Posted on 08/05/2011 3:06:13 AM PDT by markomalley
(CNSNews.com) – Sealing the border between the United State and Mexico completely is “theoretically” possible, but Americans would not want to pay “the costs that would be involved,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner Alan Bersin said Thursday.
He was speaking at an event to release a report by the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), claiming the southwest border is safer than it ever has been.
“We would need on the order of about four or five hundred thousand border patrol agents to seal the border,” Bersin said, adding that such a plan would involve having agents stationed “25 yards” apart along the entire length of the border.
Bersin’s remarks came after he was questioned about sealing the border by CAP immigration policy director Marshall Fitz. Bersin and Fitz joined Doris Meissner, who served as commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration, to discuss border security and release the CAP report, Safer Than Ever, A View from the U.S.-Mexico Border: Assessing the Past, Present and Future.
Fitz said he wanted to ask Bersin “about the impossibility of an absolute seal,” and what he characterized as unrealistic intent of 2006 legislation mandating a fence be built along the southwest border.
Fitz said for “the average American, who doesn’t think a lot about this and considers the United States the most powerful country in the history of the world,” it might not seem “unrealistic to think that we could actually seal the border.”
He said that the U.S. Congress, in passing the Secure Fence Act of 2006, “suggests that that is viable.”
Bersin responded by saying most Americans understand that a “zero crime rate” is not possible, adding that the border issue is more a political than a practical one.
“The difficulty is not that the American people wouldn’t understand it, it’s that there’s a volatility of border politics,” he said. “So that any particular incident gets blow into this conflagration that somehow things are out of control in ways that people are quite used to in their neighborhood.
“The occurrence of a crime in the community doesn’t lead people to believe that their entire community is lawless,” Bersin said.
He said he favored the “satisfactory control of the border that I think we are moving toward.”
Meissner credited the Clinton administration, and the agency she headed in particular, with changing the model of enforcing immigration law from strictly a personnel issue to a strategy that includes a “mix of resources,” including personnel, technology and other support infrastructure.
All three panelists argued that a reduction in apprehensions along the border suggests a more secure border. The CAP report authored by Fitz shows striking differences in apprehension rates between 2000 and 2010.
In the Tucson, Arizona sector – the area all agreed has the highest number of illegal crossings – 616,346 people were taken into custody in 2000, compared with 212,202 in 2010. In the El Paso, Texas, sector the number dropped from 285,781 in 2000 to 12, 251 in 2010.
Meissner accused critics of the Obama administration’s immigration policies of “stirring the pot,” although she also admitted that in Arizona “there is not yet the level of control that you want.”
In his report, Fitz targeted Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, calling him and his allies “restrictionists.”
“The unreasonable position advanced by the restrictionists is that 100 percent of the border must be subject to the most stringent standard, i.e. controlled,” he wrote.
“Rep. Smith is effectively demanding an absolute seal of the border – an unattainable objective – as a precondition to discussion of broader immigration reforms.”
Smith’s office did not immediately respond to a CNSNews.com request to comment on the report.
easy answer... close most of our overseas military bases, then open new bases along the US Mexico border.
the Marxist ‘n Chief has other ideas, obvious from what the turd worlds are doing
Exactomundo!
So the writer thinks we are just thrilled to death to have our troops protecting other nations borders but not our own?
It’s actually not a new idea by a long shot. Look up the history of Ft. Huachuca and you will see the original mission of the fort was not only to corral Geronimo and his merry band of Chiricahua but also to go after the likes of Pancho Villa. Pershing operated out of that fort when Panco was captured by his troops.
It’s an exaggeration, with the intent of making it seem like an impossible task.
The objective is to not get every single illegal, every single time. Rather, by having an alarmed fence line and a few armed guards every couple of miles, who are keeping in contact with a home base, you are going to keep about 97 percent of the illegals on the south side of the border.
The rest that still make it through, you catch them when you can find them and you eliminate the anchor baby right to stay.
I think that would be far cheaper to accomplish and it would be at least 90 percent effective.
Convert McAllen International Airport to another Texas Air National Guard Base. Do the same thing in every other state along the border. That would be a good start, however late in coming.
South Koreans sleep tight on their border with the Norks..courtesy the US GI and US Taxpayer. Why cannot New Mexicans, Texans,Arizonans and Californians? And DON”T give us the “cost” crap....in the end the only legitimate reason for ANY modern country to maintain a standing army is the conservation and protection of its borders...keeping its citizens safe from invasion.
Bersin: Another Harvard educated Marxist, demagoging, POS.
Exactly. It is impossible to eliminate drunk driving, therefore we should make to real effort to enforce the laws against it.
Pershing caught Pancho Villa? Where? When?
500,000 troops? seems a bit extreme
3000 miles. guards every 100 yards would mean 52,800 guards.
station response units of 25 men every 2 miles, would mean 1 mile from any guard station and 37,500 troops
an additional base every 200 miles would give 100 mile support radius. 15 bases each with 100+ troops.
all totaled, less then 100,000 troops would be needed.
of course, i would start building walls to reduced the need for constant guards. the walls would be 20 feet tall, 10 feet thick, and have a 1/4 mi buffer facing mexico. the walls would also have ground & air sensors to detect any tunneling. it would also be lined with multiple fiber optic channels to allow for remote surveillance.
of course it would be paid for by the 400,000 salaries i didn’t have to pay (about $22b @ $55k/yr avg salary). a single year salary saved would mean roughly $7.3m per mile of construction
that’s where i’d start...
This solution has eluded our “leaders” for so long it amazes me. Our troops need desert training and our desert border needs protecting. Why not hold our desert training on the boarder? Additional cost to taxpayer zero.
I think it could be done with alot less personnel if it was conducted as counter insurgency training for all enlistees.
[closing is impossible]
to
[well it is possible but]
Anytime you can get a feddie half way to the truth, you have accomplished something. Now all they need is some volunteers to bolster their ranks with some decent ROE.
“Sealing the border between the United State and Mexico completely is “theoretically” possible, but Americans would not want to pay “the costs that would be involved,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner Alan Bersin said Thursday.”
It would pay for itself and then some after we stop paying for illegal aliens’ benefits.
Seal what? All mexicans who want to go back home, in?
Horse is a bit out of the barn, isn't he?
I was incorrect, Ft. Huachuca was his logistics base as he chased him.
That is very true. To change paradigms, you only need to get them to admit their position is a false one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.