MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Military Is 'Securing' a 1,900-Mile Border with 22 Miles of Razor Wire

"Operation Faithful Patriot" is nothing more than a very expensive, politically motivated P.R. campaign.

Alexandra Minor/USAF / Polaris/NewscomAlexandra Minor/USAF / Polaris/NewscomSkim through the Pentagon's media site for Operation Faithful Patriot—the fittingly ridiculous name for the deployment of some 7,000 American troops to various spots along the Mexican border—and you'll see lots of razor wire.

There are photos of American troops laying razor wire (technically known as concertina wire) along the California-Mexico border. Of wire being affixed to the top of fences and to the sides of buildings. Everywhere you look on the Pentagon's site, you find wire, wire, and more wire. Photos of soldiers carrying rolls of unused wire, snapshots of forklifts bringing more of the stuff to the border, and even videos of wire being unrolled and deployed. It's thrilling stuff, truly.

The message is not subtle. President Donald Trump might not have convinced Congress to blow billions for a fully operational border wall, but good luck to any immigrant caravan that happens to stumble into the thorny might of the American military's sharpest deterrents.

The focus on concertina wire isn't just in the Pentagon's internal media. The Wall Street Journal dedicated an entire Election Day story to how troops in Granjeno, Texas, had "unfurled reams of razor wire on top of a wrought-iron fence alongside a bridge to Mexico." Troops stringing wire also appeared in The New York Post, The Washington Post, and elsewhere.

There is so much concertina wire deployed to the southern border that if it were all stretched out from end to end, it would reach all the way from Brownsville, Texas, on the Gulf Coast to....well, whatever is 22 miles west of Brownsville, Texas.

Yes. Despite the deluge of photos and videos of American troops are securing the southern border with reams of razor wire, Buzzfeed's Vera Bergengruen reports that "troops have deployed with 22 miles of the wire so far, with 150 more available."

The U.S.–Mexico border is roughly 1,950 miles long.

The wire doesn't seem to be getting strung with any sort of strategic purpose, either. That WSJ story about the troops in Texas hanging wire from a bridge says that the "wire was placed on top of fences at least 15 feet high along each side of the bridge that sat several dozen feet above an embankment" while the bridge itself remains open to vehicle traffic from Mexico. If there is a goal, it would seem to be making the border look more prickly and dystopian while not actually creating any sort of barrier.

It's no wonder, then, that the troops deployed to the border are confused about why they are there. On Wednesday, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited some of the troops stationed near McAllen, Texas, he was met with lots of questions and provided few answers.

"Sir, I have a question. The wire obstacles that we've implanted along the border....Are we going to be taking those out when we leave?" one of the soldiers asked Mattis, according to Bergengruen. Another asked Mattis to explain the "short- and long-term plans of this operation."

"Short-term right now, you get the obstacles in so the border patrolmen can do what they gotta do," Mattis responded. "Longer term, it's somewhat to be determined."

Even at a time when most American military engagements seem to be conducted with a "TBD" rationale, this feels especially egregious. Mattis did his best on Wednesday to make the effort seem like a meaningful attempt to secure the border, while simultaneously admitting that he does not expect the deployed troops to actually come into contact with any immigrant caravans. Lately he's been talking about how the deployment is supposedly good training for unconventional circumstances.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that Operation Faithful Patriot—a name so silly that the Pentagon has decided to stop using it—is nothing more than a very expensive, politically motivated P.R. campaign. Of the 39 units deployed, five of them are public affairs units. There seems to be no clear mission, no long-term objective, and no indication that the troops will add meaningful enforcement to existing border patrols.

As for all that wire? It doesn't really seem to be working either.

Photo Credit: Alexandra Minor/USAF / Polaris/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Well duh.

  • Placeholder Name||

    Wire obstacles only work when you cover them with machine guns, otherwise they're just a waste of time. To be clear, I'm not advocating for the deployment of machine guns. Rather, I'm arguing that this is a waste of time.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    How about personal deployment of machine guns? I'd be down for that.

  • ozzy||

    No any kind of barricade helps but is not perfect. The same can be said about any locked door. Yes most doors can be broken into but it does slow people down and allow other responses.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "That WSJ story about the troops in Texas hanging wire from a bridge says that the "wire was placed on top of fences at least 15 feet high along each side of the bridge that sat several dozen feet above an embankment" while the bridge itself remains open to vehicle traffic from Mexico. "

    If you can't understand why troops want to force traffic through a choke point like a bridge that can be easily guarded, then you're either easily confused or you don't want to understand.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. I'm really sick of seeing my fellow libertarians fall for the perfect solution fallacy.

    "The perfect solution fallacy . . . occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....on_fallacy

    Like I wrote in the other thread, if the appeal to authority is the fallacy to which libertarians tend to be least susceptible, the perfect solution fallacy is the one to which we are probably most susceptible. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

    Stop it already!

  • mtrueman||

    "the perfect solution fallacy"

    22 miles of razor wire is not a solution. It's a publicity stunt. The difference being it's aimed at the rubes at home rather than protecting the border from a caravan of invaders.

  • dchang0||

    That depends on how the 22 miles of wire are deployed.

