Hacker News Reader

Comment by autoexec | Hacker News Reader

The fact that past programs failed to collect good data or failed to make good use of the data they were getting does not imply that having data is unlikely to improve operational results.

I think it's plainly obvious that if your goal is to stop people from illegally crossing the border, then monitoring that border is a necessity. We could hire humans to stand all day in watchtowers and scan for people sneaking in with just their human eyes, but (working) cameras have a lot of obvious advantages.

There is plenty of evidence and data showing that cameras can be a highly effective part of solutions to the problem of monitoring. There are countless companies, governments, and individuals using cameras right now with great success. Cameras are not an unproven technology and their usefulness is not theoretical.

I don't think that anyone would be opposed to a better option that would eliminate the need for cameras and sensors, but if one exists I've never heard of it. Cameras and sensors seem to be the best options we have. The cameras and sensors (when they were functioning) were never the problem with past systems. Those past problems were more like "We paid for a bunch of cameras but we never budgeted for anyone to respond to them, or to maintain them, or to maintain the systems we need to collect data from them". Those are all very solvable problems which shouldn't have happened in the first place.

View on HN

I think it's plainly obvious that if your goal is to stop people from illegally crossing the border, then monitoring that border is a necessity.

This is the goal of fewer people in power than you think, and keep in mind there is more border than the one between Mexico and the US. Most undocumented people have flown here and simply overstayed their visa. On the other hand, congress has been saber rattling about the southern border my entire life and has done little about it. It's useful as a wedge issue though, so from time to time, you'll see some spending a lot of money on walls and towers that just aren't very effective (and maybe callously separate some kids form their families).

On the other hand, undocumented people pay billions in taxes, work for cheap and make services (like dining, construction, landscaping, cosmetology, etc.) cheaper. The monied and political classes want to keep this status quo.

How can you make political hay out of a solved problem?

Solving it, now that would be a BIG PROBLEM! If it's not immigrants then you would have to blame someone else and/or more explicitly cite race/ethnicity/religion.

Seriously, when you have a significant group of people regularly claiming on TV that 20million people have illegally entered the country in the last 4 years, that's both hilarious and dangerous.

> a significant group of people regularly claiming on TV that 20million people have illegally entered the country in the last 4 years,

Plus all of them somehow managing to cast totally-undetectable votes in elections, traveling to specific swing states, for no direct gain to themselves even though getting caught would mean deportation, while uniformly maintaining superhuman levels of discipline and secrecy. /s

electoral votes and number of representatives are allocated based on census numbers, which have nothing to do with citizenship status /!s

I'm not sure how to parse the sarcasm in that one. It's literally true, and counting people (rather than voters) is reasonable when you look the history of US demographics.

Are you saying it would be scummy for some folks to rail against certain groups while happily accepting their contribution to local census numbers?

Not "totally-undetectable". Nineteen foreign nationals were caught voting in 2016 in North Carolina alone.

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-aliens-charged-voter-fr...

Those are just a few of the ones who used their own names. An unofficial analysis by CBS "showed [at least] 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade [2006-2016]."

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/2-investigators-chicago...

We know the problem exists. We won't know how widespread the problem is without a thorough nationwide investigation, but the Democrats oppose that fiercely. They demand extensive evidence be provided before an investigation will be allowed, then ignore what evidence is available.

> Nineteen foreign nationals were caught voting in 2016 in North Carolina alone.

I am very amused at how you trying to present that as a Big Scary Number. It's as if some carnival barker is hyping up the ferocious lion, king of beasts, and then pulls the curtain aside to reveal confused Pekingese.

> We won't know how widespread the problem is without a thorough nationwide investigation

A false dilemma. State-level investigations are entirely possible and are also within the power of the most vocal doom-sayers to trigger... So why don't they? Because they do not want those investigations, which have a nasty habit of disproving the wild claims they've been peddling to motivate their base.

Demanding a national investigation is an excuse for inaction, firstly because it's legally incoherent with how states manage elections, and secondly because whether Louisiana can detect/stop a berjillion false-voters streaming across the border has nothing to do with requiring a report on how New Hampshire is doing.

> I am very amused at how you trying to present that as a Big Scary Number. It's as if some carnival barker is hyping up an amazing attraction and then pulls the curtain aside to a puzzling disappointment.

It's more like you're lying about what I said. I offered that as an example showing that the problem exists and can be detected.

Isolated investigations with limited resources, facing official opposition, naturally find only isolated cases. We won't know how widespread ("scary") it is without better investigations.

> State-level investigations are entirely possible and are also within the power of the most vocal doom-sayers to trigger

> Demanding a national investigation is an excuse for inaction, firstly because it's legally incoherent with how states manage elections

Both statements are simply inaccurate. The federal government sets the rules for federal elections, federal courts oversee them, and federal courts have blocked state-level investigations.

For example:

AP: Texas can no longer investigate alleged cases of vote harvesting, federal judge says

https://apnews.com/us-news/texas-ken-paxton-fraud-crime-gene...

> I offered that as an example showing that the problem exists and can be detected.

An example [0] suggesting ~0.0004% bad votes in an election is not a meaningful example unless you want to sneakily redefine "the problem" away from "significant numbers of bad-votes may change results" to a pointlessly bland "some nonzero number of bad-votes happen." [1]

If cases are as persistent and widespread as those politicians claim, it should be much easier to find similarly-large-scale evidence. (For example, their mythical "buses of illegals.")

> federal courts oversee them, and federal courts have blocked state-level investigations. For example [...]

That "example" is nonsense.

1. It has nothing to do with non-citizens (or felons) registering to vote or casting ballots. The thing Texas "can't investigate" is an entirely separate crime the state recently added to their books, involving a different set of people doing different things.

2. The reason they're being blocked from prosecution is because they passed a shitty law with a crime that might unconstitutionally restrict freedom of speech, not because the state doesn't manage and audit its own voter-rolls and election systems and enforce existing criminal statues.

____________

[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/nineteen-foreign-nation...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

> not because the state doesn't manage and audit its own voter-rolls and election systems

It only does so under federal regulation and supervision, as proven by the fact that federal courts recently blocked three states from removing non-citizens from their voter rolls.

Regarding the example: once again you've raised irrelevant objections to an example that proves the federal government manages federal elections and blocks investigations into voter fraud. Your objection? That investigation was about a different kind of fraud.

Regarding your first point: once again you've demanded proof be provided before an investigation. Now that's "an excuse for inaction"!

Demanding a national investigation is certainly not "an excuse for inaction" as you claimed; it is in fact a call for action.

It's true that government has been willing to be lax in terms of border security because they want to exploit illegal immigrants as basically slave labor. Personally I think having a large underclass of easily exploitable poor people who don't have the rights and protections the rest of us enjoy is abhorrent and morally unjustifiable.

It has led to this situation where token gestures are made, largely to appease the Americans living in/near border towns and suffering under the weight of the negative consequences.

I don't know how long they'll be able to pay lip service to the problem though. There will be literal billions of climate refugees coming in the near future and they won't be economic migrants looking for higher wages. They will be genuinely desperate and for them getting past the border of another country will be a matter of survival. With a well secured border and carefully regulated immigration the US should be able to take a lot of those refugees in without being overwhelmed by them. If we're not prepared for it in advance, what we'll be left with will be far from the status quo the shortsighted have been trying so hard to preserve.

Parent listed several benefits (to the rich or unethical) of illegal immigrants, and why the powers that be want to keep it that way.

You agreed that it's a precarious and generally bad situation for the immigrants to be in, and objected on moral grounds,

... but then jump straight to the negative affects that local citizens are supposedly suffering from, without actually listing any that are unique to those border towns.

Undercutting workers would be nationwide, as would any adverse affects on the healthcare system. Being in the states illegally means you avoid going back and forth across the border - so being in a border town doesn't strike me as relevant to a discussion about illegal immigrants.

So I'm earnestly asking, which issues affect border towns more than any other place in America, considering most illegal immigrants are overstaying visas instead of trying to sneak through the US-Mexico border?

Any large unexpected influx of people causes havoc on a city. It strains hospitals, social services, schools, etc. It's becoming a problem in places far from the border, but border towns at commonly used crossings get hit first, harder, and repeatedly. People overstaying their visa don't swarm into towns in massive numbers in short windows of time.

There is no shortage of news stories about the issues.

Examples:

https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2023-05-01/texas-bord...

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/03/texas-cities-confron...

https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/small-south-te...

https://doctorsoftheworld.org/blog/humanitarian-crisis-the-m...

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/21/texas-migrants-borde...

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232383832/schools-face-big-c...

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/eagle-pass-texas-declares-stat...

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/02/1167645456/border-towns-are-f...

How does border security or limits on immigration prepare the US for taking in large numbers of climate refugees? The US's strengths when it comes to immigration is specifically that we're relatively easy to get into for a rich country, because we have a generous family reunification visa program, and thus have large support communities for basically every immigrant population you can think of.

In other words, the US is already way more prepared for climate refugees than, say, the EU is. Though, to be fair, the US is also going to have a lot of internal climate refugees, too.

> How does border security or limits on immigration prepare the US for taking in large numbers of climate refugees?

By making sure that when those refugees show up cities aren't already overwhelmed by migrants also by helping the government keep track of how many people are here and how many are entering so they can make informed decisions about how many refugees we can accommodate.

Seems to me if you see someone crossing the border illegally that’s only really useful if you can apprehend them before you lose track of them.

How would you propose to respond to detections, if the cameras all worked?

By sending border patrol out to collect them.

As much as people hate the idea of a wall, and the entire concept has become politicized, it would make that process a lot easier, but the truth is that if you're going to monitor a border and prevent people from illegally crossing it, that will involve humans having to drive/fly out to wherever there are people who are illegally crossing in order to turn them away or arrest/process/deport them.

What would that mean in terms of camera coverage, and border patrol coverage?

Will the border patrol get there in, say, 20 minutes? And we have cameras covering all the land within 20 minutes of the border, so we don't lose them in that time?

Yeah, it'd mean you need enough camera to cover the area and you need to have enough people on the ground to reach the people crossing within a reasonable amount of time. There are somethings you can do to slow them down (walls for one) and things you can do keep an eye on them while people are being sent out to make contact (cameras, drones, planes, helicopters, satellites, etc.).

More people on the ground does cost money, but the good news is that those government jobs would be a real boon for people living near the border.

Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? It's 100 miles from any border of the country [1]. What exactly counts as enough camera coverage? Should we just cover one border? Do we need to expand this to the Canadian border as illegal crossings increase up there as well? Should we blanket the majority of the population in these cameras now that we've established how big their jurisdiction is despite low evidence of their usefulness for their actual job?

[1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

> Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is?

Yes, and I'm no fan of the so-called constitution free zones and the impositions on our rights that result from them. Thankfully, just as borders don't need to be 100% open or 100% closed, enforcement can also exist on a spectrum and to prevent border crossing most of the focus should be on the border itself and what's happening on the Mexican side (or indeed the Canadian one, but while there are problems with people entering illegal from our northern border it's at nowhere near the scale of the problem the southern border is because Canada is a more developed nation and a lot more careful about enforcing their own borders than Mexico is).

Again, there isn't low evidence for the effectiveness of cameras. They are a proven technology. It's primarily been the rest of the systems which failed (non-working camera purchased, bad contracts, bad contractors, lack of staff to respond etc). If you know of a better solution than cameras for monitoring large areas of the border for illegal crossings I'd love to hear your pitch

> Seems to me if you see someone crossing the border illegally that’s only really useful if you can apprehend them before you lose track of them.

Will nobody acknowledge how ridiculous a concept absolute security of a border is? Nobody would want what this would actual look like—extremely violent and expensive with little benefit to anyone.

You think it would be better to have an open boarder? No other country seems to think that's a good idea.

What do you think the ideal solution should look like? Keep in mind that you'll have to defend against or allow into the country economic migrants looking for higher wages, millions of truly desperate climate refugees who don't have homes to go back to, as well as terrorists and criminals.

