The Border Fence: Costly and Ineffective

Well before the idea of a border fence was ever voted on in Congress, many people questioned its potential effectiveness. They wondered about such a project's feasibility: How much would it cost? Would it cover the whole border? What kind of fence would it be? Ultimately, and most importantly, people wondered if such a plan could realistically work.

Several years later we are left with a project that is incomplete and underfunded, a project that would probably be ineffective even if it were receiving the support it needs.

Officer Stephen Anderson of the United States Army details the work that he has done for the border fence and optimistically explains what the fence can accomplish. Despite his optimism, the limitations of the fence's effectiveness are clear.



A Reuters' report elaborates on these limitations and explains how illegal immigrants have adapted to the U.S. government's half-hearted attempt to secure its borders.



So how did we get into this mess in the first place?

Politicking.

A compilation of reports explains that politicians, under intense scrutiny from their constituents, proposed yet another idea to treat the symptoms of the issue rather than the cause (an idea which I touched upon in my last post).

Perhaps realizing that the project wasn't realistic, or feeling less heat as immigration took a backseat to other issues such as foreign affairs or the economy, these politicians began to backtrack as the aforementioned compilation thoroughly explains.

Given what we now know about this issue, it is time to cut our losses. Lawmakers need to stop the construction of this fence (which many of them seem to already be doing in a covert way) and attack the root problems behind illegal immigration. In my next post I will detail several solutions to illegal immigration, plans of action that I beleive can be more effective and less costly than building fences and encouraging death in the desert.