    It could be that the 22 miles are deployed right at where the caravan is headed. (The US military should be able to follow their movement quite easily with satellite photos and on-the-ground observers.)

  • My Dog Bites Better Than Yours||

    "the perfect solution fallacy"

    I will grant the concertina wire only addresses "part of the problem". I have a problem defining exactly what "part" is being addressed.

    Stop hoards of South Americans charging the border wall en-mass and disappearing into the American society? True, but when has that ever happened? Do you really expect a group of migrants that just traveled the length of Mexico to be an invasion threat?

    Make Trump look bad-ass to his supporters? Well, stringing up very visible wire does solve that problem.

  • Nardz||

    It's a pretty inexpensive method of signaling intent.

    Libertarians are too often no better than progressives in their failure to recognize the value of psychological factors.

    Words have little to no effect if not backed up by significant visual demonstration.

    The razor wire, like the wall, may not be 100% effective when tested (and to Ken's point, 50% effective is better than doing nothing), but demonstrates a new position.
    There is value in deterrence and keeping people from even starting their attempts.

  • mtrueman||

    Why not pictures of razor wire? Even cheaper.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Razor wire demonstrates intent, pictures of razor wire demonstrate pictures of intent.

    Granted, about 10 times as much razor wire is needed, but it's a start.

  • JFree||

    Or pictures of Mexicans grimacing and in a lot of pain and discomfort.

    That way people can imagine the same thing happening to them without the need for any actual thing there that they might not understand anyway.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media conveniently forgets that Trump winning the election and him saying that he would enforce immigration law and make the border more secure actually caused a huge drop in illegal immigration.

    All Trump did was say something about doing it and winning the presidency.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    did he say anything about shovigng his cock up the ass of the average hillbilly, LockCock69? Because that seems to be on the rise, esp around here.

  • Agammamon||

    It's a pretty inexpensive method of signaling intent.

    Do you know how much it cost to ship a bunch of Privates down there with all their support baggage?

    It ain't cheap. And that's not counting sunk costs - like their salaries and benefits. That's just the cost of setting up the convoys and shipping all the tents and MRE's down there (and MRE's are expensive), cooking facilities, the shower facilities, the latrines, garbage collection and disposal, securing fuel supplies.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Wait, your command teams cared if you were fed or showered? Shenanigans.

  • ozzy||

    It is not free but neither is just housing them. This is not going away so they will be down their permanently reasonably soon.

    One way to look at it deployment within the US is cheaper and safer than Syria.

  • Presskh||

    It ain't cheap - true. But how cheap is allowing in 10,000 immigrants who have to be fed, clothed, given health care and free schooling, etc., for possibly decades? Not very cheap either.

  • dchang0||

    Worse than that, those illegal aliens seem to consistently vote for leftist authoritarianism, in direct opposition to libertarian ideals.

    Grindall61 on YouTube pointed this out on a map of blue/red counties from this election.

  • My Dog Bites Better Than Yours||

    Libertarians are too often no better than progressives in their failure to recognize the value of psychological factors.

    A problem with amorphous symbols is they are open to interpretation. To you, miles of wire on the border may indicate "Stay out! We don't care about your situation at home and don't want you to come here to mow lawns for cheap".

    To me, it represents "This is a chicken-shit country, afraid and willing to shoot anyone wanting to come across to mow lawns for cheap".

    Same symbol, different interpretations.

  • Nuwanda||

    "...my fellow libertarians..."

    Oh, Ken, they are probably not your fellow libertarians. So many flavors of libertarian these days it's hard to even define the word.

  • perlchpr||

    This was going to be basically my exact comment.

  • Rebel Scum||

    you don't want to understand.

    They don't want to understand. All they need to understand is "orange man bad".

  • Oli||

    That argument goes both ways.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It doesnt thou.

  • grb||

    "you don't want to understand."

    Just like Trump's supporters don't want to understand the caravan "invasion" was jingoistic nonsense? The "danger" from a bunch of ragged refugees nonexistent; the "Mideast terrorists" hidden in their ranks a total fabrication, the whole controversy a farce worthy of Baghdad Bob or the North Korean Information Ministry.

    Trump's supporters "don't want to understand" they were treated like dupes and fools. DJT's claim 15k troops were needed to counter the caravan was lying on an epic scale; his gleeful talk of our soldiers opening fire on men, women and children ugly and stupid; his use of the US Army as a propaganda toy offensive and wrong.

    To top it all off? When a reporter calls out Trump on this sordid comedy, our president throws a hissy fit. But the reporter is to blame according to Trump because he lacked "decorum". This being the same Trump who just insulted a member of Congress with - yes - a poop joke. Decorum, huh?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump was elected exactly for what he is doing on the border.

    The media is having a hissy fit alright.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's all fascinating, but using wire coils to create a chokepoint at a bridge still makes sense anyway.

    I'm more or less an open border guy, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend I'm mystified by simple things. In fact, pretending we don't understand things that are easy to understand undermines our arguments for open borders.

