Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drones Cost $28,000 Per Arrest, On Average

Posted by Soulskill on from the tag-and-release-even-more-expensive dept.

mpicpp sends this report from CNN: They are sleek, mostly silent converted weapons of war: Drones used by the Border Patrol to scan the skies in the empty deserts of the Southwest to spot illegal immigrants and then, if things work out, have agents arrest them. That's the idea, and the agents who use them say the drones give them a vantage point they never had before. Flying at 18,000 feet, the drones view the landscape below, lock onto potential suspects crossing the Arizona desert, and agents on the ground move into make the arrests. But it's outrageously expensive: $28,000 for a single arrest.

33 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Is that really a lot? by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's assume for a moment that they're serious about deporting people.

    What's the cost if they get through, and have to be tracked down by traditional methods? What's the cost of putting more people there to achieve the same level of effectiveness? What's the cost of flying conventional aircraft to do the job?

    When pitted against those methods by comparison, $28,000 might actually not be all that bad.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Is that really a lot? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      well considering that minimum wage for yearly is something around $22,283 then yeah 28k is a bit expensive. let's say that the employer costs are double what the employee gets.

      yes, you could hire guys with motorbikes and have them drive around 6 months to catch one guy per one hired guy EASY.

      it's friggin expensive thats what it is. besides, borders aren't that hard to keep. for some reason russia-finnish border keeps people from getting over it illegally very, very tight - and it's wilderness for most part. though russians are very very keen to keep Russians from coming over..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Is that really a lot? by space_jake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or just have them come here, work, and pay taxes.

    3. Re:Is that really a lot? by userw014 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The math for calculating this cost is deceptively simple-minded - and the article doesn't offer any way to compare it with other methods.

      A (very) brief search for the US Border Patrol budget and apprehensions found these:

      • http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BP%20Total%20Apps%2C%20Mexico%2C%20OTM%20FY2000-FY2014_0.pdf
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection

      or FY2014 budget of $13.6 Billion and 486,651 apprehensions.

      That gives an average cost of $27946/apprehension for the entire organization. My (very, very) simple minded calculation is remarkably similar to the Office of Inspector General's figures for just the drone program. If anything, it shows that just introducing drones doesn't change the cost-per-apprehension of the Border Patrol. A more important question would be whether cost-per-apprehension is even a valid metric for the Border Patrol.

    4. Re:Is that really a lot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Americans have no interest in those jobs. I see no shortage of minimum wage, unskilled labor job postings here. Problem is most people think they're better than that.

    5. Re:Is that really a lot? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correction. Americans have no interest in those jobs at the wages being offered. Of course the wages will never rise when the employer can exploit illegal aliens at lower and sometimes even illegal wages.

      But wait you think, those are minimum wage jobs. Well, nothing forces them fo pay only minimum wage. Should a real and legal market exist, they would likely be paying above minimim wage and would not be minim wage jobs.

    6. Re:Is that really a lot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Newsflash... minimum wage isn't supposed to.

    7. Re:Is that really a lot? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      Yeah, hiring troves of border protection agents is hard when Americans don't want to do that job for the rate I'm willing to pay, but that gives me an idea... does anybody know where I can find people who are willing to work for low pay, in horrible conditions, and if I don't like how hard they work, I can just send them back to their own country? Anyone? Anyone?

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    8. Re:Is that really a lot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." - actually, yea, that was the logic behind its creation.

    9. Re:Is that really a lot? by Adriax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. Minimum wage is supposed to keep employers from abusing the desperate by making sure someone working full time or more can afford to survive without working themselves to death.
      When people have to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week just to afford a roof and food they find crime becomes an attractive alternative.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    10. Re:Is that really a lot? by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      borders aren't that hard to keep.

      Isn't that what East Germany said? Walls, landmines, razor wire, snipers, papers please... and they still leaked like a sieve.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re:Is that really a lot? by Bartles · · Score: 2

      It leaked, but I wouldn't say like a sieve. I would say like a fishing net with a few small holes.

    12. Re:Is that really a lot? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is most people think they're better than that.

