| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Highway sound barriers would make quick border wall |
| 2005-10-11 |
| As discussion of erecting a security fence along U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada heats up, some analysts say it's possible Washington could economically erect thousands of miles of barrier to keep out illegal aliens, smugglers and terrorists, for about half of what the Pentagon is spending a month to fight the war on terror. The idea, they say, is to erect a structure similar to barrier walls built along highways to reduce sound. They are sturdy, tall, not easily scaled and, most attractively, affordable. Plus, analysts say, a wall would dramatically reduce outside threats. The Federal Highway Administration says most highway sound barriers are constructed of concrete or masonry block, range from 3-5 meters [9-16 feet] in height, and cost between $175 and $200 a square meter. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, there are "more than 2,630 linear miles of sound barriers" along U.S. highways, constructed at a cost of some $1.4 billion. By comparison, the Pentagon is spending about $3.9 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, not counting rebuilding costs, the Associated Press has reported. One group, WeNeedAFence.com, is advocating the construction of a "state-of-the-art fence" along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, a plan it says would dramatically reduce illegal immigration. The group points to the fact that similar security fences in Israel have reduced terrorist attacks there by as much as 95 percent in some regions. Lee Plank, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Diamond Manufacturing Company in Wyoming, Pa., says his company has not been approached about border security fences, but, he said, they would be a good idea. "I think they'd have to be about 10 feet high," he told WND, and would cost "about $636,000 a mile" to build. That's about $1.27 billion for 2,000 miles of border fence, similar to the government's figures. Plank, who says his company specializes in sound-absorbing corrugated metal walls, said a border security fence "would save a lot on manpower." "It would be interesting to see them on the borders," he added. Mike Flick of Oldcastle Precast Group, a nationwide leader in both highway and security fencing, told WND the idea of border fencing is certainly doable, but the design, depth and other particulars would need to be worked out. WeNeedAFence.com officials say a border fence makes sense in this day and age. "The problem is not merely the number of illegal immigrants. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Central and South America, there are several hundreds, perhaps thousands, of illegal aliens from countries that sponsor terrorism or harbor terrorists entering the United States each year across our border with Mexico. Thus, it is a national security issue as well as an immigration issue," the group says on its website. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security also believe in erecting new fences or strengthening existing ones as a way to bolster security. Last month DHS quietly implemented a pair of measures aimed to bring regions of the southwestern border under control. One measure "makes it easier for officials to remove non-Mexican illegal immigrants, popularly called 'other than Mexicans' or OTMs," U.S. News & World Report said, "while another adds yet one more level of fortification to a metal wall stretching along parts of the border." "They clearly did this when no one was looking," complained Tim Edgar, an immigration specialist with the American Civil Liberties Union. "And I'm worried DHS is trying to set new norms for how we treat immigrants in the United States." Border Patrol agents have praised fences as a means to deter border-jumping. One San Diego-area agent, speaking on anonymity, told WND fences constructed there have "dramatically" reduced the incidents of illegal immigration, though, the agent conceded, many immigrants have merely moved inland, east of the area where the San Diego fence line ended, to sneak into the country. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #26 Might I suggest the addition of signs on the far side of the wall: !Peligroso! !Minas Terrestres! |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-10-11 23:32 |
| #25 make it so |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-11 22:31 |
| #24 Recent polls in Mexico showed that 60% wanted to move to the US. That's their damned problem. It would be cheaper and easier for everyone if we just conquered made them a US territory and fixed the place and showed them how rule of law works. Uhh, no. They've been our next-door neighbor (albeit a very poor one) for quite a long time, and after having had front row seats watching what goes on here for all this time, they still can't get their act together? They need to fix themselves, instead of leeching off the Yanqui neighbor. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-11 22:22 |
| #23 I can just imagine the outcry about the effect on the environment... |
| Posted by: DanNY 2005-10-11 21:43 |
| #22 excellent....my beachfront retirement hacienda ! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-11 18:13 |
| #21 Recent polls in Mexico showed that 60% wanted to move to the US. It would be cheaper and easier for everyone if we just conquered made them a US territory and fixed the place and showed them how rule of law works. |
| Posted by: Jingo Gringo 2005-10-11 17:14 |
| #20 good comments above - work paid properly will get done legally. BTW - check out the source of your out-of-season fruits and veggies in the grocery store: Peru, Columbia, Mexico, etc. are already doing the farming (and shipping here at decent prices, too). Things are actually picking up due to the trade pacts, just do it LEGALLY. No amnesty, no illegals, build the friggin friendship fence |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-11 16:34 |
| #19 And then quadruple the size of the Coast Guard and build the blimp barrier. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-10-11 16:30 |
