CMV: The US Should Have a High-Tech, High-Tunnel, Border Wall

Note: I will not be considering views that include impeaching the President. I will only consider views that address whether or not a wall should be built.<br><br>I'm a right-of-center person, and I have come to the conclusion that a 650-mile border wall is the only way to achieve a comprehensive immigration reform. I say that it should be a high-tech, high-tunnel wall. It should be built to last a long time. It should be built high enough that no human could reasonably climb over. It should be built deep enough that no human could reasonably tunnel under. It should be built to be strong enough to withstand a vehicle crashing into it at high speed. It should have a road along the length of it that is paved in concrete, so the Border Patrol can rapidly move up and down it in their vehicles. It should have sensors on it that fire motion lights once it's breached, sensors in the ground that fire motion lights once tunneling is detected, and motion-sensitive cameras on the wall and in the neighboring structures. It should have a parallel wall of solar panels to power sensors. It should have public Wi-Fi access on the US side, so that migrants can access the internet and apply for asylum if they feel they need to. It should have a network of small, satellite police stations along the length of the wall (think of small, high-tech field offices). <br><br>As far as I am aware, the only arguments against the wall are that it is unfashionable, that it is immoral, that it is racist, that it is a waste of money, or that it would be ineffective.<br><br>First of all, "fashionable" has nothing to do with policy. "Immoral" and "racist" are unfounded. There are countless examples in history of countries making walls around themselves to protect against illegal immigration. The Great Wall of China, the Roman Walls, the Berlin Wall, etc. All of these were erected to stop invasive migration of one variety or another. If it was acceptable for China to do it, or Rome to do it, then it certainly is acceptable for the US to do it. <br><br>The last two objections are more understandable. However, the US government already spends $22 billion a year on Customs and Border Protection. It spent $175 billion on the entire Iraq War from 2008 - 2011. So $40 billion is not out of the question. Furthermore, immigrants cost far more than they pay in taxes. For example, in Texas alone, immigrants cost taxpayers $7 billion a year, and only pay $1 billion in taxes. (From a Texas comptroller study) So the cost of immigrants is far higher than the cost of a wall. <br><br>Furthermore, it is proven that border fences can work. Israel had a major crisis in the desert, migrants were coming in at a crisis rate, and it was straining their economy and social services. Then they built a high-tech border fence, and illegal immigration fell by 99%. India had a massive crisis with Bangladeshian migrants, and after a high-tech fence was built, illegal immigration fell by 70%. <br><br>So, it works. It saves money. And, migrants are a major issue today. So, I conclude that it should be built.<br><br>Change my view!