>>> People are much easier to find when they are stopped at a fence. One radar can cover hundreds of square miles of airspace. An infrared camera can only see for a few miles.
Infrared cameras are a dime a dozen.. again a moot point. When you see them crossing you have to be willing to interdict.
The cameras may be cheap, but they are useless unless there is a set of eyeballs looking at them. Each set of eyeballs will cost the taxpayers $50-$100K annually. It would take thousands of cameras to cover the same territory that one radar mounted in an a blimp can cover.
Furthermore, a fence provides a convenient place to mount cameras.
>>> Not when the Coast Guard is in the way. It's sure as hell of a lot more difficult than simply walking across the border.
I used to live in south florida the coast guard is completely ineffective in stopping illegal immigration via water bound craft.
I live in South Florida right now, and there are no stories in the news about massive illegal immigration via waterborne craft. For a while there was an attempt by larger numbers of Haitians trying to invade, but the Coast Guard intercepted the vast majority of those.
"Go around to the east coast of Florida" from where? The two main sources if waterborne immigration into Florida are from Cuba and Haiti. Anyone from the former is automatically granted asylum due to Cold War political considerations, and most of the people from the later were intercepted and sent back from where they came.
apparently you are thinking they can take a boat from Mexico near the Texas boarder and land just inside the Texas boarder, but, or course, that area of ocean is heavily patrolled by the Coast Guard. Any successful trip is going to have to originate far from the Texas boarder and probably involve hundreds of miles of ocean travel. I wouldn't want to be caught in any kind of bad weather in a 20' fishing boat, and that's highly likely on any kind of longer voyage.
>>>> how do you circumvent a microphone
1) cut the line
2) distractions
...
The lines are inside the boarder, so you would have to have already crossed successfully to cut the line. "Distractions" would simply alert the people manning the fence that something is going on.
>>> Then why are they only built in cities? The exits are easy to find when they come up in the middle of the desert. City noise will mask the sound of digging and people moving through the tunnel. That doesn't work in the middle of the desert.
Yes it does work in the desert. They are not just built in cities. They are also built in the wilderness to avoid detection for the distance. Look it up.
All the ones I've heard about are built in places like El Paso and come up in a building in the middle of the city.
If they come up within half a mile of the fence, the men manning the fence are going to notice people appearing out of nowhere in the middle of the desert.
I do agree we can effect the coyotes profit margin if we build layers upon layers of fences, radar nets, and such. But I fail so see how us going broke to build some colossal border fence is going to help this nation one bit. People adapt. Fences don't adapt. They are fixed things to be circumvented.
The fact is the Israelis have built such a wall to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of Israel, and it has been highly effective.
The empirical evidence doesn't support your claims.