TexasCHLforum.com

I spent some time recently in San Diego / Coronado, CA. Wealthy lefty beach and horse farm areas south of town.

Drove along the beach highway down to the border and even drove along the wall on the park road (before being stopped by INS for a little friendly interrogatory).

It is an excellent high steel wall fence with full time truck patrols and lots of video towers. Not to mention the beach outpost looking for folks heading out into the Pacific and making a U-turn.

You can google map it and even "street view" along the fence on both sides of the border.

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 was stationed in San Diego during the time they built the fence there... even stood private security at a company that was right on the border in Otay Mesa when the fence went thru there... extends all the way to the mountains east of Otay.. at that time was 18 miles long.... they have senors all over the place... probably more now then back in the 80's

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.

Since Trump will have it built I bet it will be a nice one!

A lot of Texans use the water resources of the Rio Grande and this would likely kill the economy of the region as well as affect ag products, and I mean the legal ones.

fickman wrote: - 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.

fickman wrote: - 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.

Thank you for adding new perspective to this for me. I think most of us have seen this as primarily a human rights issue, not a property rights or wildlife conservation issue. In fact, I wonder if anyone has posed a question to Mr. Trump from this angle, and likewise wonder how he would respond to higher level issues and concerns when the issue is no longer black and white....

I agree much on the aesthetics and private property issues... but it Would work, which is the argument that I'm making. And there are lots of places it's needed. Surviving Big Bend would be much like the poor folks that try crossing south of Tucson, near Ruby, AZ and all the way back east to Nogales. Don't need a fence there at all.

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.

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.

I'm trying to share this info with some friends would you mind posting a link to the article if you can find it?

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.

I'm not a Trump supporter (I voted for Cruz, but I believe that Trump will be the GOP nominee). But I have listened intently to the debates, town halls, and rally speeches that he gives. He never has recommended building a wall along the entire border.

He had said time and time again, that much of the border already has a natural border (i.e. the Rio Grande) and that he wouldn't build a wall where there is already a natural boundary. He says that we have about 2000 miles of border with Mexico and only need about 1000 miles of wall.

And let's not jump to conclusions about whether or not Trump could negotiate a deal for Mexico to pay for at least half of the wall. He hasn't played his hand in full, but he talks at every event about the US trade deficit with Mexico and how many US companies are moving production to Mexico, and about how he has plans built into his tax plan and other plans that will bring Us businesses back to the US from Mexico. We have a ton of leverage with Mexico that we currently aren't in any position to use because of government regulations and the current administration's policies.

Make no mistake. By stating his intention that Mexico will pay for the wall, Trump has already started the negotiation.

Jose Caleron (as if it matters what the former Presidente says) has also engaged in negotiation with Trump by saying that Mexico won't pay a cent.

Both sides have presented their MDO (most desirable outcome) and if Trump is elected President (or Cruz, or Rubio, or Kasich, or Carson, or any other of the GOP candidates that has advocated building a wall) then it is time to use leverage, make compromises, and find the win-win.

I used to be in favor of a fence but not so much anymore. I knew someone (may he RIP) did mission work in El Paso related to illegals. (One woman in particular owned farming land on the boarder. A cartel killed her husband because he would not mule drugs across the boarder for them. Then they threaten to do the same to her son 15 year old son if he didn't comply. So she took the drugs across along with the mans death certificate across the river and strait to boader patrol. Her and her son now live in the mission and don't want to be there. I don't blame anyone for wanting to get out of there.) ...Anyway, that working got him having discussions with boarder patrol. BP uses drones and they told him they could literally see a rat poop on the ground. And that the drones' heat cameras, obviously, work much better at night. It just seems to me that a comprehensive virtual fence would be cheaper and still be effective. There's no fences around Groom Lake (Area 51) and that base manages to keep people out.

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.

Yeah because you'll get shot trying to go in there.
Same would happen if it was legal to shoot illegals coming into the country, they would come across a whole lot less often.

Whatever the methodology, the border must be secured.

Here is a wild idea. I know it sounds crazy but why not put the illegal immigrants in jail when they are caught?

I would imagine about two years working on the roads and parks the first time they are caught would be somewhat of a deterrence. Five years the second time and ten years the third time.

We probably wouldn’t even need a wall or a fence, just signs marking the border.

Well I told you it is a wild idea. Probably the reason no one has considered it.

VoiceofReason wrote:Here is a wild idea. I know it sounds crazy but why not put the illegal immigrants in jail when they are caught?

I would imagine about two years working on the roads and parks the first time they are caught would be somewhat of a deterrence. Five years the second time and ten years the third time.

We probably wouldn’t even need a wall or a fence, just signs marking the border.

Well I told you it is a wild idea. Probably the reason no one has considered it.

We may need to make some room in our prisons first.