    There people in this thread who have no problem with me personally because of my open borders arguments--except for that they disagree with them. That's the upside of intellectual honesty. You'll always have a harder time persuading people without it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly Ken. I get your open border position and you advocate it in a rational manner.

    I even agree with many of your points.

    I feel for you too because you see that the emotional screamers on your side turn American public opinion against anything close to open borders.

  • grb||

    Whether you believe in open borders or are a reincarnated member of the Know Nothing Party is irrelevant, because this entire farce was never more than bad comedy. Remember : We've already seen one caravan. What happened then is exactly what's happening now : A few thousand ragged refugees moved up through Central America, their numbers thinning mile by mile. By the time they reached the US border they were easily handled by border enforcement. They applied for asylum and were judged per the law.

    That. Is. All.

    The invasion? Trump lying.
    The threat? Trump lying.
    The terrorists? Trump lying.
    The emergency? Trump lying.

    The whole silly puppet show (complete with army deployment) is to real border security as a sitcom is to real life. But I guess that's the point. I'm guessing voters like loveconstitution1789 are so brain-addled by talk radio and Fox News they now see national policy as mere entertainment. Pop the tab on a beer, sit on the sofa, watch Trump repel a fantasy invasion. Then - added bonus - we can all debate the military tactics used to defeat this jokey threat. Who cares if it's all a lie?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "By the time they reached the US border they were easily handled by border enforcement. They applied for asylum and were judged per the law."

    You mean they were given a trial date to determine their asylum claims two years in the future and released with U.S. residency good for two years?

    How many on average show up for their trial date?

  • grb||

    Nah. They were invited inside the United States, lavished with welfare benefits, and told no problemo whenever you get the time to rape and murder.

    You see, I'm not sure what quality Immigration Porn you consume, Ken. On the one hand, I don't want to lay it on too thick. On the other, I'm not sure that's even possible. Let me ask you a question : Do you think everyone who asks for asylum at the border is permitted in the country - then to be given their precious trial date. Give that some thought, do a little research, get back to me.......

  • mtrueman||

    "How many on average show up for their trial date?"

    How about zero? Asylum seekers are not put on trial.

  • TuIpa||

    But they do HAVE a trial to examine their claims.

    JFC what point did you think you were making fucktard?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hundreds of thousands skip out on court dates and overstay student and tourist visas.

  • mtrueman||

    Asylum seekers don't need student visas or tourist visas.

  • Agammamon||

    Nope. They're sitting in Tijuana *right now* - pissing off the Mexican locals. Which people like LC have pointed out in other threads (about how even the Mexicans don't want them there).

    They didn't make it into the US. Didn't even really try to. Just rolled up to the border, sat down, and started filling out forms.

    Except for one idiotic stunt where a bunch of them climbed over the beach wall south of San Diego, laughed at Border Patrol and the cops *and then climbed back in to Mexico* for some damned reason. I'd think that if you were determined enough to trek up there, made it over the wall, saw the police were basically powerless to stop you that you'd keep going. I would have anyway.

  • My Dog Bites Better Than Yours||

    "You mean they were given a trial date to determine their asylum claims two years in the future and released with U.S. residency good for two years?"

    How does the razor wire change that?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How does the razor wire change that?"

    Who said it did?

    The claim was made that the asylum seekers who came before got due process.

    Due process means they typically get an asylum hearing in about two years, and in the meantime, they're free to stay in the country.

    Most of them never turn up for their asylum hearing.

    That's what "due process" means in this case. Why pretend otherwise?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "To initiate the asylum process, migrants must first establish in what is known as a "credible fear" interview that they face danger if returned to their home country. According to U.S. government statistics, 77% of migrants interviewed passed the credible-fear test in the first four months of fiscal 2018.

    Migrants may then apply for asylum status through the U.S. immigration court system, which can take years to get a ruling because of a backlog of immigration cases. At the end of September, there were about 768,000 pending cases in that system, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, or TRAC."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/mi.....1542376796

    Once they get a court date, they're released pending the date. Why pretend that asylum is the end of the question when it isn't?

    I didn't say putting up some razor wire would solve that problem (at all). I pointed out that this statement:

    "By the time they reached the US border they were easily handled by border enforcement. They applied for asylum and were judged per the law."

    . . . was an oversimplification.

  • grb||

    To repeat the question :

    Do you think everyone who shows up at the border and asks for asylum is let into the United States?

    Bonus question : What difference does it make if someone does or doesn't "show up for their trial date" when they're not even permitted in the country?

    Double bonus question : Did Trump really deploy thousands of armed soldiers to help manage the United States legal asylum procedure? Because they're effectively doing zero else

    Triple bonus question : Let's assume there is a problem with the border asylum procedure. Who's in charge of that now? Why does it take thousands of troops to fix it?

    Quad bonus question : Ever read history? Because we've seen this kabuki theater again and again. A sleazy politician convinces dupes and fools all their difficulties come from some Other. At various times it's been Jews, Catholics, Irish, Italians. Whoever - it doesn't matter - they're always brutes, vermin, barely human, a threat to the very fabric of the nation. The sleazy politician fans fear and rage with phony emergencies (sound familiar?) and hysterical exaggerations. The dupes and fools? They eat it up.......

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Do you think everyone who shows up at the border and asks for asylum is let into the United States?"

    77% in the first four months of 2018. There are 768,000 asylum cases pending.

    "What difference does it make if someone does or doesn't "show up for their trial date" when they're not even permitted in the country?

    That's an odd question. The question I was answering why people might be concerned about illegal immigrants showing up asking for asylum when they're actually just playing the asylum system to get into the United States without having to pay a smuggler.

    "Let's assume there is a problem with the border asylum procedure. Who's in charge of that now? Why does it take thousands of troops to fix it?"

    You don't seem to understand what's going on or why.

    Trump is claiming emergency powers. Yeah, that makes him in charge of it. I wish he weren't. That's Congress' job to set the rules of naturalization. Still, according to John Roberts, anyway, all the laws that govern these procedures are highly deferential to the president. Because we don't like the way things are is no reason to pretend they are otherwise.

    The purpose of the razor wire is not to reform the asylum system. It's to start securing the border.

  • Agammamon||

    Except they're not doing that.

    THE BRIDGE IS THE CHOKEPOINT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S WIRE ON IT. Putting some wire on the approach and departure doesn't change that. Either you're taking the bridge - in which case you're going through the chokepoint - or you're taking a different route - in which case it doesn't matter how much wire you hang on the bridge.

  • ozzy||

    Even with wanting more open borders there is a point to be made of legal entry. Via something like Ellis Island where we can discourage the really bad or sick etc.

    The problem is as a nation we are not talking about legal entry, just allowing the illegal. The solution gets lost in both them forcing their way in and Democrats just wanting more voting population.

    The solution now is the same as it has been forever, less or no welfare for immigrants, more immigrants legally allow and following through on the laws for illegal immigrants.

  • ozzy||

    I am sure your town can handle the 100+ or 1000+ or 10000+. Why don't we send them there.

    Our homeless shelters in even the largest of cites are mostly full if not overfull. Yes with an effort we could take care of them but it is not something most border towns can handle. Look at the frustration in Tajuana already on the Mexican side. Thousands of people in places where they are not supposed to be is a nightmare. Where do they poop? Where do they sleep? etc. etc. etc.

    Yes most of the rhetoric is just that however not all of it. There is zero excuse to be forced to take in migrant hoards. Let them come in via Ellis Island is fine, randomly is dumb.

  • GryFalcon||

    Wirecutters -- this year's hot new accessory for the determined migrant.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I walked through tunnels of 15' high coiled razor wire on the southern border of Mexico when I was crossing the Hondo river through the Mexican checkpoint on the way into Mexico from Belize. As I recall, the coils were really close together. You could probably work your way through it with wire cutters eventually, but it's gonna be one heck of a project.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People unfamiliar with military equipment and tactics (Boehm) think razor wire is designed to keep people from getting thru.

    Military wire obstacles are designed to slow the enemy down, thereby giving the defenders time to react.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obstacles are also used to channel enemy forces into areas that you can apply superior firepower.

  • mtrueman||

    I doubt the troops have the stomach to mow down these invading hoards.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I was just discussing what wire obstacles are mainly used for since Boehm is playing clueless.

    Channeling immigrants into a small area to detain them is what the wire obstacles are being used for in this situation.

  • mtrueman||

    Detaining these invaders in luxurious American-style prison camps is no solution either.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They have Due Process rights and two options.

    Voluntarily agree to deportation immediately or wait for court hearing that takes x period of time and then be deported because you have not read the rules on how asylum works.

  • mtrueman||

    How about option 3: choose a point in one of the 1878 miles that's not festooned with this magical wire, and cross there.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Have you ever been in the Chihuahuan Desert?

    You might just see bones of someone who tried to do what you suggest.

  • mtrueman||

    Once upon a time libertarians celebrated our risk-takers. Now we fear them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Past immigrants Risk takers largely wanted to be Americans and assimilate as best that they could.

    They were certainly not welfare queens.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    22 miles of barbed wire, 1900 miles to protect. Hold my beer.

    /Young's Modulus

  • Don't look at me!||

    Just like the three dead lawyers joke.

    It's a start.

  • Rich||

    If there is a goal, it would seem to be making the border look more prickly and dystopian

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

  • Brandybuck||

    If that 22 miles can inconvenience just one murdering rapist trying to steal my job, then it's worth it!

  • Ken Shultz||

    One murdering rapist? Maybe not.

    But there is a number up there above that somewhere, right?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Boehm does not understand military tactics at all.

    You dont spread all your forces thin covering a large area. You focus on likely points of attack and have reserves to go where they are needed.

    Why does Reason have people write article who have zero idea what they are talking?

  • Oli||

    This might be true in a combat engagement, but in this case the military isn't even allowed to interact with the asylum seekers. So you might say that, all in all, this is a rather pointless exercise. But it probably got Reps some votes in the midterms, and that's what it really was about.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your citation fell off.

    Military units have MP units that are trained to be law enforcement and can handle non-military warfare type interactions.

    The majority of these people dont have valid asylum claims as they are poor not in one of the acknowledged categories for asylum

    Thats makes them invading hordes and the US Military was Constitutionally created to protect United States of America and its borders "against all enemies foreign and domestic".

