dave_w wrote:
You're kind of talking apples and oranges, with 62% being recorded and having gone through at least a cursory check; we know who they are. 38% are a complete mystery, and the unknown is what creates the security threat, hence the 700 miles of barrier already constructed. Take Duffy's analogy and say the 62% are perceived to be moose; well the other 38% are mostly moose, but lions, bear, or whatever other miscellaneous predators are in the mix. Where do you think our priority should be from the standpoint of security?
Security against what?
Also there's missing piece there - the implicit assumption that building more barrier brings that 38% down. We spent billions trying to stop drugs from coming across the border as part of the War on Drugs. It didn't work. Spending billions on a barrier that slows people by seconds-to-minutes may not even drop 38% to 35%. Barriers do not stop people by themselves. They just slow people enough to assist in human interdiction. Most of the places without barrier have natural barrier (deserts). It requires more people to watch-and-interdict. A lot more people. Barrier/wall is just a symbol for "border security" that for no good reason became literal.
Rather than repeat the War on Drugs with a War on Migrant Workers (who we love and hate at the same time), why not just legalize them by making H-2A visas very easy to get, and enforcing e-Verify?