| #18 Simple. Make it a "government work" project. Minority contractors. Grade and gravel 5 lanes worth, then build, pave and maintain a 3 lane hardtop hiway (E, W, and center lane) along the border, with 12 foot concrete barrier wall (4-stacked overlapped K-rail with rebar rods to hold it will do - easily bought, easily repaired) on the Mexico-facing side, and 2 10 foot chain links (concertina wire topped, barbed wire in the inner fence) on the US side. Build fairly spartan "patrol" stations every 90-120 miles (so nothing is more than an hours drive from a patrol station), and major "battalion" stations to control them and sensors (with helicopter, processing and arrest areas, etc). Most observation could be automated, with AI and video combined to alert sensor operators that a sector needs a close look, and then local patrol woudl be sent to investigate (or helicopter if its urgent). UAV could augment this as well as aerostats (fairly inexpensive). Road pays for itself in reducing wear and tear on border patrol vehicles, make a very visible enforceable and observable strip, and provides good kickbacks to local and state and congress for the construction funds (lets face it: political grease works). Start by putting aerostats up over the rougher terrain, and building the barrier road over the easy long stretches. |
| Posted by: Hupiting Slereper7794 2005-10-11 15:50 |
| #17 No rant from me on this subject..only this. Americans can and will do any work if the pay is right and the status for hard work is accorded. It is elitest³ to look down on manual [no pun intended] work. College and high school kids used to pick tons of fruit, vegis & fiber years ago for cash. add construction, restuarants, Garden shops, gardners, etc. etc. etc. *job status* Would you probe nasty assholes for a living? Not likely..but proctologist do so everyday and are accorded the letters of Dr. [status] in front of their name. To me it seems ironic as hell that folks sit at desks all day long and then pay monthly fees so that after work they can spend an hour or two working out in a gym to stay healthy and fit. /whew, just wasted 2 calories. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-10-11 15:30 |
| #16 Get the Army Corps of Engineers to do the work putting the fence up. I'm for fencing the whole damn thing despite the cost. Use masonary in high traffic areas and chain link in other areas. I think fencing in part of the border will just move the migration routes into the desert. I'd rather have fences and walls than water fountains built to keep the illegals alive in an area they shouldn't be in in the first place. And regarding those lost jobs. A lot of teenagers used to mow lawns (and outside of the Southwest they still do). Beyond if the giant corporate farms in the US cannot survive without illegals perhaps some farms will spring up in Mexico, creating jobs and helping to prop up that basket case of a country so the illegals don't feel the need to migrate for work. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-10-11 15:01 |
| #15 I specified legal workers, there are plenty, and they work hard. The legal ones aren't the problem. The legal ones aren't the ones that border enforcement will stop. "Sheretle Glerenter5995", when illegals have become a law enforcement problem in rural Indiana, we have a serious problem. It's long past time to start enforcing the borders. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-11 14:43 |
| #14 The illegals are now all travelling down to New Orleans to work on the reconstruction projects. If someone would bother, it ought to be fairly easy to round them up. And there are plenty of American construction workers who would be happy to have their work schedules closer to full time than part time. In my youth, the gardening jobs were done by school kids desirous of extra money, and housekeeping was done by those housewives who didn't want to be part time real estate agents. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-11 14:30 |
| #13 RC, You're usually better than that. 40 years ago I worked one summer at a nursrey in Pennsylvania where one other high school kid and I were the only non-Mexican migrant workers. They went up and down the east coast as the seasons changed even then. I specified legal workers, there are plenty, and they work hard. Illegals are law breakers, not sick birds. And they deserve to be prosecuted. But the legal ones work hard and are good people. |
| Posted by: Sheretle Glerenter5995 2005-10-11 14:06 |
| #12 Because before we started ignoring law breakers who happened to be Mexican, no one mowed their lawns,.. Where I lived in my youth, the gardeners were all of Japanese ancestry, they didn't use leaf blowers, and they all spoke English. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-11 13:52 |
| #11 And some jobs won't get done. Because before we started ignoring law breakers who happened to be Mexican, no one mowed their lawns, or harvested fruit and vegetables, or worked in low-paying, tedious jobs. All that shit just never got done when all you had to depend on unreliable, drug-addled Americans. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-11 13:43 |
| #10 For the kinds of jobs they do at any wage level the quality of labor from (legal) Mexicans will be much better than that of Americans willing to do the same job for the same wage. You're talking ambitious Mexicans who come here to work their butts off for a few years and take their nest egg home. That's against the bottom of the ladder underclass worker here who's on drugs half the time. These jobs will get done only if consumers will pay the price. Hotel work?, they'll pay the price. Fruits and vegetables? we'll be buying more imports. And some jobs won't get done. |
| Posted by: Sheretle Glerenter5995 2005-10-11 13:01 |
