Why "the fence" won't work

[Camp]

ok with me , start the country wide Arresting .

Can't it's against the law to arrest illegal immigrants.

It isn't against the law to arrest the people who knowingly hire them.

So you claim the entire problem is with those that hire them? That's like saying that if I leave my door unlock and a thief comes in and takes my belongings it's my fault for not locking the door. I've actually had someone tell me that I should be held responsible if a gun someone broke a window in my truck to steal and that was in the glove box as State law requires is used in a crime.

That is a poor comparison, no comparison at all actually. And I didn't say illegal hiring was the entire problem, I am pointing out that it is a major one, and one that can be addressed very easily it we had the will.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Securing our borders would be easy if the people coming here knew they couldn't get jobs. They get jobs because people hire them knowing they are illegal and work for cheap. Stop that practice and they will stop coming. We won't stop the practice because we are not willing to jail the owners of the business owners who profit from the illegals coming here. It really is that simple.

Let's review.

1.) Infiltrators coming here is a problem.
2.) We need to stop infiltrators from coming here.
3.) Punishing employers will stop infiltrators from invading.
4.) Absent punishing employers, do nothing to stop the invasion.

Point #4 is irrational. Better to take a multipronged approach to achieve the goal.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Estimates of completing the 1,400 miles of border fence that remain fence free range from a low of 23 billion dollars to a high of 49 billion dollars. That does not include things like monitoring, radar, watch towers manpower, drones, etc. All that for a system that may not be efficient. Spend less than a billion accountents, prosecutors and prison cells for the folks who hire illegals and we can save wheel barrels and tractor trailer loads of money. Heck, we could make the program pay for itself with fines levied against the criminals who create the problem.

$35,000,000 per mile for fencing?

 

[Rikurzhen]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

 

[mudwhistle]

Because they never have.

During the Vietnam War This Is How 8230



Inside Mexico s Drug Tunnels - Photo Essays - TIME

Minefields work much better.

 

[Rikurzhen]

3000 mile fence, sentries every what 100 meters? 35,000-40,000 new hires needed, but Republicans are against taxes...Hmm, dilemna.

Only a simpleton would construct such a system.

1.) Create the 3,000 mile long physical barrier.
2.) Erect monitoring equipment along the barrier.
3.) Create a roadway running parallel with the barrier.
4.) Create section command HQ every 150 miles.
5.) Maintain balloon/blimp based overview which can spot thermal signatures of approaching infiltrators.
6.) Use modern management techniques to allocate officers to predicted breach zones to greet the infiltrators.

When we can spot approaching infiltrators from a long way away, then we don't need to maintain Johnny on the Spot Border Agents at seldom used border sections. We maintain heavier agent presence in more populated sections of the border where the LEAD TIME from first observation to time of crossing is smaller. A complicated fence system slows down the border crossing time and enables agents to arrive in time to capture the infiltrators.

 

[Conservative65]

ok with me , start the country wide Arresting .

Can't it's against the law to arrest illegal immigrants.

It isn't against the law to arrest the people who knowingly hire them.

So you claim the entire problem is with those that hire them? That's like saying that if I leave my door unlock and a thief comes in and takes my belongings it's my fault for not locking the door. I've actually had someone tell me that I should be held responsible if a gun someone broke a window in my truck to steal and that was in the glove box as State law requires is used in a crime.

That is a poor comparison, no comparison at all actually. And I didn't say illegal hiring was the entire problem, I am pointing out that it is a major one, and one that can be addressed very easily it we had the will.

I agree it's a major problem but your entire post mentioned only the employers.

Deporting illegals would also be addressed very easily if we deported all of them then put armed guards at the border. Too many don't have the will to do that including those who think it's perfectly OK for them to commit a criminal act coming here simply because they are wanting to better themselves.

 

[Camp]

Estimates of completing the 1,400 miles of border fence that remain fence free range from a low of 23 billion dollars to a high of 49 billion dollars. That does not include things like monitoring, radar, watch towers manpower, drones, etc. All that for a system that may not be efficient. Spend less than a billion accountents, prosecutors and prison cells for the folks who hire illegals and we can save wheel barrels and tractor trailer loads of money. Heck, we could make the program pay for itself with fines levied against the criminals who create the problem.