      Americans have no interest in those jobs at the rate they are currently paying. Before the influx of illegal immigration (as well as offshoring), the working class was making a living wage. Nowadays, it's damn near impossible to survive (much less thrive) on the pittance that's being passed off as minimum wage. It's literally better to not work, get on welfare, and instead live a no-stress life - free of the abuses the lowest rung on the ladder normally take. It's not an issue of what they think - people are better than that.

      OH THE LOLS!

      The working class was making a living wage doing, for the most part, manual unskilled job (pull a lever on a converyor belt or making US flags. That went away with globalization, starting with the rise of Japan, and then the opening of China (and India to a degree).

      Many studies have already debunked the idea that illegals have been depressing salaries. Overseas competition is what is killing jobs and depressing salaries. Not that I'm supporting illegal immigration (any country must have the right to control its borders), nor demonizing overseas competition (adapt or die motherfuckers.) But let's keep shit more or less accurate, shall we?

    13. Re:Is that really a lot? by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya...they all came in legally, through Ellis Island. Underwent exams, were quarantined if needed and many sent back.

      And they came in through the Golden Door, not the Back Door.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    14. Re:Is that really a lot? by sycodon · · Score: 2

      So your position is that the law is irrelevant. If someone wants to come in, anyway they can is OK by you.

      I bet you think you have the right to download free shit from the internet too.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    15. Re:Is that really a lot? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      How is minimum wage relevant in this topic?

      For starters, it would be more efficient to just provide minimum wage jobs to the immigrants, even if the entirety of their employment is to undo the work of other immigrants. However, there's a great likelihood that they will actually do something useful in the course of work, meaning that we might even be able to pay them a US living wage.

      Look up what it costs on average to arrest a local drug pusher sometime.

      Perhaps you might want to pick a better example than the horribly failed war on drugs.

      Law enforcement is expensive.

      Then perhaps we should take a 'less is more' approach.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:Is that really a lot? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The working class was making a living wage doing, for the most part, manual unskilled job (pull a lever on a converyor belt or making US flags.

      I'd like to know where you got the idea that the working class was doing mostly manual unskilled jobs.

      I lived in Brooklyn, where a major industry was manufacturing and repairing electric motors. That all disappeared with cheap (usually lower-quality) Japanese electric motors. We had a big electronics industry in New York. We had a big printing industry, which requires a lot of skilled workers. We had a big garment industry. We had airports with big maintenance shops. Most of the American airlines are now sending their planes out to mechanics in Latin America.

      It wasn't because Americans were less efficient, or because foreign workers were willing to do the same job cheaper. German workers kept their industries and kept competitive while they paid their workers the same salaries Americans used to get. It was because the American businesses made a decision that treating their workers well wasn't a factor.

      There are a wide range of jobs in an industrial factory, but most of them were skilled and high-paid. We lost them with free trade.

      All the benefits of free trade went to the business owners, and none of the benefits went to the workers.

    17. Re: Is that really a lot? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Actually, yes, minimum wage was meant to be at least barely adequate to keep you and your family off of food stamps and welfare.

      Stop paying the CEO as much as everyone on the factory floor put together and it's not that big of a problem.

      Tell the management to quit trying to pay silly stupid low wages.

      It's funny how quickly the so called free market capitalists cry foul when unions demand whatever the market will bear. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

    18. Re:Is that really a lot? by Adriax · · Score: 2

      So you honestly believe that employers who currently treat their workers like disposible slaves wouldn't keep doing the same thing if they could start paying them 1/10th what they currently do?
      You have gone completely off the libertarian deep end. Dear god i hope you aren't in a position of educational authority.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  2. Wrong kind of drone? by leonbev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of using a multi million dollar Predator drone to scan the border, perhaps they should be using something smaller and cheaper like a beefed up version of a Parrot drone instead.

    Do we really need something that flies at 18,000 feet to patrol the border?

    1. Re:Wrong kind of drone? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Years ago they were talking about teathering balloons and blimps to reach the same objective. I guess drones are much cooler.

