Homeland Security Scraps Border Fence
 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545578242.html

Homeland Security Scraps Border Fence

U.S. NEWS
JANUARY 15, 2011
By KEITH JOHNSON
The Department of Homeland Security Friday pulled the plug on a troubled billion-dollar program to build a high-tech fence along the Arizona border to help fight illegal immigration, a definitive end to a long-moribund project.

By scrapping the controversial SBInet program, DHS will now turn to a mix of proven, existing technology it says will help agents patrol a much bigger chunk of the Southwest border at a lower cost.

"SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a written statement. She said the new solution, which will include mobile surveillance systems, unmanned aircraft and thermal-imaging devices, was "tailored to the unique needs of each border region" and would provide a "more effective balance between cost and capability."

DHS has spent the past year reviewing the program, initially conceived in 2005, which has been plagued by technology problems, cost overruns and delays. Only 53 miles of the Arizona border have been protected with SBInet technology at a cost of nearly $1 billion. In contrast, the new plan envisions covering the rest of the Arizona border—some 323 miles—for roughly $750 million.

Ms. Napolitano froze funding for the program—and its primary contractor, Boeing Corp.—in March while the assessment was being carried out.

DHS said it would continue to use some elements of the old SBInet system "that have proven successful, such as stationary radar and infrared and optical sensor towers."

Boeing said that "we appreciate that they recognize the value of the integrated fixed towers Boeing has built, tested and delivered so far," adding that "Boeing remains committed to providing valuable solutions and supporting DHS."

DHS will carry out further assessments on the rest of the southern border to determine which technologies will best help border-patrol agents detect illegal crossings.

SBInet's demise was applauded by some key members of Congress, and even critics of the administration's approach to the border didn't challenge the move.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement that the "long-troubled" program was "unrealistic," and called the department's new plan a "far wiser approach."

New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement: "While I understand the Department of Homeland Security decision to end the SBInet program, I continue to have very serious concerns about the Obama administration's lack of urgency to secure the border."

The administration deported a record number of illegal immigrants—more than 390,000—in the year ended Sept. 30. About half had a criminal record, in line with the administration's decision to target illegal immigrants with criminal convictions.

It's understandable. Obama's got a lot of voters on the other side of that fence, and there's an election looming.

Too bad...

I've taken a close look at the fence on the California border and it's pretty impressive. It was even built up the sides of steep hills.

IMHO: poorly executed and sorely lacking in proper planning and Federal oversight.

The taxpayers should be very happy that this (SBINet) highly questionable program was shut off.




http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07309.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07504t.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08131t.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d091013t.pdf

Agree. Good news / bad news.....expensive/ill-thought out plan scrapped...but what is Plan B? Let Mexico manage the border for us? :rolleyes:

Plan B – Letting Mexico manage the border for us has already been proposed -----
And I think it would work :D
SnT

Kinky Friedman – from his 2005 run for governor of the State of Texas.
He proposes creating what he calls the Five Mexican Generals plan. As he lays it out, the border with Mexico would be divided into five pieces with a Mexican general responsible for each. A $1 million trust fund would be created for each general.

“When I talk about the five Mexican generals, people think I’m joking but I’m dead serious,” said Friedman. “I will divide the border into five jurisdictions, assigning one Mexican general to each and providing a trust fund for that general. Every time a person crosses illegally, we subtract $5,000 from the trust fund.”
http://www.kilgorenewsherald.com/new..._page/002.html

I think it would work too. Course the MG has to stay in position for a minimum of 24 months. Might even have bonuses figured in if he stays longer and remains successful - or let him pocket the first million and start fresh after two years. It would be considerably cheaper than the current status quo.

My thoughts went to what other country deals with an "immigration" problem that requires a high level of security? What was/is their solution and how is it executed? Electronic surveillance does not stop anyone, all it does is allow you to respond and create a hunt-chase-track scenario with potential for ambush or other unfortunate circumstances. The case in point are those CBP Officers killed in the line of duty.

Of course the geography and distances along the desert Southwest create a unique situation and that requires much more deliberate plan. Physical barriers appear to be more effective when applied with a combination of sensing systems and enforcement personnel. The downside is that there are chokepoints that increase the number of turf battles for available routes North.

...but somehow I don't believe our friends to the South will be able to provide all that much assistance based upon past performance...

Currently, the closest parallel to our situation probably occurs in Israel. However, their border is smaller than ours by several orders of magnitude, so fence-building is a much more practical affair. Other places I can think of with immigration problems either have water barriers (France), natural borders (India/Pakistan*) or have pretty much given up trying to stop people at the border (Syria and Jordan with Iraq, Germany with Poland**).

Historically, the need to build a wall generally indicates an inorganic border that is bound to fall sooner or later. I can think of examples of ineffective walls stretching from Roman times to 1980s Berlin, but can't think of one that held up indefinitely. Generally, if people have a strong enough motive to migrate, they will find a way to do so. Granted, nobody's ever had the technological wizardry of the US, so our case may be different, but it is guaranteed to be an expensive and ongoing battle. In the end, economic improvement in Mexico and the recession in the US may be our best form of border security.

*India/Pakistan is more of a security problem than a migration problem, I think.
** Actually, Germany might be the best country to look into. It's a large, modern country with a strong economy and long land borders with poorer neighbors. I know there's a large seasonal rush of immigrants as well as a steady stream of people from further abroad, but I'm really not sure how they deal with it.

The Fence is a joke. The illegals defeated it with ease. My brother lives right by it in Arizona. It was a wast of money and only built to make it look like we were doing something. They painted a ladder the same color as the fence and easily climbed it for two weeks until the Border patrol finally noticed the ladder.

Why the ladder? The pic below was taken last week south of Ft. Huachuca.

Pat

Amen... So true of a statement

When My NG unit was down there we were briefed that the cartels had teams that drove up and down the fence with cutting torches and cut access holes in the fence on a regular basis.. its for looks and only that....maybe if we added juice to it:cool:

but seriously we need a canal with sharks with lazers beams

Where did the fault lay-with the fence or the Border Patrol?

I'd think any fence would deter more than no fence.

There's a blatantly obvious political motivation behind it along the lines of the Cuba "tits up" move.

Walk in the Vote 2012.