Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams'

Dr_Barnowl writes "The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers." From the article: "'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants " Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

Comments

While we're talking about illegal immigration...

[GillBates0]

...it may be worthwhile to mention that India has already built 1300 miles of it's 2500 mile fenced barrier along it's border with Bangladesh.

It may be noted (for those unfamiliar with the region's history/politics) that India has faced a considerable inflow of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for more than a decade. Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.

While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking.

More than 1,300 miles of the barrier has been erected in the six years since building began. Snaking through jungles, rivers and the villages of five states, Delhi's floodlit, 12ft double fence packed with razor wire will render India a fortress against her neighbour.

This is not intended as flamebait, nor as a political rant. Just thought it might be useful to look at the steps other countries have been taking to combat unapproved/illegal immigration into their borders...probably from more hostile neighbors.

I for one think each piece of technology has it's own place where it works well. Just because we have the technology to stream live video via the intarw3b doesn't mean it can replace a relatively low-cost hard barrier (agreed though that the FTA claims this is a temporary solution).

Xenophobe?

[caffeinatedOnline]

I live in Arizona, and the illegal immigrant problem is reaching epic proportions. My wife works for the state health department, and the numbers that she mentions on how much it costs the taxpayers to subsidize these illegal aliens in just Arizona is mind blowing.

Just looking at a report on the Center for Immigrant Studies website http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalcoverage.ht ml/ mentions that it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

They aren't monitoring citizens, they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country. It is promoting not xenophobia. A nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, and that is all that is happening. A sovereign nation has the right to decree who may or may not enter it. Even if you let every immigrant in, you have to control immigration, unless you have complete confidence in the other nation's security. Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons? This isn't a step towards fascism. I do agree that the government needs to be monitored more carefully, but we aren't in a crisis. We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits").