November 19, 2006
A really expensive symbolic gesture

How much would you pay for a really big, really grand important symbolic gesture?


The Bush administration's proposal to secure the nation's borders with a high-tech "virtual fence" is likely to cost far more than the $2 billion that industry analysts initially estimated, possibly up to $30 billion, a government watchdog agency warned yesterday.

According to the Homeland Security Department inspector general, the ambitious plan to deploy sensors, cameras and other surveillance technology along 6,000 miles of the borders with Canada and Mexico runs the risk of runaway costs because of poorly defined objectives and a vastly overstretched contracting staff at the department.


Well, hey, I'm glad to see that at last someone is taking the Canadian Menace seriously. I call that progress.

Immigration-policy experts said the red flags raised over the border-security initiative could increase pressure on Congress to act on other measures they say are needed, such as stepping up enforcement against U.S. employers who hire illegal workers, cracking down on immigrants who overstay their visas, and overhauling legal immigration channels.

"If it's going to cost 8 to 30 billion dollars," asked Deborah W. Meyers, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, ". . . is that really the most effective way of achieving the policy goal?"


You know, given that there's an estimated seven million illegal aliens in the US, we could simply offer them each a thousand bucks to go home. That'd max out at $7 billion, and we wouldn't have to hire any of them to build the fence that's supposed to keep them out. Go on, tell me that's a stupider idea than what was actually authorized.

Link via Tapped, which draws a rather apt analogy to the whole thing.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on November 19, 2006 to National news | TrackBack
Comments

I saw one D already proposing to scrap the wall and put the $1.2 billion they appropriated into port security. If they did it'd make a nice comparison of approaches heading into 2008 - even right wingers don't think a wall would work, most of them. It's really ONLY a symbol.

Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast on November 19, 2006 9:47 AM

This one is weird for me. An actual fence would be a boondoggle, but modern surveillance equipment would let more be done by fewer agents.

If there's any value to patrol, then there's value to using high-tech tools. Not that the administration couldn't easily botch it by underbidding the job and doing it poorly.

So, if it doesn't happen we save taxpayer money and if it does, we're likely to use cool technologies that I work on.

Posted by: Michael on November 19, 2006 11:24 AM

screw it all. I say park a black SUV at a Bob Perry subdivision under developement with the letters ICE or INS in BIG white block letters on the side.

See how much work gets done. After a week, Bob Perry would be donating money to democrats asking for help.

Hell, he has alredy donated $10,000 to LULAC!

Posted by: John cobarruvias on November 19, 2006 9:06 PM

An actual fence would be a boondoggle, but modern surveillance equipment would let more be done by fewer agents.

Pardon my skepticism but I've seen this before. Back when I was in the USAF, the intelligence community went gaga for high tech gadgets that collected more and more data of various and asundry kinds.

But in order to pay for all the nice little toys, they trimmed their staffing to such a point the actual processing of the tremendous volumes of took weeks by which time most of it was useless.

I suspect similar things would happen.

Posted by: Patrick on November 21, 2006 2:19 PM