$35,000,000 per mile for fencing?

Cost are different from area to area. It isn't just the actual fence that comes into the cost. A lot of the border is on private property and has to be bought or confiscated. The confiscation brings in court cost. Also, the terrain differs from section to section. From what I have read, it looks like the average is about 6.5 million per mile. Seems to be a lot of maintenance and repair included in the price.
Using fencing in selected high traffic areas near populated areas appears to have value, but trying to do the whole border appears to be a huge boondoggle.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Estimates of completing the 1,400 miles of border fence that remain fence free range from a low of 23 billion dollars to a high of 49 billion dollars. That does not include things like monitoring, radar, watch towers manpower, drones, etc. All that for a system that may not be efficient. Spend less than a billion accountents, prosecutors and prison cells for the folks who hire illegals and we can save wheel barrels and tractor trailer loads of money. Heck, we could make the program pay for itself with fines levied against the criminals who create the problem.

$35,000,000 per mile for fencing?

Cost are different from area to area. It isn't just the actual fence that comes into the cost. A lot of the border is on private property and has to be bought or confiscated. The confiscation brings in court cost. Also, the terrain differs from section to section. From what I have read, it looks like the average is about 6.5 million per mile. Seems to be a lot of maintenance and repair included in the price.
Using fencing in selected high traffic areas near populated areas appears to have value, but trying to do the whole border appears to be a huge boondoggle.

Think of how much money we could save if we didn't fund police departments. Catching criminals is hard work and police aren't 100% efficient at the task. Better to save the money that to spend it.

 

[Camp]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

 

[Rikurzhen]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Right. So, extrapolate. The manpower resources adjacent to a fenced section can now be redeployed, thinned down, to sections which have more crossings. Keep extending the fence and you create a funneling effect, think of it like shooting fish in a barrel. Extend the fence across the entire border and then you can concentrate on detecting the tunnels and blowing ships out of the water.

 

[Vandalshandle]

ok with me , start the country wide Arresting .

Can't it's against the law to arrest illegal immigrants.

It isn't against the law to arrest the people who knowingly hire them.

So you claim the entire problem is with those that hire them? That's like saying that if I leave my door unlock and a thief comes in and takes my belongings it's my fault for not locking the door. I've actually had someone tell me that I should be held responsible if a gun someone broke a window in my truck to steal and that was in the glove box as State law requires is used in a crime.

That is a poor comparison, no comparison at all actually. And I didn't say illegal hiring was the entire problem, I am pointing out that it is a major one, and one that can be addressed very easily it we had the will.

I agree it's a major problem but your entire post mentioned only the employers.

Deporting illegals would also be addressed very easily if we deported all of them then put armed guards at the border. Too many don't have the will to do that including those who think it's perfectly OK for them to commit a criminal act coming here simply because they are wanting to better themselves.

...so the government should use these armed guards to gun down people suspected of committing a misdemeanor without a trial?

I can hear the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves....

 

[Rikurzhen]

Fences don't work? Tell the Israelis:

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Security Agency report that in 2002, there were 452 fatalities from terrorist attacks. Before the completion of the first continuous segment (July 2003) from the beginning of the Second Intifada, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. After the completion of the first continuous segment through the end of 2006, there were only 12 attacks based in the West Bank, killing 64 people and wounding 445.[5] Terrorist attacks declined in 2007[5] and 2008[42] to 9 in 2010.[43]​

 

[Camp]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Right. So, extrapolate. The manpower resources adjacent to a fenced section can now be redeployed, thinned down, to sections which have more crossings. Keep extending the fence and you create a funneling effect, think of it like shooting fish in a barrel. Extend the fence across the entire border and then you can concentrate on detecting the tunnels and blowing ships out of the water.

The article indicated a large number of systems and manpower are used to maintain the fence in San Diego. Two fences, flood lights, a no man's land 150 feet wide, and trucks manned by border patrol.
It seems like you want to argue or ignore the many estimates of the cost of the fence strategy to cover the entire border. There really is no way around that cost. So why all the resistance against simply enforcing illegal hiring practices and laws that are cost effective and proven to be efficient where they have been applied? The answer is simple, corruption and the control special interest have over our politicians.