    2. Re:Wrong kind of drone? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      I bet we could outsource that work to a 3rd world country and only pay a 1/10 of minimum wage. It is not like the pilots would have to be physically here in the US to run them remotely.

      Good idea! We can hire drone pilots for cheap in, say, Pakistan. I can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong with this plan. ;^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Wrong kind of drone? by mark_reh · · Score: 2

      Don't be silly!

      Have you ever seen the view from a tall building? How about from an airplane? From 18k feet you can see a lot of ground. Predator drones can stay up for many hours (maybe even days at a time).

      Parrot drones fly at rock-throwing altitudes for about 10 minutes at a time. How many thousands of them (and people to operate them) do you think it would take to view the same area as one predator flying at 18k feet?

  3. Scanning the skies? by joelgrimes · · Score: 5, Funny

    scan the skies in the empty deserts of the Southwest to spot illegal immigrants

    Hey guys, I think I see the problem.

    --
    Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
    1. Re:Scanning the skies? by ckatko · · Score: 2

      If they're empty, why are we scanning them?!

  4. Wrong kind of metric... by fraxinus-tree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The metric "$ per suspect catched" is pretty much meaningless. If they have 1 suspect for the whole year and do arrest him, the cost per arrest will be their yearly budget - and guess what? The border still needs to be guarded. The important numbers would be the the cost increase/decrease vs drone-less operation and the percent of trespassers missed.

    1. Re:Wrong kind of metric... by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Funny

      The important numbers would be ...the percent of trespassers missed

      I wish my performance review would have a category of percent of undiscovered bugs.

  5. Re:No wonder congress wants to defune DHS by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 2

    You assume the Plutocrat Party has a problem with with "sanctioned thugs who kill without consequences," or with a "creepy, WWII-Axis-power name."

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  6. You know if you just start putting fining... by Bonzoli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we(all of us) stop employing the illegal immigrants they will stop jump, tunneling, bussing, boating, and swimming to the US. How about instead of buying guns and drones we set up databases and fine the companies and people employing folks illegally. Its simple.

    I lived in Nevada and the landlord used to complain every day about all the illegals in the area. I got frustrated with her one day and stated if you stop employing them to paint, do yard work, and cook they would all leave or at least stop coming here.
    Farmers need some method to get folks willing to help to the farms, that system has to be in place along side the other ones.
    Once the Nancy pelosi's and others employing them as maids and gardeners get fined and put in prison this will end. You will never stop this with drones or guns. Stop the Money and you stop the problem. At this point in time, I'd jump the fence and take the chance just like they are in their positions.
    Taking a vacation to america to have a baby has to end also. Its an archaic method that has to stop.

  7. But drones are so kewl by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At first glance I was prepared to say, "Expensive compared to what?" I was initially prepared to support the drone program. But when I read TFA and got some details, I think it would be fair to say that this drone program is something of a failure.

    The border is always in the same place, and therefore the same areas are being patrolled. You don't need a drone to do that. Couldn't you practically accomplish the same thing with observation blimps at a much lower cost? Sure, it doesn't quite have the same "cool" factor, but I would wager it could get the job done.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  8. If we are going to do numbers that way..... by kosh271 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Should we start analyzing the US military's cost per kill of enemy combatants last year?

    1. Re:If we are going to do numbers that way..... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Since our bombs are more valuable than most of what we are blowing up, it probably would make us rethink our policies, or we'd just pay private contractors who would slaughter entire villages of innocent civilians to buff their numbers.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  9. Actual Cost by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

    I did some calculations and I'd like a critical review. My disagreement with the number is that they are including the price of the drones in the first year operation. I don't think that's a valid comparison to cost per apprehension. Thus, I would like to know the total operational cost, which is number of hours times cost per hour. The number of hours from the report is calculation as 22% of the goal of 16hrs/day for 365 days (or 1284.8 hours). The cost per hour calculated by OIG is $12,255. Thus, a total cost of about $15.7M. Divide that by 2,272 apprehensions for an actual cost of $6,930.12 per apprehension.