Saudi Arabia is building a 600-mile wall along its border with Iraq to keep out Islamic State militants who want to take over their country. The 10-year budget total is estimated at $20 Billion.
Israel operates its own 455-mile "separation barrier" costing $260 Million per year.
In comparison, a 670-mile fence along the southern border of the United States was mostly completed by 2009 and cost a grand total of $2.4 Billion. The actual length of the border with Mexico is 2,000 miles.
Supposedly a fence along another 700-mile fence will be built at the Mexican border. It's a simple matter to speculate the cost will be something similar $2.4 Billion.
Is this expensive? The point, in theory, is to keep out illegals and drug smugglers. What is the cost to the United States of illegals from Mexico and Central America?
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on US taxpayers as of 2010 was $113 Billion per year. Therefore, it's absurd for the news media to claim the costs of the fences are high when the cost numbers of fences versus illegal immigrants are not comparable. $113 Billion per year versus about $5 Billion for the two fences.
According to a recent Rasmussen survey, the vast majority of Americans (legal) favor building a fence on the Mexican border.
The average citizen knows a fence is needed, otherwise there is no border in practice, just in theory. Terrorists and drug smugglers walking across the border is seen as a negative of an insecure border.
It's safe to say if illegal migrants from Mexico and further south were thought to be favorable to the Republican Party and conservatives, Democrats in Washington would have already built fences covering the entire border long ago.
Despite whatever fencework is down there at the border, illegals continue to pour across the border with little stopping them, since the Obama Administration wants them here. Not for any supposed humanitarian reasons, but because they are seen as future Democratic Party voters ensuring a permanent majority in Congress. At the expense of the best interests of legal citizens, and the legal immigration process and those who choose to go through it.
From an economic standpoint, there is not reason whatsoever not to build the fences. From a safety and security aspect, they are a necessity. Politically, they represent a problem for the Democrats, but with non-enforcement of immigration control, it doesn't matter if the fences are there or not. There must be some sort of political will backing them up or it's as if they aren't really there. See the latest statistics on illegal immigrants freely entering the United States.
The new Saudi fence is called "The Great Wall of Saudi Arabia" after "The Great Wall of China." It seems absurd to call the efforts on our southern border as "The Great Wall of the United States" as it clearly doesn't stop who and what it is supposed in theory to stop. It is full of contradictions, as in Franz Kafka's short story, "The Great Wall of China."
Citizens want the wall but politicians don't. Citizens want protection but politicians want electoral victories. And others want cheap labor. The desires of the citizenry are trumped several times over.
So far, the politicians are winning that battle of desires.