Noticed that too. If you piss off @MadMax so bad he's grousing in the D&D, you know you dun effed up. Get it. But, really Mexico wouldn't have governance there and the remaining property rights don't change so they wouldn't be moving in or anything. It might end up being a 2,000 mile long nature preserve with people on one side barred by statute and people on the other side physically blocked by a wall. But then a lot of that land is pretty natural right now anyway.
I'm not sure, but I can't imagine it being terribly different than the piers for bridges, though probably less impact. I went ahead and looked and I found some examples. I know the whole thing sounds odd, but so long as it's in the parts that aren't terribly deep and it's fresh water, I don't see why it wouldn't work or why the environmental impact would be too severe. Either way, I'm not talking about a perfect scenario, just something to make it more difficult and to discourage people from trying. I'm sure we could get something worked up that would be sufficient.
I would like to consult a civil engineer. If its possible, my guess is that building the wall to withstand hydrological forces would make it vastly more expensive per mile. Every time the city floods, we see first hand how much people underestimate the force of moving water. But I dont really know.
I just posted a picture above of one that exists in the middle of a "sacred" river in India, if they can figure it out, do you really want to take the position that it's impossible? I mean, it wouldn't be the same type of barrier that you'd use on land, but again, why not? If we were talking about salt water, it would be much more difficult, but we're not. I think for sure it would be more expensive to do, but if done properly I think it would last given that we're talking about fresh water rather than salt water. I mean, we don't have bridges collapse every time their piers flood.
hahah that's seems "impenetrable" sure, do that one. Hey, did you know Falcon Reservoir is 110' deep? And Amistad is 217 ' deep.
A better option is immigration reform. Trump and the GOP should have compromised with the Dems and taken the $25 billion back in early 2018. Trump refused to sign the GOP controlled Congress partial spending bill in December 2018. All hat and no cattle. That War on Drugs is profitable... just not profitable for society.
A couple of things, I wasn't suggesting that exact setup, and no one is talking about an "impenetrable" border barrier...that's not why you build them to begin with. Also, if you payed attention to my original post on the subject, you'd see why your talk about those two reservoirs are completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Did you know that the water you see flowing in the river is only a small part of the water that flows through a river system? Not really a stable building platform, not during flood events for sure.
And, it's not an emergency right now, it's only an emergency if Trump doesn't get his validation, er, wall.
Well I agree about the effectiveness of the fence in San Diego. I don't think it is controversial to put up a border fence in an urban area that spills on both sides of the border. It'd really be impossible to have any control in an urban environment without one. So no disagreement there. We now have hundreds of miles of border fence though. Are there really another 234 miles of border that are sufficiently traversable that a fence is advisable? And secondly, what is the argument for hardening the fence. Sure, it's easier to breach a fence than it is a big, beautiful wall, but is the incremental cost of hardening worth the incremental benefit? As for the state of the politics, that's mostly on Trump, imo. The debate of what comes first -- border security or immigration reform -- predates Trump, so the fence was already a football. But, it was something that could be traded. You give me a DACA bill and I'll give you 300 miles of fence, or whatever. By staking out a ridiculous position in a campaign promise, Trump elevated the polarization of it to such a pitch that it can't be traded. It is a zero-sum game at this point, there is no win-win and someone has to cave. I don't think your analysis of who has the advantage is right, but it doesn't really matter. The shutdown isn't sustainable, so someone will eventually cave and we'll see who'll win. I think Trump has the weaker hand, but he's in his element. He lives for this kind of stuff.
Because that's what that particular bridge calls for, you do know that other bridges over rivers have more right? Hell they even have those kinds of things in salt water. Point is, it can be done.
Well, as some have suggested, the walls work where they exist, but people just go around them. If you push them into harsher and harsher terrain, it's less likely they even bother and it causes the gaps to end up being choke points where it's easier to stop them. As to replacing the current setup, the reason to do so would be to go with something that is more durable that would require less maintenance. I think the goal should be to get illegal crossings consistently under 10K a month....then aim for 1k a month.
Any structure in the river requires a watertight cofferdam for construction or piers driven to dry solid soil or rock, That's really expensive so engineers try to limit the support structures as much as possible. Now, you are talking about building an 1800 mile structure in the river. Seems cost prohibitive,
Sure, more of that stuff we already have which has proven largely ineffective or calling for the same measures which have been called for for decades which haven’t resulted in anything. The border, as we know it now and have known it for years now, is like I’ve said, extremely porous and easy to cross with a modicum amount of savvy and determination. The vast sums of money we’ve been spending on agents and technology have been a waste of time. Thousands a month still are coming in. What we have been doing has not been cost effective or effective really at all. You’re calling for more of the same. It’s crap. It hasn’t worked. The idea that “more of it” is the solution is ridiculous. Putting up a physical barrier along the parts of the border that makes sense is actually a real solution which can actually be effective.
