Wouldn't it be easier to just post snipers at the border? Way cheaper than building a fence!?

Answer 1

It would definitely be cheaper,it would definitely be easier. If you consider what is happening an invasion,which I do,it would also be legal under international law as long as some warning were given. Would we ever do it,No. Americans have lost the courage to stand up for their country and what is right,in fact 1/3 of the population borders on seditious. All of this garbage will come to violence,of that I'm very sure,but it won't be our government that gets it done.

AD

Answer 2

Actually, the cost of tilt-up, concrete parallel walls is even cheaper than a two-lane country road and lasts much longer than a fence (or even a country road).

Why?

The wall thickness is only about 4 to 6 inches and reinforced with a steel that is much cheaper than the steel used for the fence. It needn't be taller than 20 feet since there will be two walls a few yards apart.

Roads are much thicker than people realize, some poured deeper than 2 feet. And that's on a bed of asphalt, over an expensively prepared, lime-treated sub-base. And they're about 45 to 60 feet wide. That's 8 to 12 times the concrete alone of building tilt-up parallel walls along the border. And we build thousands of miles of road in this country every year.

The walls, running parallel and about a hundred feet apart, form a valley that is perfect for the placement of huge friendly German Shepherds, mounds of mangled barbed wire, pole-top cameras, drones, heat and motion sensors, and, of course, armed Border Patrol Agents.

Offenders (deserters from their homeland) would face the daunting challenge of: getting over the south wall undetected, falling the 20' without incident, recoiling his flex ladder, out-running the dogs, remaining undetected by the cams and sensors, floating over all the barbed-wire, out-running BP Agents, tossing his ladder over the north wall so that it catches and finally getting over the second wall and falling - again, without incident - before facing the next challenge: getting anywhere northbound now that we know EXACTLY where he is.

Honestly, snipers are completely unnecessary and much more expensive over time. Mexico will face the fact that only Mexico can deal with Mexico's problems. But not until the border is closed and our laws enforced.



...

Answer 3

Stationing snipers at the maximum range for a pretty much garunteed 1 shot kill of 800m would mean there would be around 2000 snipers stationed on the 3000km border (assuming at all points there is 800m of visibility on both sides, which there isn't) at any one time. Each sniper would probably only be able to work a maximum of 6 hours at a time, so you'd have to have 8000 snipers every day minimum. If they all earn the minimum wage of $5.85 that's $35/day/sniper. Multiply that by 8000 and that's $280800 PER DAY, which of course is $102,492,000 a year. A hundred million dollars a year at the absolute minimum (and that's not even including supplying them with any equipment or bases or anything, no supervisors, no centralised command - nothing, just employing the snipers) Cheap? I don't think so.

Answer 4

Believe me, I understand where you are coming from.

I would propose a more cost effective way. Start at 1/2 mile inside the US border, land mine a 1000' feet of land further inside the US all along the border. This way no human enforcer can be held responsible for what happens. It will all be in the hands of the invaders. Place warnings at the border about the land being mined in every kind of language known to man. When the invaders see bodies lying on the parched earth, it will be a warning to the other invaders of what their fate is if they continue. Of course this will have to wait until Bush is no longer the "Decider". He has never seen an illegal he didn't like. What a pathetic president he is. He should be impeached for his dereliction of duties on enforcing immigration laws. I don't know why legal citizens put up with such a sorry, sorry president.

Mr. President, protecting the Homeland is patriotic! What you are doing is treason! You should be held accountable.

Answer 5

To those who say the expense would be to great, I think that it would be cheap compared to the damages being done by illegals. And didn't anybody ever thing that if the snipers shot and killed maybe 2000 criminals in the first week or so and left they laying there then the next criminals wanting to sneak into America might have second thoughts? The big problem is that the plan would keep new criminals from getting in we still have millions here to deal with. Only long prison terms for those aiding them will force them to leave.

Answer 6

Mordent. Your answer is relative.

By your estimates of a little over 100 million per year...we have approximately 12 million illegal aliens, almost certainly much much more...but, using the low figure...that equates to roughly 10 dollars per year per illegal alien. That is chump change to what they are costing taxpayers each year.

It IS cheap when you look at the big picture. I am not condoning the whole "sniper" bit...only providing a comparison. Border security is expensive....but NOT securing the border is a WHOLE LOT more expensive. Illegal aliens cost American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars every year.

Answer 7

economically it wouldn't work.

bullets are EXPENSIVE, and paying snipers even more so.

HOWEVER, to everyone saying "oh the poor criminals just want a better life for their children" remember, the South Americans crossing into Mexico for the same reason usually get shot on sight. we'd just be giving Quid Pro Quo.

Answer 8

would you agree to the Mexican federales putting snipers on the Mexican side of the border to shoot any minuteman, border patrol officer, or civilian American who might be unfortunate enough to (voluntarily or not) step on the wrong side of the border?

Do you think illegally entering a country in hopes of a better life should be punishable by death?

Do you think it is right to kill someone whose only way to feed his kids is to do **** jobs in America for a salary that not even a 12 year old would consider acceptable?

Consider this (unlikely) scenario; Stock market plunges, and America goes bankrupt. Americans desperately try to get into Canada to make better wages, and do crappy, underpaid jobs that no Canadian wants. Would you endorse the Canadian border patrol to shoot any American trying to cross the border, if their goal was only to feed their families?

Think about what you're saying, and don't give me the crap that most of these people are drug smugglers etc. Many of them are, but you don't kill someone standing on a street corner because you know a lot of people deal drugs on that corner.

Come one.. I thought America was founded on christian values, not sharia laws.

Answer 9

Try doing the math. The border is about 2200 miles long. You might need as many as 5000 snipers to cover the entire border. You would then need people on the job 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, or about four shifts, which means 20,000 snipers. How much would you pay them? $30,000 per year? Add benefits of $6,000 per year per sniper. Add supervisors. Maybe 2,500 will be needed. Wages and benefits, maybe $40,000 per person. Then the 2500 will need about 500 managers at about $50,000 per person. Then add in the support staff: personnel people, payroll, workers compensation adjusters, equipment repairmen and so on. Add it all up and the number will be huge.

Answer 10

The snipers are there already, and they work in shifts. they are just waiting for the word to commence firing!