 

[Rikurzhen]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Right. So, extrapolate. The manpower resources adjacent to a fenced section can now be redeployed, thinned down, to sections which have more crossings. Keep extending the fence and you create a funneling effect, think of it like shooting fish in a barrel. Extend the fence across the entire border and then you can concentrate on detecting the tunnels and blowing ships out of the water.

The article indicated a large number of systems and manpower are used to maintain the fence in San Diego. Two fences, flood lights, a no man's land 150 feet wide, and trucks manned by border patrol.
It seems like you want to argue or ignore the many estimates of the cost of the fence strategy to cover the entire border. There really is no way around that cost. So why all the resistance against simply enforcing illegal hiring practices and laws that are cost effective and proven to be efficient where they have been applied? The answer is simple, corruption and the control special interest have over our politicians.

I don't care about the cost, just like I don't care about the cost of paying for police. I have no problem with employer sanctions at all, but unlike you, I'm not fixated on carting employers off to jail as some kind of perverse revenge fantasy. Fine, let's punish employers if you can create a coalition to bring that about, but let's not hold up less contentious approaches which will do the job.

Yes, there is corruption in the political system. Republicans are very aware of this, hence the battle between the grass roots who want to stop immigration and the Democratic and Republican politicians who want to expand it in order to please their paymasters. Getting politicians to pass laws to imprison employers is going to be a tougher sell than building a wall. Smart people tend to pick the lowest hanging fruit rather than doing nothing until the most difficult option becomes feasible.

 

[Camp]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Right. So, extrapolate. The manpower resources adjacent to a fenced section can now be redeployed, thinned down, to sections which have more crossings. Keep extending the fence and you create a funneling effect, think of it like shooting fish in a barrel. Extend the fence across the entire border and then you can concentrate on detecting the tunnels and blowing ships out of the water.

The article indicated a large number of systems and manpower are used to maintain the fence in San Diego. Two fences, flood lights, a no man's land 150 feet wide, and trucks manned by border patrol.
It seems like you want to argue or ignore the many estimates of the cost of the fence strategy to cover the entire border. There really is no way around that cost. So why all the resistance against simply enforcing illegal hiring practices and laws that are cost effective and proven to be efficient where they have been applied? The answer is simple, corruption and the control special interest have over our politicians.

I don't care about the cost, just like I don't care about the cost of paying for police. I have no problem with employer sanctions at all, but unlike you, I'm not fixated on carting employers off to jail as some kind of perverse revenge fantasy. Fine, let's punish employers if you can create a coalition to bring that about, but let's not hold up less contentious approaches which will do the job.

Yes, there is corruption in the political system. Republicans are very aware of this, hence the battle between the grass roots who want to stop immigration and the Democratic and Republican politicians who want to expand it in order to please their paymasters. Getting politicians to pass laws to imprison employers is going to be a tougher sell than building a wall. Smart people tend to pick the lowest hanging fruit rather than doing nothing until the most difficult option becomes feasible.

We already have the laws, they just aren't enforced. And enforcing those laws is not a matter of revenge against business owners. It proposes the simple implementation of laws already on the books to use a pragmatic strategy to resolve and solve a national problem. Hire illegal's to work at your business and you get a hefty fine than makes your illegal hiring unprofitable. Do it again and you get a vacation.

 

[westwall]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Oh, so you mean it DOES work where it is actually emplaced. I see. Soooooooo, if one were to you know....build it elsewhere, I guess that would work too then wouldn't it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Right. So, extrapolate. The manpower resources adjacent to a fenced section can now be redeployed, thinned down, to sections which have more crossings. Keep extending the fence and you create a funneling effect, think of it like shooting fish in a barrel. Extend the fence across the entire border and then you can concentrate on detecting the tunnels and blowing ships out of the water.

The article indicated a large number of systems and manpower are used to maintain the fence in San Diego. Two fences, flood lights, a no man's land 150 feet wide, and trucks manned by border patrol.
It seems like you want to argue or ignore the many estimates of the cost of the fence strategy to cover the entire border. There really is no way around that cost. So why all the resistance against simply enforcing illegal hiring practices and laws that are cost effective and proven to be efficient where they have been applied? The answer is simple, corruption and the control special interest have over our politicians.

