To all those who said a virtual fence is the answer …

[Dorian Gray]

Something tells me BAC has me on ignore. This is because he has mistaken JREF for a choir he can preach to. So will someone quote my last post and make a comment so BAC can see it?

 

[Frank Newgent]

You hear that America? Kevin is for open borders. Freely admits it. Now do you really want his philosophy to prevail? Do you think that won't negatively affect your life? Because if you don't agree with him, you'd better get out there and vote out the people who are for open borders ... and that would be the democrats ... in coming elections. As is, it may already be too late. Because it's now the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Law.

Why not install an invisible fence? Then we just do a catch, tag and release with illegals, and the shock when they try to cross keeps them out!

Oh, um, are you planning on putting a fence along our border with Canada? Because if not, then you are for open borders too. I like illegal immigrants. They keep prices low. It's better for them, and better for me. Pretty much every capitalist big business owner likes it too, because the less you have to pay your workers, the more money you get to keep. You know who doesn't like it? People who actually want to build houses, dig ditches, babysit, housekeep, landscape, pick fruit or clean pools, but who won't work for wages as low as the illegals will.

But that would be the unions. Surely you aren't supportive of unions, BAC, big honking conservative like you? But it sounds like you are not only supportive of unions and protectionism for American workers, but against letting the free market decide what wages a job will pay.

Why, it almost sounds like...... OMG, you're a socialist! Gasp!

For some reason I hear the sound of ducks.

 

[BeAChooser]

For some reason I hear the sound of ducks.

The only ducks I hear, Frank, is the sound coming from those ignoring news like this:

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100617_9865.php?oref=rss?zone=NGtoday

SBInet has been troubled almost from the moment DHS awarded the initial $2.5 billion contract to Boeing Co. in September 2006. Delays, cost overruns and performance issues mounted until January 2010, when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordered an assessment of SBInet to determine if it should continue. ... snip ...

In March, Napolitano froze spending on the project until the assessment could be completed, and she reallocated $50 million of Recovery Act funding earmarked for SBInet's first phase in the Tucson and Ajo, Ariz., areas to technologies that have a better track record.

Did she mean real fences? Nope. So what were those technologies? Just curious.

More from the above source:

Although Borkowski did not reveal results of the assessment, a Government Accountability Office report released in May, which was referenced during the hearing, stated the capabilities of the first incremental phase of SBInet "have continued to shrink from what the department previously committed to deliver."

For example, the geographical footprint for the initial phase was reduced from about 655 miles to about 387 miles, and the technology performance standards were loosened to require the systems be able to detect and identify suspicious border crossings 49 percent of the time, instead of the original 90 percent rate.

LOL! I guarantee that a REAL fence built for $15 a million a mile (or even a third of that) would do far more than just detect and identify 49% of border crossings. It would prevent more than that number entirely. Anyone foolish enough to disagree that that assertion? You, Frank?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_81b08384-0b8e-5d38-acd1-476f0a1e88ca.html

June 18, 2010

... snip ...

A Government Accountability Office official questioned the cost-effectiveness of the SBInet program that has been allocated about $1 billion over the past five years and has yet to produce a working system.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Fence installed in the middle of nowhere is easily destroyed. Might that have something to do with this?

 

[BeAChooser]

Hey Frank,

Four years ago, a bill was passed, with support from Senator Obama, to build 700-miles of double-layer border fence. So why has only 34 miles actually been built (13 miles in Texas, 12 miles in California and 9 miles in Arizona)? In fact, under Obama only 2.3 miles has been built. In July of 2009, Senator DeMint offered an amendment to the DHS spending bill forcing Obama to finish the fence. It passed with 21 democrats supporting it. Of course democrats later removed the amendment from the bill in closed session at the behest of the Whitehouse. Because it doesn't want anything that might effectively slow the flow of would be democrats across the border. Janet Napolitano boasted that "We can shore up our border gaps with ground-based sensors, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles,” she said. “Any combination of the above will work far better than any 10 or 20 or 50 miles of wall.” Well clearly she was wrong. (As she has been about so many things.) We now have the proof. So let's stop being stuck on stupid and build a fence. We know they work and they cost a fraction of this virtual pipe dream that democrats pushed.

 

[Frank Newgent]

1. Mojados can't vote.

2. Fence is expensive.

3. Fence in the middle of nowhere, generally, develops holes.

.

 

[BeAChooser]

Fence installed in the middle of nowhere is easily destroyed.

LOL! All you are proving is that you don't understand the operation of a real fence system and aren't even interested in understanding it. Nor do you apparently understand the virtual fence.

First, a real fence is no more in the middle of nowhere than a virtual fence. Both must still have quick reaction forces (people) to intercept and detain anyone who broaches the system. But the task of penetrating a virtual fence and the time needed to do it is much smaller than the time and effort needed to penetrate a real multi-fence system. And because of that, the manpower demands of a virtual system are much higher if it's going to have anywhere near the same effectiveness. And the false alarm rate of a virtual system will also be much higher than with a real fence. That too drives up manpower demands. Unless you intend to close off a region several miles deep along the border to the public, animals and wind.

