Quote:If a fence is so effective, why not build one of those instead of a wall? It's certainly cheaper. It's difficult to draw comparisons to Israel and Korea when talking about our southern border. N. Korea has their own troops protecting against its citizens escaping to the south. Mexico ain't doing that. And if you've ever seen a map of Palestinian and Israeli owned territories you'd see they are truly up each other's rear ends. And there has been plenty of bloodshed on Israeli soil despite the walls and checkpoints. We are fortunate that our problems are not theirs. The Great Wall was built to keep out invaders on horseback (or dragons if Matt Damon is to be believed) hundreds of years ago. But to literally waste billions on a wall (where you indicate a fence is effective) is silly to me. I used to work for a company that tracked government spending and I assure you we have enough waste.

I would be fine with upgrading and expanding the current fences we have. If you look at some of the fences, there really is no difference between athose fences and a wall besides semantics.


To be honest, double and triple layering fences would be more effective than a wall. What makes these barriers effective is the amount of time is delays entry in urban areas where getting away takes literally 30 seconds. If I were in charge I would upgrade the primary fences to taller fences that are more disuasive to jump to common folk. Three layers of 20+ foot fences is what is really needed if you want to shut down urban areas.


As it stands now, there is a shorter primary fence that is easily climbable. They have time to stage all their tools in Mexico and can easily bring them across to climb the larger 20 foot secondary fence. Once they are over the secondary fence there is usually a short chain link fence they can jump with just a t-shirt covering the barbed wire. In short, once they are over the primary and into the United States, it only takes them 15 seconds to jump the next two fences.

---