I don't care about the cost, just like I don't care about the cost of paying for police. I have no problem with employer sanctions at all, but unlike you, I'm not fixated on carting employers off to jail as some kind of perverse revenge fantasy. Fine, let's punish employers if you can create a coalition to bring that about, but let's not hold up less contentious approaches which will do the job.

Yes, there is corruption in the political system. Republicans are very aware of this, hence the battle between the grass roots who want to stop immigration and the Democratic and Republican politicians who want to expand it in order to please their paymasters. Getting politicians to pass laws to imprison employers is going to be a tougher sell than building a wall. Smart people tend to pick the lowest hanging fruit rather than doing nothing until the most difficult option becomes feasible.

We already have the laws, they just aren't enforced. And enforcing those laws is not a matter of revenge against business owners. It proposes the simple implementation of laws already on the books to use a pragmatic strategy to resolve and solve a national problem. Hire illegal's to work at your business and you get a hefty fine than makes your illegal hiring unprofitable. Do it again and you get a vacation.

And we also have laws against illegal infiltrators crossing the border but when government doesn't enforce the laws then we're in a bit of a pickle.

ICE could be raiding the State of the Union address and hauling away the infiltrator props the President has sitting in the audience, ICE could have arrested Obama's aunt and shipped her to Africa, ICE can raid schools and pick up infiltrator children, same with universities. We could be having glorious mass deportations if only the laws were faithfully executed.

If we can't count on laws being enforced, then an actual barrier to crossing is far, far, far better than no barrier, even if it is understaffed by purposeful design from footdragging politicians.

 

[westwall]

Can't it's against the law to arrest illegal immigrants.

It isn't against the law to arrest the people who knowingly hire them.

So you claim the entire problem is with those that hire them? That's like saying that if I leave my door unlock and a thief comes in and takes my belongings it's my fault for not locking the door. I've actually had someone tell me that I should be held responsible if a gun someone broke a window in my truck to steal and that was in the glove box as State law requires is used in a crime.

That is a poor comparison, no comparison at all actually. And I didn't say illegal hiring was the entire problem, I am pointing out that it is a major one, and one that can be addressed very easily it we had the will.

I agree it's a major problem but your entire post mentioned only the employers.

Deporting illegals would also be addressed very easily if we deported all of them then put armed guards at the border. Too many don't have the will to do that including those who think it's perfectly OK for them to commit a criminal act coming here simply because they are wanting to better themselves.

...so the government should use these armed guards to gun down people suspected of committing a misdemeanor without a trial?

I can hear the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves....

I believe the term is "catch and release"..... on THEIR side of the border. There's nothing in his post that implies killing them.

 

[Oldglory1]

My views aren't extremist, yours are. My views are pragmatic. I'm not the one suggesting 10's of billions of dollars be spent on a system that doesn't work and never has worked anywhere in the world. That is the definition of extremism.

From National Pravda Radio:

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."​

It works at relatively small sections. It hasn't worked to slow the overall numbers of illegal crosser's. They just go to different places to cross.

Right. So, extrapolate. The manpower resources adjacent to a fenced section can now be redeployed, thinned down, to sections which have more crossings. Keep extending the fence and you create a funneling effect, think of it like shooting fish in a barrel. Extend the fence across the entire border and then you can concentrate on detecting the tunnels and blowing ships out of the water.

The article indicated a large number of systems and manpower are used to maintain the fence in San Diego. Two fences, flood lights, a no man's land 150 feet wide, and trucks manned by border patrol.
It seems like you want to argue or ignore the many estimates of the cost of the fence strategy to cover the entire border. There really is no way around that cost. So why all the resistance against simply enforcing illegal hiring practices and laws that are cost effective and proven to be efficient where they have been applied? The answer is simple, corruption and the control special interest have over our politicians.

You can't put a price on national security. It's much cheaper to build a good physical barrier than to allow illegal aliens to run rampant in our country costing us billions a year. Besides, criminals and terrorists aren't looking for jobs so penalizing the employers will do nothing to stop those types from coming here. Other than that I am all for mandating e-verify across the board to stop both the employers and these illegals from breaking our labor laws.