Border wall

Let's start with the problem of scaling the wall. The Associated Press wrote that U.S. Special Forces attempted to find a way to go over (or through) prototypes of the wall using climbing tools and jackhammers. They managed to find a size (30 ft.) that even special forces couldn't get over. Let me tell you, If U.S. Spec. forces can't get over the wall, your average illegal can't either. A Customs and Border Protection report on the issue found that using a steel mesh lined with smooth concrete surfaces would not only be less expensive that a complete concrete wall, but would help to deter climbing as well. Brandon Judd, who heads the union representing border agents, said the recommended height and steel-concrete design make sense. He said people have been able to scale the smaller border walls, which were not put to same degree of testing before construction. "Not many people are going to attempt to go over 30 feet," said Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council. "I just don't see it happening." The Bush border fence isn't even in the same ballpark as the border wall I've proposed here. the fence was flimsy, small, and ineffective. The wall if built to the specifications outlined by my previous card would be far more effective. As for needing to stay away from the Rio Grande, yes, I know that building the wall to obstruct the river would be morally and legally wrong. However, we don't need to. Building the full scale wall and leaving an opening across the Rio Grande and Colorado River would make use of Bottle necking. Think of it this way. In Medieval times, when you built a castle or keep, you also built a moat or variation thereof, usually with a drawbridge. This made it so when an invader tried to take the keep they had to attack you in one place which made it much easier to defend. In the same way, if we built the wall and left more lightly defended sections of fence or open space we would keep border patrol stationed there and it would be much easier to catch the illegals trying to cross there. As for the secession of the Rio Grande to Mexico, Obviously, it would be built on the U.S. side because building it on Mexico's side would constitute an invasion which isn't going to happen. It would have to be built on the US side of the river, which is US territory, but it does not at all follow that the US will "lose the Rio Grande". The wall would not create a new border, the border would still be the Rio Grande, along with all the riparian rights that come with it. Situations like that, where the actual physical barrier is constructed some distance from the actual border due to natural topography are quite common, the world over. If needed, access to the actual water could be easily accomplished via guarded access gates. The government would buy them out, and second, Texas turned red in the 2016 election. This is what they voted for. They aren't stupid, they knew that some land right on the border would be lost but they voted for Trump anyway. Then-Secretary John Kelly says in regard to the environmental laws. "While the waiver eliminates DHS"s obligation to comply with various laws with respect to covered projects, the department remains committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects," it said. "DHS has been coordinating and consulting " and intends to continue doing so " with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible." In short, the specifics of these laws would have made it impossible to break ground on the wall but the government still plans to take any measure possible to protect important historical or environmental areas. As for the tribes, we could build more of the access gates to allow natives access to the other side of their lands while still protecting our border from the drug traffickers that like to cross near their lands. As for your next point on crime. You say that it isn't right to penalize illegals for what their descendants may do. However according to my sources (which I actually cite.) The illegal immigrant crime rate will rise above native levels in the future. and since the U.S. has zero obligation to any potential immigrant much less those that can't be bothered to follow our immigration laws, we are completely justified in looking to the future and analyzing the data available which supports my case as was stated by the CIS. The problem with the next study you bring up is that it lumps illegals in with legal immigrants which are two very separate demographics. Also if you want to be technical, there's a 100% crime rate amongst illegals as they are definitionally criminals by virtue of breaking immigration laws. When you lump in all immigrants ranging those from the legal immigrant from the UK to the illegal immigrant you are going to water down the statistic. This isn't how averages work. I didn't find that figure from fox news. I already cited my source. The wall doesn't have to do with mass deportation. We would, once again, pursue a merit-based system. And I've already stated that I would support a pathway to citizenship for those that are here, following our laws, and working. I don't have to defend a position I don't support.