TexasCHLforum.com

TexasCHLforum Rules:
11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in the Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues forum.)

Jusme wrote: I fully agree TAM, the only way to dissuade people from crossing the border is not by simply sending them back, but to make it less desirable to be here. If we would impose and enforce serious penalties on anyone hiring illegals, prohibit medical treatment for illegals, prohibit rental of housing to illegals, prosecute anyone who helps them get fraudulent documentation, we could then possibly stem the tide, but when we have sanctuary cities, elected officials refusing to prosecute, and shady business owners, it's never going to stop.

The Wall wrote:Just post snipers on the border and start picking them off as they come across. A few rifles would be much cheaper than building a wall. Would create jobs for veterans.

fickman wrote:

SA_Steve wrote:Makes me wonder why the current fence topic ("won't work") is such an issue. And folks who talk about it seem unaware that CA has a good one.

I'm all for a virtual fence.

Have you ever been to the Santa Elena Canyon or other parts of Big Bend National Park? To Big Ben Ranch State Park? To Lajitas?

My opinion is that a fence along the entire Texas border would be a travesty to Texans.

To avoid writing a dissertation, I'll quick hit some of my main reasons:
- The beauty of the parks mentioned above would be ruined.
- Black bears and other wildlife have recently reentered Texas for the first time in decades. A wall would have prevented this and other wildlife movement.
- Texans will be cut off from using the Rio Grande for recreation.
- Most of the land along the border is privately owned. It is used by ranchers, farmers, and people who need access to the water to support hunting and other activities. To build the fence would require a major use of eminent domain, cutting the private land owners away from the water. According to an article I recently read, the international treaty mandates that the fence cannot be built within the floodplains of the river, so we're talking about coming north between a few dozen to hundreds of yards to build it, essentially making millions of acres unusable.
- Without the other components (truck patrols, etc.), it will be ineffective. Even with them, it might slow down the problem, but it won't prevent it.
- We can't afford to build it (no, Mexico isn't going to be paying for it). We definitely can't afford to maintain and upgrade it. I think it will quickly become an eyesore and cost even more if future generations decide it needs to be removed.

In populated areas (major cities, the beach like you mentioned, etc.), I support a wall. I think we (and our future generations) will quickly regret building one along the entire border. We need to use technology and rapid response teams which would be much more effective (in both absolute and cost terms).

I predict I will be in the minority on this one, but those are my thoughts. I have changed significantly on this issue over the last five years.

Tracker wrote:There's no fences around Groom Lake (Area 51) and that base manages to keep people out.