| #9 "...not being able to find Americans to fill the jobs needed for construction of the fence"I've talked about this type of crap before,in regards construction jobs in Tucson,Az. Bardo,that line is absolute bullshit.Will you find Americans to build the fence or hire out as a loborer on a masonry crew for $6.00/hr hell no.But one of my neighbors is running fence along a local highway construction project(3 strand barbed),started out at $14.00/hr.I have noooo problem stringing fence for that kind of money.People who spout that"not being able to find Americans"crap don't have a clue what the hell thier talking about.The only reason people won't take those type of jobs is because what self respecting,sucsessfull contractor wants to give-up his Mercedes for a Ford. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-10-11 12:58 |
| #8 plus, it'll cut down on all that noise coming from Mexico. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2005-10-11 12:54 |
| #7 As it is said Americans won't take those jobs,.. The difference between an urban legend and an academic legend? Law of supply and demand. Fewer workers means employers have to pay more till people will take the jobs [seemed to have been a good number of extra bodies around the New Orleans plantation. I'm sure a few more Blue plantations can provide additional manpower]. Some employers will move the work beyond the border, but most of the jobs we're talking about are local and non-moveable. Some of the services or products will price themselves beyond what the market is willing to pay and that work will go away as non-essential as deemed by the market. Let the employers scream, let the market decide. |
| Posted by: Angomoque Ulirt9319 2005-10-11 12:19 |
| #6 The kicker is not being able to find Americans to fill the jobs needed for construction of the fence. As it is said Americans won't take those jobs, They'll have to use "illegals." And the Medicaid, housing, and welfare for their families would be prohibitive. |
| Posted by: Bardo 2005-10-11 12:07 |
| #5 AM's treatment is similar to the argument that eventually won the day for SDI: Take for granted that SDI will not be perfect (nothing is). How about 50% effective? People scoffed at that number, until they were reminded that a 50% reduction of warheads hitting the US was exactly the same as imposing on the Soviets a unilateral 50% cut in the number of their missile launchers. This pretty much silenced everyone: if the soviets had cut their missiles by 50% in return for economic incentives, they would have been hailed and revered as seekers of peace, and held up as examples of disarmament. As it is, Reagan heard that, took the money that would have been given to the Soviets, gave it to our own industry to build SDI, and attained the same effect on the Soviets, with the advantage that the money stayed in the US instead of going abroad. Opposition pretty much collapsed after that. Thanks for stirring up that memory, AM. we don't have to heed the screams for perfection from the Nilihist Antiwar pro-destroy-america crowd, when "good enough" can do most of the job. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-10-11 11:55 |
| #4 Excellent analysis, Anonymoose: Operations research at its finest... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-10-11 11:47 |
| #3 a noise wall is an overdesign two parallel chain links with some barbed wire cross stitching would do just as well (assuming the ground was treated a little to prevent digging) and cost about 5% |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-10-11 11:32 |
| #2 I hate it when they always assume that every square inch of the border is equal to every other square inch. Lots of the border is *naturally* impassable. At a FRACTION of the total cost, the main routes that illegal aliens take could be blocked with such fencing. It depends on how "air-tight" is *economically* feasible. Certainly they will try new crossings, but they are very limited in how many new crossing they *could* use. For example, if you close just a percentage of the border, starting with high-traffic crossing areas, you get a percentage of reduction in illegal aliens making the crossing, in an uneven curve: 05% closed----0% stopped---2.0M enter the US. 10% closed----5% stopped---1.9M enter the US. 15% closed---25% stopped---1.5M enter the US. 20% closed---60% stopped---800k enter the US. 25% closed---80% stopped---400k enter the US. 27% closed---95% stopped---100k enter the US. 50% closed---96% stopped----80k enter the US. 75% closed---97% stopped----60k enter the US. 100% closed--98% stopped----40k enter the US. As anyone can tell, you get cost effectiveness up until it peaks at 27%. Then the "law of diminishing returns" kicks in, and instead of paying thousands to stop each alien, you start paying tens and hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars for each additional alien you stop. It's just not worth it to pay millions of dollars to keep one person out. Of course, these percentages are just examples, and the reality is that far *less* of the border would have to be blocked to keep out *most* illegal aliens. Perhaps as little as FIVE PERCENT could keep out as much as 95% of illegals. So, instead of billions and billions of dollars, what if it only takes $50 MILLION to stop 95% of all illegal aliens? Spend double or triple that amount to reinforce just those high traffic sections and keep them maintained. The other 5% of illegals would be just a drop in the bucket compared to the huge number of LEGAL immigrants the US lets in every year. If you are worried about terrorists infiltrating across the border in that 5%, don't be. Terrorists already pay a premium to sneak into the US, and even having 100% border fencing won't stop a single one from getting in, or even trying to get in. But the bottom line is that those who insist that a fence must be built for the entire length of the border are trying to deceive the public about the costs and benefits, as an excuse for inaction. They have no intention of building a fence, ever, and even if forced to build a fence, they would create endless delays and cost overruns out of thin air. Anything to stop it from happening. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-11 11:01 |
| #1 Sounds like a plan to me. A $1.27 billion very well spent....or is that rascist? |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-10-11 10:49 |