. Canada is not a problem, Mexico is, it therefore makes sense that we're discussing approaches to contain the Mexican border.

 

[longeyes]

The Mexican border would cost $16,496, 000.00 at that quote. Not taking into account additional costs due to rough country.

Compare that to the LAUSD school budget, most of which goes for illegal aliens these days. Pittance.

 

[thorn726]

You realize that if you mine a border that you cannot control, you are freaking giving away explosives to anyone who desires them? You propose mining the border to STOP terrorists? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Like the VPC giving them guns because they are more likely to use them on themselves. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

i agree totally. mines are a horrible tactic.

fences arent going to do a whole heck of a lot either.

opposable thumbs anyone?

intense electronic monitoring and patrols. that would help a little, that and actually rounding them up once theyre here.

there are over 100 illegals looking for work on street corners daily here.
ROUND THEM UP.

i say let them across the desert, it weakens them. then start really getting them in the cities.

send inspectors to places likely to hire illegals.
ROUND THEM UP, send them back, until they realize they need to fix their country

 

[roo_ster]

thorn 726 wrote:

ROUND THEM UP, send them back, until they realize they need to fix their country

The longer Mexico has the "Big Safety Valve to the North," the longer until the time when Mexico gets it act together and becomes something other than corrupt oligarchy.

 

[AlexI]

Guys, you are cracking me up talking about what infrastructure the former communist block emplyed to keep a secure border, and about the high tech stuff to be used on the US/Mexico border!
Let me tell you what made the former USSR border so secure that very few people even tried to penetrate it. It wasn't any expensive infrastructure, it was a well known and believable willingness of the state to deal viciously with the perpetrators! Everybody knew that if you tried to cross the border (in any direction) you were as likely to be shot on sight as detained by the border guards. And those who did get arrested were likely to go through a VERY unpleasant interrogation, and end up for long years in some Siberian prison camp.
Now think about what potential Mexican border crossers may expect in the event they are captured: to be relatively humanely detained for a very short time, then thrown right back home into Mexico. Even if you put an immensely expensive and effective border defenses in place, and capture more then 50% of the crossers, they (and millions of others) would just try again later... There is just no real deterrent in it, for more or less desperate people who want to get in.

So, I am sorry to conclude, there is no prospect of effectively closing the US/Mexico border. Don't tell me our government will ever find the guts to issue "shoot on sight" orders (which, in general, I would consider a legitimate exercise of national sovereignity, as long as this applies only to people attempting to enter illegally, not your own citizens trying to get out)...

Alex.