Consider the spectrum:

Absolute border security - it is literally impossible by land/sea/air/tunnel to cross into the US territory from Mexico without rapid detection and response.

...

Open border - the US does not impede general traffic from Mexico, bringing certain goods remains illegal but enforcement of this is limited to additional penalties after apprehension.

We are pretty far from both of those right now. I don't think the person you initially replied to was arguing for an open border. But surely it's not an ideal use of resources to stop all of these border based crimes in real time?

Most people are not crossing illegally. Those that do are going to have to actively evade those consequences as long as they continue an unpermitted stay. How much of our GDP should we spend to move "up" that spectrum? What benefits are we gaining by doing so? What consequences do we face?

Exactly. Once "the border" became politicized, very few people allow themselves to think in terms of a spectrum. They just stand up a straw man on either extreme end and argue against it.

Almost nobody is arguing for absolute open borders or absolute closed borders.

> What benefits are we gaining by doing so? What consequences do we face?

Just ask any city that has had to deal with a massive unexpected influx of people. Try NYC for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/08/09/nyc-ma...

Hospitals, schools, infrastructure, social services, housing, they all depend on planning for funding and to keep pace with population to avoid being overrun. Things are bad enough right now with the massive numbers of economic migrants coming into the country, but once there are literal billions of climate refugees things will be much worse unless we are prepared.

Now is the time to invest in the regulation of immigration and defense of our borders so that we can safely accommodate as many of the people climate change displaces as we can. We also need to be thinking about what climate change will do to populations within the US.

See for example:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/15/magazine/clim...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-america-3-millio...

If you think it isn't worth the investment, even in low cost expenses like cameras, I can only imagine you aren't living near the boarder or aren't considering the refugee crisis that is coming.

NYC has a bunch of uniquely New York problems that make accommodating anyone - refugees or otherwise - impossible. It's some of the most expensive real estate in the world, in a city that's seeing huge population outflows, burdened by an extremely top-heavy city and state government. If you don't have a tax base, you can't accomodate anyone.

But there's plenty of America that isn't NYC.

Furthermore, Eric Adams is... ugh. How do I put it? The Wikipedia article on him has an above-the-fold mention of him doing community work with Nation of Islam[0], as an NYPD cop. He got elected because NY liberals would vote for Trump if he had a D next to his name. Furthermore, federal investigations have revealed he's a foreign agent of Turkiye and Erdogan, up to and including denying the Armenian Genocide[1]. He's hilariously incompetent and malicious at the same time.

[0] I mentioned this on a Discord call with a friend, who responded, "OH MY GOD, HE'S INTO THE BLITLER SHIT?"

[1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/10/04/eric-adams-brooklyn-turki...

Speaking of Hitler, denying the Armenian Genocide is a thing Literally Hitler Literally Joked About

NYC has a bunch of uniquely New York problems. Denver has a bunch of uniquely Denver problems (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/denver-struggles-cope-4...). Chicago has a bunch of uniquely Chicago problems (https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/politics/white-house-chicago-...). Minneapolis has a bunch of uniquely Minneapolis problems (https://www.startribune.com/migrants-fill-third-of-hennepin-...), etc.

I mean, yeah, places like NYC and Chicago genuinely do have some really messed up situations, but almost any large city would become quickly overwhelmed when a bunch of people unexpectedly show up needing help, smaller cities don't stand a chance.

No one? the EU seems to have done well with all of their member states opening boarders to theirs neighboring members.

No one in the EU has open borders. They have agreements with neighbors, much in the same way you can drive to a neighboring state in the US without much restriction, but interstate travel in the US and citizens of the EU going over the border for a holiday are very different from the situation we have with our southern border (and even with our northern border).

> No one in the EU has open borders.

The relevant border policies inside the EU are literally called open borders. I don’t know what would you call open borders if not what we have between EU countries.

> interstate travel in the US and citizens of the EU going over the border for a holiday are very different from the situation we have with our southern border

This is undeniable.

EU internal migration is relatively non-controversial, at least after the UK left the bloc and people realized how much of a trainwreck leaving the EU would be. Brexit happened mainly because English speakers are painfully stubborn monolingualists.

On the other hand, EU external immigration is extremely controversial. Huge parts of the EU have an extreme far-right that's polling extremely well, and the liberal/centrist parties are all bowing to them by basically copypasting their entire external immigration playbook. The two major fronts in the EU immigration debate boil down to "do we just turn away all asylum seekers or do we start deporting citizens we don't like too?"

The reason why this happened is that the EU suuuuucks at integrating external migrants, especially from poorer countries. I think I saw a statistic which was that, like, Turks that move to the US hate the shit out of Erdogan as much as native-born Americans do, but those that move to Germany wind up loving him more than those that didn't emigrate[0]. Or something like that. The US at least has family migration, which means we've spent the last 50 years learning how to integrate basically everyone, which is the kind of institutional experience the EU's member states lack.

[0] Like to the point of joining hilariously (and illegally) far-right biker gangs

Switzerland is part of the Schengen but not the EU, I guess Norway is in that boat also. If we are just talking about open borders, then it isn’t limited to the EU (the UK wasn’t in the Schengen even when it was in the EU).

> You think it would be better to have an open boarder?

Yes, absolutely.

Talking about "defending" your country from economic migrants is like "defending" your country from having a strong economy.

Meanwhile, border security does little to prevent actual criminals from entering your country, nor does it help with the ones already there.

Patiently waiting for the list of successful countries that don't control access to their resources via borders.

Dispatch a drone to follow until agents can respond?

this is a sociopolitical problem, not a technical one.

for instance, face recognition works, especially if we are tolerant of a very small % of false positives.

> How would you propose to respond to detections, if the cameras all worked?

Facial-recognition scan plus rudimentary SIGINT to identify any e.g. cell phones or devices broadcasting a MAC address. I don't like it, less because of what it means at the border and more in that it requires, for step two, doing the same surveillance across the country. But it's not unsolveable. We just don't particularly have consensus it should be solved.

> We just don't particularly have consensus it should be solved.

I think that is going to change as increasingly people see for themselves the negative impacts of unchecked immigration. I fear that most people won't be personally impacted until the worst of it hits (due to climate change) and by then it'll be too late to make the sensible preparations needed to offset the coming refugee crisis.

I'm not a fan of domestic surveillance either, and hopefully we can place limits on its use internally to minimize the impacts to citizens within the US.

> think that is going to change as increasingly people see for themselves the negative impacts of unchecked immigration

Doubtful. Wealthy communities profit from the wage disparity and can afford to insulate themselves from the problem. And the voters most animated by this remain hyper-responsive to performative solutions.

If you take a step back, cameras merely recording when and where people cross the border can still be very useful.

That way you can move your enforcement crews to where most people enter. That won't catch all, of course, but should be more performant than guessing.

I think it's "plainly obvious" the the people pushing for this keep repeating the same argument, that is, they have no argument, they just say "duh, obviously watchtowers work!".

This isn't evidence-based policy, this is literally the opposite.

Can you name one program similar in-scope anywhere that would achieve results in-line with what you could see here? A pilot study in one small area that measured impact and effects? No? Oh well its just "plainly obvious" right so who needs evidence?

This is cargo-cult nonsense, through and through. "See if we do the right mystical movements and arrangements then magically things will be fixed".

Do we need to bring up that even Israel, one of world's most militarized states, failed to leverage this technology despite arguably far stronger technological knowledge institutionally and far more flexible hand in security spending?

No, October 7th showed the same failures as it would for this border program. The problem is and never was about interdiction, the problem is the root-causes of these "threats" having nothing to do with physical human beings crossing a geographical space without being recorded on camera or a sensor.

It’s not plainly obvious at all. Because the border is fucking huge, surrounded by a vast, inhospitable desert. It can be tunneled under and/or more simply just trafficked through the formal crossings.

There are some areas where cameras make sense. There are some areas where guards make sense. There are vast tracts where it’s an idiotic idea.

The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better.

