Bush has signed a bill that will allow 700 miles of fence to be built on the US/Mexico border.
Now, as this narrow-minded communist has noted, that leaves almost 2/3 of the border unprotected by fencing. For the short-sighted, this is true. For those who think out of the box, like myself, it’s not true. There’s a lot we can still do to protect the rest of the border.
All the bill says is that 700 miles of fence has to be built. It doesn’t say where, how, or what type of fencing. Here are some possible solutions that would allow us to keep Mexican terrorists out and not spend any more money.
1. Use the funds to dig a deep moat instead. Not really a fence, in the standard sense of the word. But since the word “Fence” is actually latin for “Physical Barrier”, I think a ditch can be a fence too.
Digging ditches requires nothing but a shovel and is something that the mexican community excels at. This would essentially be a US-funded Mexican public works program. Inexpensive labor and high-productivity are a recipe for success in this effort. As the ditch went through more urban areas it could be landscaped by the mexicans as well.
Depending on how deep they dug, the ditch could either serve as a simple physical barrier, or we could fill it with acid or lava. The workers would be allowed to keep the dirt they dug to make homes and schools with.
2. Land mines. I know everyone is against the use of anti-personel mines, but you can’t argue that they’ve done a good job detering people from walking in areas where they’re buried. They are cheap and if we mapped where they are—and only gave the maps to American’s—it would be fairly safe. In areas close to schools we could produce public service messages with a mascot like “Lenny The Landmine” who only had one leg and encouraged kids to stay away from mined areas.
I realise that landmines aren’t fences, but if we used fence-posts to hold trip wires that attached to claymores, I think we could make an argument that the funding can be used for this type of “fence” as well.
3. Instead of building the fence in a single continuous 700 mile section, spread it out into thirds, so the fence went up 1 out of every 3 feet. Most groups that cross the border to not do it in single-file, but rather shoulder-to-shoulder.
4. Release lions and other predators at the border. Nothing deters people from going into an area like a large predator. If we introduced a small population of lions or tigers into the deserts surrounding the border it would serve to keep people from even entering those areas. If we used technology currently available at pet stores that keeps pets in yards using an “invisible fence” and an electrified collar, we could control where these beasts roamed. We’d need to work out how to change the batteries in the collars, or maybe they could produce solar powered collars for this effort. This detail doesn’t seem like an insurmountable problem, but I’m sure the liberals will turn it into a huge debate that keeps us from focusing on the real issues.
5. Fencing…with swords. Some of my other ideas would probably be contradictory to the language of the Bill that Bush signed. If the dems want to be sticklers to the exact verbiage used in the legistlation, maybe we could still use the funds for “fencing”…but instead of building a fence, we position armed swordsman across the border. Mexicans have a natural aversion to swords, this is why Zorro was so popular in their culture.
Let’s also not forget that even if they go ahead and build only 700 miles of fence, it’s still going to create quite a safe area in the middle of that fence. How many mexicans do you think will go around the fence, and then walk in towards the middle of the fence where the communities will be built, just to commit crimes? Probably not many. Most of the terrorism will be committed near the outer ends of the fence, that’s where we can focus our military efforts.