  • Oli||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I Dont click on links where you dont know how to have the URL listed in the link.

    I dont trust you. Figure it out and then back to us.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn, running thru handles like crazy.

  • Oli||

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But they *can* stop an invasion, if at any time the President declares large numbers of people crossing the border contrary to our law to be so.

    Will he do it? I don't know. I do know that all it takes is them crossing the border after being told not to, and his ordering the troops to stop them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its SOIL not soul, you North Korean jackass.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I'm not sure what's left of the Posse Comitatus act after the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act was passed.

    On another note, Pres. Eisenhower sent regular forces of the 101st Airborne division to Little Rock AR. in 1957 as part of the Crisis at Central High affair.

  • Agammamon||

    Military MP's still can't perform law enforcement duties with non-military. Its called Posse Comitatus. Unless and until the President declares a state of emergency and martial law within that area there's not much they can do outside of put up barriers and dig trenches and maybe call in movement.

  • Agammamon||

    So why are they 'hardening the border in Texas when the caravan is already in Tijuana?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Reason Is 'Securing' a 1,900-Mile TDS breakdown with 22 Miles of Razor thin articles

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn is back and resorted me on his JournoList.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Barbarians at the border. The end of overpriced produce is nigh.

  • Ben_||

    Reason would like to instead propose that half the population of Central America should come here and start using government services. Because a huge permanent underclass of aliens represents liberty or something.

  • ||

    I don't understand this open borders stuff touted by the Reason staff.

    If we need more immigrants, I have no problem with increasing the amount of LEGAL immigrants allowed into the country.

    Otherwise, strengthening our border to make it more difficult to enter our country illegally seems like a valid function of government.

  • ||

    Otherwise, strengthening our border to make it more difficult to enter our country illegally seems like a valid function of government.

    Especially at the cost of millions relative to enforcing borders abroad at the cost of billions.

  • Dalben||

    Because it's politically impossible to increase the number of legal immigrants to what many pro-immigration people would like, or even increase them at all. So there's a large minority of people who would like to allow immigration laws to be ignored, since their desires to increase immigration can't be accommodated legally.

    There are variations on this view, but most of Reason seems to fit generally within it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For Anarchists (which many of the Reason staff are), there can be no nations founded on Constitutions where Rule of Law is determined by a Legislative body and subject to the limitations of the Constitution. Their goal is to burn the USA to the ground in the hopes that Anarchy-Land will arise from the ashes.

    For Lefties (which some of the Reason staff are), there can be no free nation with a strong economy based on free market principles and a government controlled by the People that have their substantial rights protected by said government. Their goal is to bring the USA under the Socialist way of doing things or destroy the USA in the hopes that Commie-Land will arise from the ashes.

    Open borders is designed to gain voters to be used politically against the Silent Majority that wants to keep America the Constitutional Democratic Republic that it is. Additionally, thee hordes of mostly socialist immigrants can be used to overwhelm the welfare state causing a financial meltdown.

    Either way, see strategies for Anarchists and Lefties above.

  • Mcgoo95||

    And yet you still come here day in and day out. The writers of reason are about as much anarchists and leftists as Trump is Libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason staff admitted being Anarchist, you retard.

    Yet other Reason staff admitted being Lefties.

  • Peter Duncan||

    LC only comes on this site to remind everyone how sweet Trump's cock tastes to him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I wouldnt know anything about Trumps cock.

    You got some sweet insight on Hillary's I bet.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *Hillarys cock that is.

  • Ben_||

    The guys paying for Reason need cheap, compliant labor. People who aren't part of a desperate underclass can negotiate higher wages and less hazardous working conditions.

  • bvandyke||

    ^ Exactly.

    Without boarder there is no U.S. I'm all for legal immigration (yes our current legal immigration polices need work).

    Real question - are there any other countries that will let you move in, stay and take advantage of local benefits without going through some kind of immigration procedure?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    FWIW, "Posse Comitatus" sounds similar to my nickname in the ROTC.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, the Constitution trumps Congressional law and allows for the President to repeal invasions on US soil.

  • ||

    It;s been illegal since 1878. Google "Posse Comitatus" -- which forbids federal troops from enforcing domestic laws on American soil. It's all just another stunt for gullible Trumptards.

    This is a blatant misreading of Posse Comitatus so wrong even the most batshit insane liberals aren't willing to advance it. Troops putting up defenses against foreign nationals doesn't violate any of the key provisions of the act aside from troops. Your dumb assertion wasn't true when W did it, wasn't true when Obama did it, and isn't true now that Trump's doing it and you're an absolute illiterate retard to think otherwise.

  • Agammamon||

    Then let's increase the number of legal immigrants. Doing so would effectively negate the need to increase 'border security'.

    And let me remind you that drugs are a really high priority of the CBP, DEA, DHS, and other Federal agencies - and they've had neglible effect on availability despite not only pouring billions into shoring up border security agencies but also on pro-active measures like going down to South America and helping those governments kill drug producers and traffickers.