The fact that the boarder is huge does not mean that monitoring it is not necessary or that it is impossible. The fact that tunnels exist doesn't either. We have the technology to detect tunnels and tunneling. The fact that people sneak past at busy check points doesn't make the situation not worth trying to address.

Every area where a person could cross can and should be monitored. Walls, cameras, drones, satellites, sensors, and guards are all valid tools for border protection. The question just comes down to where and how they are deployed and maintained.

> The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better.

No one so far has managed to come up with an anything better. Have you?

I’ve always thought the real answer was to stop the businesses from hiring people. Make an actually useful national ID system that employers can use to identify if someone is allowed to work in the US, and then come down like the hammer of god on anyone found to be employing people under the table.

People come here for economic opportunity. Remove the opportunity for people who enter without permission, and they stop coming. And that sort of solution deals with more than just border crossings.

Yes, you could stop it at the point of demand. I remember AZ implemented eVerify or some such, don’t know what effect or loopholes it had. In Texas:

  Whenever Texas politicians threaten to pass laws that would make it harder for businesses to employ undocumented workers, phones in the Capitol start ringing. Stuck with the need to show their base that they’re cracking down on migrants, politicians, including Abbott, have instead found a middle ground: They keep up their bombast regarding the border, but they avoid stringing any razor wire between undocumented immigrants and jobs in the state’s interior.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-crisis-tex...

I agree that that would stop a lot of the people crossing illegally today. It's a great idea! I wouldn't help with people crossing for criminal activity and it ignores the looming threat of billions of climate refugees coming because their survival depends on gaining entrance into another country.

That’s Canada’s approach and it is super effective. But when you look at who those employers are in the USA, say hotels, farms, construction companies, etc… people who are basically stereotypical rich Republicans (and even a former president/presidential candidate), it makes sense that this solution will never be proposed here. It also explains why only ineffectual solutions are proposed, it isn’t meant to be solved as neither side really wants it to be solved.

There is actually a large volume of research on what would work better than walls and surveillance systems. Scaremongering politicians don’t care to mention it.

The number one observation is that ports of entries are the largest area for illegal entry and violence and drug smuggling. Expediting bureaucracy there and improving the staffing of these areas would be far more effective than cameras watching the desert or god forbid some idiot’s delusion of “walls”

I’m not even arguing the politics of this. Focus the efforts on areas that are actual sources of problems. Stop appealing to idiots who want imagery of guns and fortifications. That’s not effective operations. The southern border patrol is underfunded. Adding more people to help manage the hotspots is more effective than cameras in cold spots.

I had a great-grandfather that was sent along the Southern border to try to map it — he was a surveyor. A lot of times he'd be at the top of a canyon, and the next place to drop the pin would be at the bottom. He'd just chuck the pin into the canyon and mark the point as "passable by neither man nor mule".

People who've never visited the border — especially in the western bits of it — have very little idea how absolutely inhospitable it is.

The good news is that there aren't a lot of illegal crossings to worry about at those absolutely inhospitable "passable by neither man nor mule" locations. That means that they can be electronically monitored but otherwise more or less left alone while the focus can be on those areas where people absolutely can and regularly do cross.

Or they could be ignored entirely and resources could be diverted into more effective measures

Do you see the nonsense of your own argument? You’re advocating for surveillance installations into a place that you think is easily ignored

I think passive surveillance with cameras in areas that are vulnerable to crossings but far less likely than other areas where we might want a stronger presence is extremely reasonable.

Without them you have massive blind spots which can be taken advantage of as soon as people realize that attempting illegal entry through the easier areas which are being monitored is likely to result in failure but there are locations which aren't being monitored in any way. The expected response to making it harder for people to cross illegally in one area is that they will try another place to do it.

Keeping an eye on those areas in the most cost effective way possible is the ideal. Keep in mind that the people illegally crossing today are mostly looking for higher paying work and citizenship for their children. Still they've already demonstrated that they can be very determined. The people crossing illegally tomorrow will be much more desperate and looking to survive. Intentionally leaving yourself blind to huge areas to save a few bucks on cameras is basically setting out a welcome mat.

The welcome mat is not the lack of cameras on a barren deathscape of desert.

