If the United States could build 46,726 miles of highways could it build a 730 mile fence on the border?

Question

Many say that building a 730 mile fence on the Mexican border is too expensive.

But, the United States built 46,726 miles of four and six-lane highways from coast to coast.

Things that make you go, "hmmmm"

Answer 1

Yes, I will help dig fence posts if I have to.

Answer 2

Highways didn't have the added costs of the anti-fence political agenda.
When you need a 4-6 lane highway, it involves all constituents for both sides so they only argue about whose buddies got the contract.
With a border fence, the effected party is the Dems, who have a large voter base that is mexican-american. So just approving the fence will cost more than a freeway after all the ads, special forums, state-level votes, and we won't imagine how much of our tax-dollars will be spent on lunch and dinner meetings to sway votes.

Answer 3

The issue is, we built 46,726 miles of useful highways. But we didnt build 46,726 miles of useless hamster habitrails. That would be too expensive FOR THE PAYOFF. And that is the argument against the 730 mile fence. Sure we could do it, but is that a good use of our money? That is the question, not "can we do this?" because of course we can.

Answer 4

Of course the United States could build a fence.

Answer 5

Ya but the real question is should they have built the highways in the first place? There really is no constitutionality of it in the first place! There was great arguing when they decided to build the national highway in the first place.

Also the United States had no immigration laws until like the early 1900s.

Answer 6

The difference is that the miles of highways took years to do, and we need the fence yesterday. Second, the highways facilitate tourism and economic activity, the wall keeps people out. Third, Ike fully supported the highway system and Bush wants to legalize the illegals to favor his business buddys.

Answer 7

If you look at history you find many examples of people building walls to keep out other people. Great Wall of China, Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall.

None were successful because those trying to get past the walls always found a way to get in. Whether they bribed guards, tunnelled under, or simply went around them they got in.

Answer 8

What really makes me go hmmmmm is the fact that Hammurabi, China, and the East Germans all built barriers to keep invading hordes out or escaping citizens in. Not one of them proved to be effective. I have yet to hear of one good reason as to why this fence would be any different.

Answer 9

Expensive? Then why not place a minimal "toll" at crossings to help pay for it. There should also be some kind of detection device to monitor in areas where border patrol is less prevalent.

Answer 10

of course it can, but it own't. Now they iwll because ppl were getting mad and stuff. So now tehy are going to propse stuff in the congress and they are showig that they care but its only for the election. Its also a catch 22 like my freind says, If they make a wall, then ppl won't come in. If ppl don't come in, whos going to do tha jobs that noone wants to do? In reality its slave work that keeps prices down otherwise farmers and evryone employing will have to pay pensions and health care.

Answer 11

BECAUSE building the fence would STOP the cheap labor and companies might have to pay AMRERICANS a decent wage for their work. You people need to get a clue.