3 ms·

By sending border patrol out to collect them. As much as people hate the idea of a wall, and the entire concept has become politicized, it would make that proc

By sending border patrol out to collect them. As much as people hate the idea of a wall, and the entire concept has become politicized, it would make that process a lot easier, but the truth is that if you're going to monitor a border and prevent people from illegally crossing it, that will involve humans having to drive/fly out to wherever there are people who are illegally crossing in order to turn them away or arrest/process/deport them.

michaelt 2y ago
What would that mean in terms of camera coverage, and border patrol coverage? Will the border patrol get there in, say, 20 minutes? And we have cameras covering all the land within 20 minutes of the border, so we don't lose them in that time?
- autoexec 2y ago
  Yeah, it'd mean you need enough camera to cover the area and you need to have enough people on the ground to reach the people crossing within a reasonable amount of time. There are somethings you can do to slow them down (walls for one) and things you can do keep an eye on them while people are being sent out to make contact (cameras, drones, planes, helicopters, satellites, etc.). More people on the ground does cost money, but the good news is that those government jobs would be a real boon for people living near the border.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? It's 100 miles from any border of the country [1]. What exactly counts as enough camera coverage? Should we just cover one border? Do we need to expand this to the Canadian border as illegal crossings increase up there as well? Should we blanket the majority of the population in these cameras now that we've established how big their jurisdiction is despite low evidence of their usefulness for their actual job? [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? Yes, and I'm no fan of the so-called constitution free zones and the impositions on our rights that result from them. Thankfully, just as borders don't need to be 100% open or 100% closed, enforcement can also exist on a spectrum and to prevent border crossing most of the focus should be on the border itself and what's happening on the Mexican side (or indeed the Canadian one, but while there are problems with people entering illegal from our northern border it's at nowhere near the scale of the problem the southern border is because Canada is a more developed nation and a lot more careful about enforcing their own borders than Mexico is). Again, there isn't low evidence for the effectiveness of cameras. They are a proven technology. It's primarily been the rest of the systems which failed (non-working camera purchased, bad contracts, bad contractors, lack of staff to respond etc). If you know of a better solution than cameras for monitoring large areas of the border for illegal crossings I'd love to hear your pitch

michaelt 2y ago

What would that mean in terms of camera coverage, and border patrol coverage? Will the border patrol get there in, say, 20 minutes? And we have cameras covering all the land within 20 minutes of the border, so we don't lose them in that time?

autoexec 2y ago
Yeah, it'd mean you need enough camera to cover the area and you need to have enough people on the ground to reach the people crossing within a reasonable amount of time. There are somethings you can do to slow them down (walls for one) and things you can do keep an eye on them while people are being sent out to make contact (cameras, drones, planes, helicopters, satellites, etc.). More people on the ground does cost money, but the good news is that those government jobs would be a real boon for people living near the border.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? It's 100 miles from any border of the country [1]. What exactly counts as enough camera coverage? Should we just cover one border? Do we need to expand this to the Canadian border as illegal crossings increase up there as well? Should we blanket the majority of the population in these cameras now that we've established how big their jurisdiction is despite low evidence of their usefulness for their actual job? [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? Yes, and I'm no fan of the so-called constitution free zones and the impositions on our rights that result from them. Thankfully, just as borders don't need to be 100% open or 100% closed, enforcement can also exist on a spectrum and to prevent border crossing most of the focus should be on the border itself and what's happening on the Mexican side (or indeed the Canadian one, but while there are problems with people entering illegal from our northern border it's at nowhere near the scale of the problem the southern border is because Canada is a more developed nation and a lot more careful about enforcing their own borders than Mexico is). Again, there isn't low evidence for the effectiveness of cameras. They are a proven technology. It's primarily been the rest of the systems which failed (non-working camera purchased, bad contracts, bad contractors, lack of staff to respond etc). If you know of a better solution than cameras for monitoring large areas of the border for illegal crossings I'd love to hear your pitch