The welcome mat is the understaffed border control ports of entry where the majority of problems arise.

Cameras in the desert address only the uninformed fantasy of how illegal immigration works.

I'd agree that the lack of adequate enforcement at ports of entry is a major part of the problem and it would be good to correct that as well.

This is a bigger part of the answer than most realize.

The border is some of the most rugged and remote terrain on Earth. A lot (most?) of it is in country not well served by paved roads, cell service, electricity, etc. Even if you could have some sort of magic sensor network that alerted you with perfect accuracy every time someone crossed the border, the logistics of responding to every single crossing are incredibly hard. There are plenty of sections where there isn't even a road on the border.

How are you going to respond to a border crossing alert 10+ miles from the nearest agent, in terrain where it will take hours to get there by land?

By staffing agents closer than 10+ miles, building out the necessary infrastructure, and not waiting until after someone crosses the border to respond and head out in that direction.

It's wild that packs of migrants can travel over desert wastelands on foot and swim across rivers to cross over the border but it's seen as impossible to get a border control officer to them when we've got access to trucks, helicopters, drones, sensors, and all the advanced technology we could ever want at our disposal.

You keep saying to just do it, but it is clear that you don’t understand the reality of that environment. Have you been out to the remote parts of Arizona, Texas or New Mexico? I’ve spent a lot of time in that country and it is not for the faint of heart. Hikers and backcountry people go out there and get lost. SAR with helicopters, drones, horses, ATVs and a subject that WANTS to be found fail all the time. It can take years to find a body in an area with a 5 square mile radius.

Border patrol already has tons of access to all of the things you listed, and they can’t come close to keeping up. That’s because the task is incredibly difficult.

The solution you are describing requires tens of thousands of miles of additional access roads, hundreds of guard posts, electricity and plumbing for that, thousands of staff willing to live in remote places or commute for hours. And that’s just for the people to watch the border. Add in vehicles for all of them, thousands of sensor stations, monitoring facilities, an entire Air Force of helicopters. Realistically, you are looking at something that is going to look a lot like the logistics for the war in Afganistan. And with about the same expenses and chance of success.

It’s a bit like saying that going to the moon is as easy as sending a rocket up there.

I mean, yeah, securing a border is difficult and expensive work and we've so far had the luxury of leaving most of it entirely unsecured, but the situation has changed and the billions of climate refugees, along with the growing masses of economic migrants means that leaving the border neglected the way we have is no longer reasonable.

Major cities, with far more resources than most, like Chicago, NYC, Minneapolis, and Denver are already overwhelmed to the point of crisis just from a (relatively) small number of economic migrants and asylum seekers

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/08/09/nyc-ma...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/denver-struggles-cope-4...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/politics/white-house-chicago-...

https://www.startribune.com/migrants-fill-third-of-hennepin-...

These cities can't accommodate the levels they have now. How are they, or any city, going to handle an unregulated influx of migrants orders of magnitude greater in the near future?

I understand that the task is incredibly difficult. It's also critically important. It's such a massive project that the effort needs to be started quickly. Border patrol is currently underfunded, understaffed, poorly trained, ill-equipped, and terribly managed. We're starting from a very bad position, and we don't have a lot of time. What's worse is that a large part of the country is far enough away from the problems caused by the current migrant crisis and are unaware of what climate change will mean in terms of the migration of people within the US or the influx of climate refugees so they don't see securing the border or unregulated migration as a concern. The very concept of regulating immigration has become over-politicized. The short term benefits of sustaining an easily exploitable underclass of non-citizens to be used essentially as slave labor makes keeping things they way they are now very popular with the corporations who buy off our representatives. Only after cities are overwhelmed do they start asking for the federal government to do something about the problem.

We can secure our borders, properly regulate immigration and prepare our country for what's coming now, which could allow us to accommodate as many climate refugees as we can without overwhelming our cities and further destroying our environment or we can allow ourselves to be increasingly overwhelmed by the unchecked stream of migrants coming into the country every day until we're eventually blindsided by the climate refugees and powerless to stop them from surging in uncontrolled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com