And why do you think a virtual fence isn't vulnerable to costly damage or destruction, Frank? Don't be silly. All those highly sensitive sensors? LOL!

Towers like these

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow...eng-US/0317-virtual-border-fence_full_600.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/Ravo/blog/Border fence2.jpg

and sensors like these

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/update-boeing-virtual-fence-unusable.jpg

will be very vulnerable, and are all you have to damage or destroy to effectively bring the system down. Not so with a real fence, the barrier is the prime obstacle. You could destroy the sensors and communication on those virtual fence towers with a high powered rifle, possibly while standing in Mexico. Never mind the real possibility of simply jamming them. Something you can't do to a real fence/wall. One like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZxKAf8oOw...yu0QSZpaGMs/s400/wall-barrier-fence-tower.jpg

which, btw, cost a fraction of the so-called "virtual fence" demonstration projects. In fact, how would illegals fire over that wall to take out the sensors on the other side? Even the sensors are more secure with a real fence system.

 

[BeAChooser]

1. Mojados can't vote.

Don't kid yourself. There have already been irregularities in elections in California involving illegals. And you know as well as I that Obama and the democrats are pushing for another amnesty that will make them eligible to vote, just like the last bunch now are eligible.

2. Fence is expensive.

But apparently far less expensive than the virtual fence. You did read the OP article before opening you mouth, didn't you?

3. Fence in the middle of nowhere, generally, develops holes.

Like I said, you don't understand the proposed real fence systems at all ... or for that matter the virtual fence systems. You are just throwing out red herrings hoping that will suffice in this debate. But you really are only embarrassing yourself, Frank. You look a little desperate.

 

[Damien Evans]

You can have all the incentive in the world but a well designed fence will keep you out. As the Israeli wall has proven against folks willing to martyr themselves to kill Israelis. Incentive doesn't get any better than all those promised virgins in paradise.



No, clearly you are the one who doesn't want to solve the problem.

Then why does Australia get Illegal immigrants when we have a natural fence of several hundred kilometres of ocean?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Then why does Australia get Illegal immigrants when we have a natural fence of several hundred kilometres of ocean?

I dunno, you seem to be having some luck combining that with artificial fences:http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7358009/leonora-asylum-seekers-arrive/

 

[Frank Newgent]

Don't kid yourself. There have already been irregularities in elections in California involving illegals. And you know as well as I that Obama and the democrats are pushing for another amnesty that will make them eligible to vote, just like the last bunch now are eligible.



But apparently far less expensive than the virtual fence. You did read the OP article before opening you mouth, didn't you?



Like I said, you don't understand the proposed real fence systems at all ... or for that matter the virtual fence systems. You are just throwing out red herrings hoping that will suffice in this debate. But you really are only embarrassing yourself, Frank. You look a little desperate.

Don't know why you assume I defend building a virtual fence. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

How would non-virtual fence be protected from becoming compromised?

 

[BeAChooser]

Then why does Australia get Illegal immigrants when we have a natural fence of several hundred kilometres of ocean?

You never heard of a thing called a boat?

 

[BeAChooser]

I dunno, you seem to be having some luck combining that with artificial fences:http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7358009/leonora-asylum-seekers-arrive/

From that article:

This morning a green screen was visible between dongas inside the central compound, about 80 metres inside the facility' outer fence.

Why that implies they use at least a double fence.

 

[BeAChooser]

Don't know why you assume I defend building a virtual fence. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

Well then that begs the question. Do you favor anything at the border to try and deter/detain illegals crossing it?

How would non-virtual fence be protected from becoming compromised?

Ask the Israelis. Their fence system faces a much more determined and well equipped opponent than what ours would face. And it's still standing and working.

 

[DDWW]

Double fence.

The Pima County Animal Control is overflowing with pit bull mixes. Give these dogs a job of patroling between the fences. win-win.

Back them up with officers (with real guns and ammo).

Works very well in some US prisons.


DDWW

 

[BeAChooser]

The Pima County Animal Control is overflowing with pit bull mixes. Give these dogs a job of patroling between the fences. win-win.

How about "you catch it, you get to eat it"? I'm sure that will deter attempts.

 

[marplots]

Keep out ILLEGAL immigrants. We're not against legal immigration.

Well, there's your answer right there. No wall at all. Just change the laws. Allow a worker visa for whomever wants one. Problem solved.

And why does the, "Just build a wall" solution sound to me so much like the, "Just nuke the oil leak" solution? Oh, I know... because of the remark from H.L. Menken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

 

[Davidlpf]

I am half tempted to go down to Mexico to teach the Mexicans how to build trebuchets.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Don't know why you assume I defend building a virtual fence. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

Well then that begs the question. Do you favor anything at the border to try and deter/detain illegals crossing it?

You misuse the term "beg the question". That aside, I think any border fence in a remote area is a waste of money.

How would non-virtual fence be protected from becoming compromised?

Ask the Israelis. Their fence system faces a much more determined and well equipped opponent than what ours would face. And it's still standing and working.

I know nothing about this aside from what I just googled. Not difficult to find stories about fence breaches though.

Bound to happen in very very sparsely populated areas.