Wall $$$$ will be reallocated

Wayne Harrison wrote: I don't waste my time imagining scenarios that will never happen. I've got better things to do with my life.

But, can you prove separate entrances and exit doors, as you posited, make the building more secure? Are you advocating for separate entrance and exits at the U.S/Mexico border? If you aren't, then why bring it up in a discussion of border security?

You're putting words in my mouth or not understanding what I'm getting at. Let me make it a little more clear...

More openings to a secure area require more people to guard those openings.
Can we agree on that?

If you go to the Bronco stadium, they have a limited number of openings where people are allowed to pass through, but every opening in the fence requires a number of people to prevent people from entering without a ticket. If the stadium decided to double the amount of openings, wouldn't you also have to double the amount of people required to guard those extra openings? People can still climb the fence and bypass the openings, but those people are much easier to catch, especially compared to a scenario where there is no fence at all.

It's just basic common sense and I'm always surprised at how uncommon it seems to be for some.

Please explain why it is easier to catch these people slipping through the fence than it is to catch people in areas where there is no fence.

Comments?

Wayne Harrison wrote:

Please explain why it is easier to catch these people slipping through the fence than it is to catch people in areas where there is no fence.

Holes in fences need to be repaired. I've seen a lot of old chain link on that border that was easily cut. That's not an effective deterrent, obviously.

But again I have to ask you, if a fence is not a deterrent and makes no difference to the people who are responsible for patrolling our border, why are there no calls from the left to remove the fence/walls?

Before I give up on this one I'd just like you to answer two questions Wayne.

#1. Do you believe the United States should have control of it's borders and know who is trying to cross illegally?

#2. If you do believe the US should have control over it's borders, how would you suggest that happen in the most effective and efficient way possible?

PASSPORTS.....like every other country. CHECKPOINTS AND ENOUGH $$$ to man those checkpoints.
(yes,we have a large area to secure, but it is at the VERY LEAST a start.

homeagain wrote: PASSPORTS.....like every other country. CHECKPOINTS AND ENOUGH $$$ to man those checkpoints.
(yes,we have a large area to secure, but it is at the VERY LEAST a start.

HA, in order to have checkpoints you need a barrier between them. the argument that walls do not work is goofy.

gov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2021/03/26/gover...ka-lands-and-waters/

then I guess it is up to every state to secure their borders/land.....ALASKANS live in close proximity to RUSSIA...WE have a close and present danger every hour.

I don't have the all knowing answer...I KNOW that thinking out of the box, is what ALASKANS do the best.

homeagain wrote: gov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2021/03/26/gover...ka-lands-and-waters/

then I guess it is up to every state to secure their borders/land.....ALASKANS live in close proximity to RUSSIA...WE have a close and present danger every hour.

I don't have the all knowing answer...I KNOW that thinking out of the box, is what ALASKANS do the best.

The subject at hand is the southern border. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Rick wrote: Before I give up on this one I'd just like you to answer two questions Wayne.

#1. Do you believe the United States should have control of it's borders and know who is trying to cross illegally?

#2. If you do believe the US should have control over it's borders, how would you suggest that happen in the most effective and efficient way possible?

[/b]

BORDERS...PLURAL, I ANSWERED THE QUESTION FROM A PLURAL PERSPECTIVE.