Eyeless in Libya -- and a Swiftian border security solution

suggests that impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. Should we consider a Swiftian solution to problem of securing the U.S.-Mexico border?

Someone has already thought of it. In the run up to the November 2010 elections, Republican Tom Mullins, who ran against — and lost to — incumbent Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D) in New Mexico’s Third Congressional District, suggested that the United States should consider using land mines to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

In an 18 May interview with KNMX radio — he was still running in the Republican primary, which he won on 1 June — Mullins said that “We could put land mines along the border. I know it sounds crazy. We could put up signs in 23 different languages if necessary.”

Mullins would later distance himself from the proposal, but there is no reason why those who see illegal immigration into the United States as a major problem, and insist the government do something about it, not consider the proposal seriously.

The proposal has two main advantages over current proposals to secure the border:

  • Cost. Laying land mines, even in the tens of thousands, is inexpensive in absolute terms, and even more so in relative terms.

    •  

    To appreciate how expensive the different current proposals to secure the border are, just consider this:

    • Between fiscal years 2005 and 2009, more than $3.7 billion was spent on SBInet, the ambitious, futuristic, technology-heavy plan to create a virtual border fence consisting of motion sensors, thermal imaging, cameras, and other devices.
    • The $3.7 billion were spent on creating the prototype virtual fence — called Project 28, because it stretched along twenty-eight miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in southern Arizona.
    • Since it took $3.7 billion to create the twenty-eight mile fence, it soon became clear that building the virtual fence along the entire 1,969 mile border would cost more — much, much more — than the $8 billion envisioned as the cost of the project.
    • Cost was not the only issue. Shoddy work and interminable delays hobbled the project from the start. Thus, from March 2008 to July 2009, more than 1,300 defects were found in the SBInet system, and new problems were being discovered at a faster rate than repairs could be made.
    • “At the current rate of 28 miles of SBInet technology every 4.5 years, it would take 320 years — or until the year 2330 — to deploy SBInet technology across the Southwest border. That statistic would be comical if the subject matter were not so serious,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, during a hearing to receive GAO’s study.
    • Nor are DHS border challenges exclusively technological. The department also is charged by Congress with building a physical fence covering one-third of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico — an ambitious project, the costs of which have risen from $3.5 million a mile to $6.5 million a mile. A separate form of fencing aimed at keeping out vehicles also has risen in cost, from $1 million to $1.8 million per mile, and Government Accountability Office (GAO) officials say the impact of both types of fencing has not been adequately measured.

    Late last year, DHS halted work on SBInet, and in January this year the project was killed.

    • Effectiveness. They say that for every 10-foott fence there is someone with a 12-foot ladder. Fences, physical or virtual, can be defeated. Mine fields cannot.

    Here, then, is a question for advocates of strongly secured U.S.-Mexico border: why not lay land mines on the U.S. side of the border? The mine fields will be clearly marked; signs in many languages will alert people to the presence of the mines, and direct those who want to cross the border to safe, mine-free corridors.

     

    There is something Swiftian about proposing mine-fields to secure the border. Faced with a huge budget deficit, however, should the United States not consider an inexpensive and effective way to secure the border — if we decide that securing the border is of major importance?

    Those who argue that illegal immigration is a serious problem, a problem that must be dealt with, to use Malcolm X’s words, “by any means necessary,” should have the courage of their convictions and bring this idea into the conversation on border security.

    Ben Frankel is editor of the Homeland Security NewsWire