Drones Cost $28,000 Per Arrest, On Average

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.

Comments

Is that really a lot?

[Mal-2]

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.

Re:Is that really a lot?

[space_jake]

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

Re:Is that really a lot?

[userw014]

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.

Re:Is that really a lot?

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Is that really a lot?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Is that really a lot?

[Adriax]

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.

Re:Is that really a lot?

[luis_a_espinal]

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?

Re:Is that really a lot?

[sycodon]

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.

Re:Is that really a lot?

[nbauman]

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.

Wrong kind of drone?

[leonbev]

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?

Scanning the skies?

[joelgrimes]

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

Hey guys, I think I see the problem.

Wrong kind of metric...

[fraxinus-tree]

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.

Re:Wrong kind of metric...

[cdrudge]

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

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

But drones are so kewl

[wcrowe]

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.

If we are going to do numbers that way.....

[kosh271]

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