    So what makes anyone - especially supposed libertarians who can clearly see where government fuckups have lead to bad incentives and more problems - think that the government spending even more billions (and screwing over a lot of people living near the border) on a wall or other means of 'securing the border' would have a net positive effect.

    The Drug War, for all its successes, has been a massive net negative on society. Screwing up everything from warrantless searches to police corruption.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Then let's increase the number of legal immigrants. Doing so would effectively negate the need to increase 'border security'."'

    I don't think so. At least not with migrant waves that demand to be let in now. Too many people too fast.

    Where, anywhere does too many people too fast NOT create a problem. Stormy Daniels being the exception.

  • creech||

    This is one "plan" to control the borders of the U.S. What is the Democrat's plan? Isn't it incumbent on "the other side" to advance a plan they think is better, more in keeping with the hallowed traditions of U.S.,? It may well be that Trump's/GOP plan sucks and, sure, we can compare it to the libertarian plan, but realistically it needs to be compared to an as yet unstated Democrat plan. Speak up Donkeys - what do you propose? Only a couple days left until we can discuss this around the Thanksgiving table.

  • ||

    Yeah, I'd appreciate some clarity on the position as well. I get that the "plan" is full amnesty, all the time, but the assumed blanket opposition to anything but is getting absurd. What started out with cattle cars and a $12 billion wall has devolved into several hundred miles of concertina wire. Is the assertion now that countries and smaller sovereignties can't deploy a couple thousand troops and concertina wire along their own borders?

    Shouldn't these troops be dronessassinaing people in Yemen or blowing shit up in Afghanistan at 100X the cost of the job they're doing?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Democrats' plan likely is to continue along the path of liberal-libertarian progress America has followed throughout our lifetimes -- and earlier, when we overcame the shortsighted, backward, and inadequate voices that targeted the Irish, Jews, eastern Europeans, women, Italians, gays, Asians, Hispanics, Catholics, and others for hatred, fear, and abuse, often related to immigration, skin color, religion, or perceived economic pressure.

    This military deployment is a stunt aimed at the class of consumer that considers 'rasslin and trophy hunting to be sports and faith healing to be superior to medical treatment from physicians with fancy, elite, advanced degrees.

  • bvandyke||

    "The Democrats' plan likely is to continue along the path of liberal-libertarian progress America has followed throughout our lifetimes -- and earlier, when we overcame the shortsighted, backward, and inadequate voices that targeted the Irish, Jews, eastern Europeans, women, Italians, gays, Asians, Hispanics, Catholics, and others for hatred, fear, and abuse, often related to immigration, skin color, religion, or perceived economic pressure."

    Some how I really doubt this. I think it is just what ever works to get us closer to socialism and extends and perpetuates the liberals in power. They really do not care about anyone else - actually neither side (as a generalization) really cares about anyone else.

  • creech||

    Insults aside, you appear to be saying what my progressive friends were saying (but, naturally enough, not what the successful Dem. challenger for the local Congressional seat was saying). Namely, that America should welcome more immigrants. But under what conditions? Most of my friends agree there need to be limits but won't say what those limits are ("Hey that's up to the wonks and legislators.") When, if ever, will the Democrats put forward their "Immigration Contract with America?" Did they do so when Pres. Obama and the Dems controlled both chambers of Congress? Pray, tell us what your immigration policy reform ideas look like.
    Until then, you cannot expect civil discussion and reflection.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    blockquote>Pray, tell us what your immigration policy reform ideas look like. Until then, you cannot expect civil discussion and reflection.

    I observe little to no evidence that America needs to change (or "reform") substantially that which has worked for more than a century and, in particular, throughout my lifetime. Immigration seems a contributor to, rather than threat to, American progress.

  • bvandyke||

    "I observe little to no evidence that America needs to change (or "reform") substantially that which has worked for more than a century and, in particular, throughout my lifetime. Immigration seems a contributor to, rather than threat to, American progress."

    So, unless I'm reading this wrong, you see no issue with enforcing the current immigration laws - all of them?

  • TuIpa||

    Still too stupid to use HTML I see.

  • Rebel Scum||

    while the bridge itself remains open to vehicle traffic from Mexico. If there is a goal, it would seem to be making the border look more prickly and dystopian while not actually creating any sort of barrier.

    *woosh*

    It's called a choke-point.

  • mtrueman||

    The question is Who passes out first?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Anthony Bourdain. Unless David Carridine is also there.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The article says they have an additional 150 Miles of wire. That would cover 10% of the Border.

    That seems like a reasonable start.

  • ||

    Place it on the 10% of the border where it is easiest to cross on foot.

    Baby steps, y'all..

  • Hank Phillips||

    The stretch between Big Bend and El Paso is full of native growth with thorns that hide in sand and penetrate gumshoes like they were socks. Only the exportation of fascist prohibitionism, which converts superstitious and overcrowded slums into what Trump so pithily described, could prompt this sort of migration. American Indian hemp is doubtless causing a glut that shuts down the flow of mucho cash into Junta-ruled slave pens having no Second Amendment. Fortunately, drones can carry payloads of other plant leaf products and lightweight enjoyables like lysergic amides and ayahoasca extract. The brouhaha against the pathetic marchers at Mexicali and might even provide the hardy boys of the rum fleet with some handy diversion.

