Build the Wall, as it is known is promoted for the wrong reasons. On its face value, the president appears to be promoting it simply because he campaigned on it. There is no accompanied reasoning for it. What does it strategically serve and for how long?
This has literally gone on for 40 years and it continues to be based on the wrong premise of why we need a border wall. In itself, a border wall is not border security.
Although many people in January 2019 are being hurt because of a government shutdown, what those individuals that are being hurt and many around the country may not understand is that the border and its border residents are getting hurt also but for the long run -decades, if a border wall is built.
A Rural Wall
A wall can be useful but a heavy steel fence 10 feet tall with a 2-foot-deep post in the ground may be better security than a proposed 30-foot fence with 5-foot footings. Why? Because of its location.
The problem originates in Mexico, and a fence 5 to 50 miles away from the border in Mexico and in the middle of nowhere can be more effective if protected by multiple surveillance technologies - cameras, drones, radar, high altitude drones, patrols, etcetera.
New laws in Mexico would have to be crafted in a manner that creates penalties for entry in areas between the border and the enclosed fence. If they are not in the city, or a farmer, or no reason being where they are, it should be considered a threat or suspicious. That should land people in jail and banned them from the area permanently.
Where there are roads crossing north and south, these locations would have check points in and out of this area. The USA does this now along the border.
When there is a break in the fence, the tracks will lead for miles towards the border and multiple surveillance technologies can view the crime unobstructed.
If this was an invasion or a war on the border as some have claimed, why are we fighting the battle on the border and not in the enemy's land?
That is the problem with the current wall proposal. It destroys only American lives, and in some cases, takes their land away. Strategically, we are fighting in the wrong place and it is time to move the front line. In many locations along the USA / Mexico border, illegal crossing point staging areas are part of the permanent landscape as well. It has become institutional. A border fence does not address this.
Just like there has been a large lake, marsh lands, canyons, and a river along the border forever, the staging areas have also become permanent in the same way. That has to change.
Mexico Pays for border security
And who pays for this fence, will Mexico should with US help.
The USA, in a recent google search of how much is the Afghanistan war costing US tax payers, is reporting a cost of 45 Billion dollars and as several of those articles mention, "with no end in sight." Is the threat Mexico and their impact on the USA or is the threat Afghanistan?
Mexico’s prosperity and future are connected to the USA. They have similar values and history. What they lack in governance and free enterprise are the negotiating assets the USA has to offer in return for Mexico’s cooperation. Also, is it unrealistic to see the criminal element overwhelm Mexico’s government? 5 to 10 years ago it did not seem possible. What will happen to the Mexico / USA border if that was to happen.
On a House Committee on Appropriations press release July 25 2018 “Cartels are trafficking $64 billion a year in drugs and people across our border - and much of it comes through one small stretch at the Rio Grande Valley,” Chairman Yoder said.
Do you think with that kind of money, the cartel is going to be hindered by a border wall?
Mexico and USA need to work together in Mexico to design a frontier border wall. If they are not approaching the area on a road, it may mean an airstrike sometime in the future. Only of course designed to disable any vehicle.
Frontier fence would post to stay away and subject to aerial demobilization of their vehicle and arrest, if they are in areas where there is no road and not allowed to be there.
Because it is a USA drug problem that is fueling this trafficking through the border, it is the USA’s responsibility to also fund Mexico’s frontier wall. Most consumption is not along the border states but also everywhere in the USA.
Why would Mexico pay for any border wall? If it is economic development first and designed to spur economic growth, that is the basic strategy of this dual border security, which is possible with a Rural Border Wall, Circle Wall, and Urban Border Wall as proposed by bordercommmerce.com.
NAFTA could have also been negotiated to allow more US based entrepreneurs explore business opportunities between the rural border fence in Mexico and the border. Americans know how to create jobs, but Mexico needs to provide an educated work force, police protection, and government free of corruption. But the USA can help with that also.
Also, with NAFTA, Mexico could have been sent the message that their trade balance surpluses are only tolerated if the USA and Mexico work jointly for border security. What a missed opportunity.
Drugs travel North
The border residents are a victim of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, S Carolina, and other states' drug use. Stop the drug use and there will be no drug trafficking. Drug trafficking criminal gangs have then seized on immigration as a way to move drugs or deal in human trafficking as additional income source.
Most of these drugs and immigrants originate south of any proposed frontier border wall in Mexico.
As a strategic policy, the line of contact is moved south where control is better. Open land.
It will be difficult, but it is the new conflict line not focused on the border which now becomes a 2nd tier defense line.
When we already know most drugs move north and not already are along the border and immigrants come from deep Mexico, moving the front line further south intercepts them sooner.
Not only do they get intercepted sooner, they are intercepted in open country where only roads can be used to go through this zone. Towns or camps will not be allowed to be right outside these check points but some miles away further south of these checkpoints.
With technology, the entire new frontier rural border fence can be scanned day and night. Internet technology allows registration of people traveling north given quick access through check points. Technology used by the border patrol to scan truck cargo will be part of a process in addition to manifest origin and destination documents.
Retina scanning and ID finger printing processing will be more common either to to allow easier access through check points or for persons convicted of violations related to illegal crossing of a protected zone.
Persons convicted of violations along the border such as smuggling, assisting illegal crimes, or land owners for illegal use can not only be convicted in Mexico courts but also banned from entering the zone between the frontier border wall and the borderline. Being caught again inside the zone can get them arrested, which is a process needed to move these individuals away from the border who pose a threat before they have a chance to cross the border or be part of the criminal element involved along the border.
Homeland Security is a security force. The border needs economically based solutions for border protection. It is a 50-Billion-dollar organization and yet look at the amount of border problems we have. Several billion dollars as economic development would have been more effective in eliminating border security issues along the urban border.
Building development that is separated but commercially linked to each urban twin city would have used the same land where illegal activity occurs. Thus, eliminating the payroll for homeland security 24 hours a day and simply amounting to smaller teams assisting local police enforcement of the area, on both sides of the border.
City of El Paso, where a border wall fence has already been built, is a dead zone along the border fence. It is an economic loss. Loss opportunity. And man-power used 24 hours a day to protect an area that could have been used by both cities as public space generating taxes and security.
During the evening, it is totally dark and presumed to be dangerous by the border patrol. So, is it dangerous because of the border fence and people trying to cross it or is it safe because of the border fence prevents people from crossing? If it is safe, they should then remove the fence and allow the city to build an urban border wall for public use. Homeland security cannot have it both ways.
Also, in El Paso as probably found in the Texas lower valley, there are areas where a border fence is not very desirable. Such a place is Cristo Mountain foot hillswhich straddle both the USA and Mexico. If there is to be a wall, make it a Circle Wall around the mountain foothills beginning at the border. Completed in Mexico, it would prevent vehicular and person movement around the mountain foothills and would allow for towers with installed cameras to watch day and night.
This could be a beautifully lit wall with both an architectural statement as well as provide security. Instead of being an infamous wall it could become a famous wall.
The rural / frontier border wall is out in open land. To make it successful, it may be part of a roadway that runs east and west across Mexico. It lets the good guys run up and down the road helping motorist and patrolling the fence.
No border wall
So, No! to the border wall because it is the beginning of an empty future with no possible walking back the loss. States like Kentucky, S Carolina or Tennessee or what ever state feels threaten by Mexico should build their own wall around their state.
Let the people along the border chose how they fix the problem.
Build the Wall. NO! Build This Wall. YES!