Slashdot Mirror


US Scraps Virtual Fence Along Mexican Border

Pickens writes "The Arizona Republic reports that the federal government has officially cancelled its multibillion-dollar plan to build a virtual fence along the border with Mexico as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano disclosed in a congressional briefing that the program known as SBInet was costing too much and achieving too little. 'SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution,' says Napolitano. Boeing was hired in 2006 to develop the system under a three-year federal contract with cost projections for full build-out as high as $8 billion but efforts were plagued by delays, glitches, budget increases and congressional criticism. Napolitano has ordered Customs and Border Protection to launch a more modest and geographically tailored effort using SBInet funds and existing technology such as mobile-surveillance systems, unmanned aircraft, thermal-imaging devices and remote-video surveillance with proven elements of SBInet including stationary radar and infrared-sensor towers. SBInet cost nearly $1 billion for development along 53 miles of Arizona border."

7 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. So... why did it fail? by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm curious as to why the project failed. They claim to have a much cheaper plan that they're going to try now; why didn't they try that in the first place? Is it going to be substantially less effective? So ineffective that it's not worth spending money on that, either?

    The article mentions "glitches and delays". Is that because Boeing is just bad at its job? Or is it a fundamentally difficult thing?

    I'm not asking about the political implications, which are substantial. I just want to know: America is supposed to be good at tech, but this is hardly the first time that a Big Government Project has failed. Is there a lesson we can learn here? Or is it endemic to the fact that the US government does things on a scale no other operation in the world does?

  2. Re:The Virtual Fence was always a dumb idea by Entropius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This, exactly.

    The people making a stink about "onoz illegals!" IMO don't know what they're talking about. I live near the border (Tucson, AZ), and all these horrible problems created by the dirty Mexicans just ... aren't there.

    Yes, there is some crime associated with drug smuggling; yes, there is a higher crime rate among the poor. But it's better among the Hispanic community here than in many other populations of non-immigrants.

  3. Re:The Virtual Fence was always a dumb idea by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the problems with the Mexican drug lords and gangs (they're not really cartels), is that they're heavily armed. Armed by US citizens who (legally) buy guns and (illegally) sell them to Mexicans for a profit.
    I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.

    My suggestion: Make it a felony to not be able to present any and all legally bought guns within 24 hours of the police requesting it, or to not report a lost gun in a timely manner, or to file a false report. Get the fuckers who arm the drug lords.

  4. Re:More Boeing cancellations by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Boeing is, as their own executives describe themselves, an 'honest broker' of engineering and management services. Aside from a very few core competencies (airframes, etc.) they subcontract or acquire the skills needed to complete a contract. So, they aren't as big as they seem. I mean, where was Boeing's e-fence division prior to this contract?

    A couple of observations:

    • I wouldn't buy a used car from a dealer that had 'honest' in its name.
    • Brokering is a valuable service when there's a poor match between suppliers and customers knowledge. But in this case, DHS probably knows as much, if not more, about securing borders and facilities than Boeing does. So, as with many DoD contracts, the brokering service essentially boils down to Boeing telling the actual contractors,
      <chicago_mob_accent>
      "If you want to do work in my territory, you've got to give me a piece of the action"
      </chicago_mob_accent>.
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. We can put real live guards on it 24x7x365 cheaper by dirkdodgers · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's do the math.

    The US Mexico border is 1,969 miles. Stationing on average 4 guards per mile gives us 7,876 guards. 4 shifts to give us 24x7x365 coverage gives us 31,504 guards.

    31,504 guards would give us 4 guards per mile of US Mexico border, 24x7x365.

    Assume generously that each guard costs us $150,000 / yr for pay, benefits, equipment, logistics, training, and administration.

    BOTTOM LINE: For a price of 4.75 billion USD per year we can have 1 well paid, well equipped guard stationed on average every 1/4 mile along the entire 1,969 miles of the US Mexico border.

    No, that doesn't include facilities and infrastructure to support the operation, but building guard towers, barracks, and administrative buildings is one of the few things that the government excels at.

    Like government make-work programs? This is among the best I can think of in terms of jobs created per $$$ because it puts real people on the ground doing what real people do best. Rather than giving billions to some contractor who will employ 1,000 people, we are CREATING 31,504 NEW JOBS, and they are good hard working outdoor jobs, in the service of our nation, that most Americans would be proud to do and to pay for.

    Personally I would like to see open borders and see us eliminate the uneconomical policies that drive us to fight the free flow of people and ideas, but that's not going to happen, so let's secure the damn thing.

  6. Re:fucking Mexicans! by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We'd be better off if we just ripped down the fences and let people migrate like any other animal.. But then how would you be able to acquire and keep your slaves if they could just walk off the plantation?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  7. Re:More Boeing cancellations by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They don't want to hire more guards, there are no corporate profits in provide more government border agents. Think about 53 miles with with three shifts of guards spaced 100 yards apart, getting paid say $25,000 per year, that billion dollars would pay for 14 years worth of wildly excessive security.

    I have to question the math on this one. $25,000/year isn't very much considering that these people are going to be dealing with rugged terrain, harsh desert conditions, and facing violent, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. It sounds like we're not even factoring in any sort of benefits like health care or retirement. In short, you're offering minimal pay and benefits for dangerous, difficult work. The obvious solution, of course, is that we fill these positions by hiring illegal immigrants.