  • Dillinger||

    Operation Fence Posts?

  • mtrueman||

    Operation Catch 22 miles.

  • Dillinger||

    +1 contagious insanity

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Operation Media Freak Out?

  • John||

    Hihn you are such a moron. First,the PCA does not prohibit federal troops from providing support to law enforcement. They can build the fence. They just can't actually arrest people. Second, national guard troops in Tlte 32 operational status are not covered by the PCA. Only title 10.

    You are dumb as post. All you do is come on here and embarass yourself. You were banned for your own good. Now go away and be an assclown on some other board.

  • John||

    That is a policy not the law you half wit. National Guard Troops in title 32 status, which is what they were one, are not covered by the PCA.

    Hihn, crazy and stupid. The banned you from here because you are a dangerous lunatic. Go away.

  • Agammamon||

    National Guard in title 32 status? That doesn't mean anything. Title 32 is just the enabling legislation for the National Guard.

    Either they've been Federalized - in which case they're a military force - or they haven't - in which case the President couldn't direct them to do dick and the states they come from would be directly footing the bill for this operation under direction of the state governor.

  • John||

    This is why Hihn should scare the shit out of anyone on this board. The simple logic of "support to law enforcement as in installing wire does not violate the PCA, goes right over his head. He cannot think rationally about things. He is almost rational but then it goes askew. That is real insanity and can't be faked.

  • Agammamon||

    John, you're the one making straw men here. No one said that PCA prevents law enforcement support.

    But we're spending a lot of money to send soldiers to lay wire. Not even under law enforcement direction. Its not like CBP is saying 'hey, we need these places shored up but never had the resources to do it'. Its the NG going out and wiring up bridges - which I remind everyone are choke points on their own and adding wire to them doesn't make them more . . . chokey.

    If they were serious, they'd be wiring those bridges with explosives.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So it's just as easy to cross an open bridge as one with a bunch of razor wire strewn about it?

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""First,the PCA does not prohibit federal troops from providing support to law enforcement."'

    Such as flying helicopters to spot pot plants.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • The Last American Hero||

    They don't squeak too loudly when dropping bombs all over the Middle East.

  • JonFrum||

    More dishonesty on this subject. People don't come across the border randomly - they follow very few paths. Thus, though it would be wonderful to have a full length wall, an impassible fence in a particular spot can be of great help. And the author knows it - thus, the dishonest.

  • John||

    You are an expert on the Border Hihn. They fact that you haven't left your bedroom in 30 years notwithstanding.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • Agammamon||

    If people only ever came across in very few paths - then why hasn't the BP been able to seal them off over the last 50 years?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Oh, well if Buzzfeed says so, it HAS to be right.

  • Peacedog||

    You want to know what secures borders: landmines.

    Lots and lots of landmines.

    Autonomous armed ISR helps too.

  • Peacedog||

    I think a lot of people with very little experience on securing terrain are commenting on things they have no understanding of.

    I also think people who have never spent any time in Central America and seen how these illegal aliens act at home are making some very big assumptions as to how they will act in the United States.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I had assumed your landmine point was tongue-in-cheek. Now... not so much?

    What a wonderful time to be alive.

  • Homple||

    ^^This.

    Here's Eric Boehm's bio. Nothing in it even hints that he has any experience except writing about stuff that he has no experience of.

    http://reason.com/people/eric-boehm/all

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He lives in Arlington VA. He's seen the Pentagon, so he's all down with military S.O.P.

  • Homple||

    You're right. I should have noticed that.

  • The Last American Hero||

    He seems to know more than the "experts" that can't come up with a coherent strategy for getting out of Afghanistan.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Since they are legally forbidden from enforcing domestic policies on American soil."'

    Like desegregation laws?

  • markm23||

    If you are referring to Eisenhower deploying the 101st Airborne to escort a few black students to Little Rock Central High School,

    1) Considering that Gov. Faubus had called out the Arkansas National Guard to block the road against these students, the Army deployment could be described as a response to an armed rebellion. Surely that is legal. Faubus was just bluffing, so the situation was settled without a shot being fired, but you don't withdraw the conquering army the day the enemy surrenders.

    2) Or they were acting as bodyguards for the students, not as police officers. Is there a law against that? They didn't arrest anyone...

    But say the Army decides to lease land and set up a target range right on the border. (If the owners do not want to lease, there are precedents for obtaining land for military facilities with eminent domain.) It might be dangerous for unauthorized personnel to wander across that target range, but the troops aren't enforcing a law against crossing the border...

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Peacedog|11.19.18 @ 1:16PM|#

    You want to know what secures borders: landmines.

    Lots and lots of landmines.

    Autonomous armed ISR helps too.""

    For some reason this makes me think of the movie Oblivion.

  • Peacedog||

    You are not far off.

    Prior to the UAV revolution controlling a border was both manpower intensive and expensive. Controlling a 2k mile border all but impossible.

    That is no longer true.

    Given limited practical land routes due to terrain, it could probably be done with a dozen, or so, assets in the air at any one time. The band width requirements would be a real bitch, but doable.

    Even if you only armed the UAVs with non-lethal riot control agents you could stop 90% of crossers cold within 500 feet of the US border. Military grade CS agents are no joke.

    It is really just a matter of political willpower.

  • jello.beyonce||

    Trump, the pseudo-"Libertarians" demagogue, via his short-sighted "tariffs", isn't spurring new American steel mills, thus maybe perhaps several miles of bureaucratically administered steel wire placement will make that pipe dream come true.

    "If it ain't already broke, break it".
    That's Trump's new S.O.P.

  • John||

    Fuck off Hihn. No one is fooled by your sock puppets.

  • TuIpa||

    Really, even I think it's sad. And amateurish.

  • perlchpr||

    The tells programmed into the bot make it really easy to tell what it is.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Is anyone actually stupid enough to be surprised by any of this?

  • ||

    Whatever happened to Freedom Fries? Did it not catch on?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny, you mentioned that. I had some Freedom Bread yesterday.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Fuck this noise. Waste of time and money.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A would take a Constitutional waste of money over unconstitutional wastes of money (ObamaCare, Social Security, Medicare, medicaid) any day.

  • mtrueman||

    You can constitutionally waste your money over to me any time you like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You building a road, defending the USA from invasion, coining money....?

    If so, let us talk.

  • mtrueman||

    "You building a road, defending the USA from invasion, coining money....?"

    Even better. I'm building a wall and having Mexico pay for it!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You mean building MORE border wall? There was already a border wall pre-Trump.

    According to the Lefties, illegals pay more into the USA tax system than get out.

    Mexico is paying for the wall extension. Thanks Mexico.

  • UncleSam13||

    Go easy on them. I'm sure that's all the razor wire the Chinese would sell us.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And I don't know why are having soldiers do this when Mexicans will do it cheaper WITHOUT asking pesky questions.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Tijuana probably has some people that will volunteer if they think it will defer the next group.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Sir, I have a question. The wire obstacles that we've implanted along the border....Are we going to be taking those out when we leave?"

    Shut your piehole before you're wearing my boot in your ass! was the correct response.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Military people know the correct answer is we are going to pick them up and move them over there, then pick them up and move them back.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Somebody has military S.O.P. pegged.

  • Pinky||

    It's a publicity stunt.

    It's working.

    ... are not incompatible statements.

  • ozzy||

    "Texas hanging wire from a bridge says that the "wire was placed on top of fences at least 15 feet high along each side of the bridge that sat several dozen feet above an embankment" while the bridge itself remains open to vehicle traffic from Mexico"

    No kidding they left the bridge razor wire free but hardened either side, it is called a choke point. You man the bridge with people but stop entry where no personnel are. To make an issue of this is insane or blatantly biased.

  • M.L.||

    Unconstitutional? It's required by the Constitution, actually.

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
  • Hank Phillips||

    True facts. The Constitution also provides that States may repel invasions without so much as a by-your-leave from Big Brother and the Inner Party. This, not pistols, is why the Reds are so pissed off at the Second Amendment.

  • ozzy||

    Dumb headline, no the military is not going to cover the entire border but the illegal aliens are not going to walk out in the middle of the desert with little food and water either.

    Like everything you put barriers in the most likely places for the illegal aliens to cross. You use personnel and less secure methods elsewhere. 500 miles out in the Sonoran desert nature will take care of them.

  • M.L.||

    The U.S. Government has a duty to maximize the value of citizenship, in the same way directors and executives of a corporation have a duty to maximize the value of the corporation's shares.

    In a shocking dereliction of this duty, the U.S. is giving out MILLIONS of new shares every year for FREE, and even letting millions of people just TAKE new shares illegally.

    Worse than giving it away free, vast numbers of these individuals come into the country and are a huge net liability -- especially illegals. Many of them also commit violent crime, when a background check and legal process would have kept them out.

  • Hank Phillips||

    22 miles west of Brownsville is Harlingen, which is only a fifth of the way to the real destination of the free-toed Blackshirt Banditos. The thing began as a Mussolini-style March on Roma, Texas (pop. 10,000). But the rustling of food stamps and a feefteen-dolla meenimum wage in the sanctuary cities of East LA and San Francisco has deflected the retirantes to California. Crowds of "arriving immigrants" are already gathering without so much as toilet papers in Mexicali and Tijuana. This is good, because Texas border agents are famous for murdering alien girls. The New Mexico border region just west of El Paso is dotted with mass graves from which several hundred unidentifiable corpses have been exhumed within recent memory. So let the Californians import braceros and soon they may have manpower enough to fight the brush fires possibly set by saracen berserker arsonists in response to "our" meddling in the Ottoman Empire. It all evens out...

  • Nuwanda||

    Q: what's the difference between this article and the razor wire?

    A: it's no secret the razor wire is politically motivated.

  • Nuwanda||

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is that you? Did Eric give you permission to publish under his name? Maybe he helped with the big words.

    You little scamp.

  • shanjames||

    Excellent information on your blog, thank you for taking the time to share with us. Amazing insight you have on this,

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online