FAQ

A border security fence is inherently racist/anti-Mexican/anti-Hispanic
Not at all. All that it does is prevent undetected, and presumably illegal, immigration. Its purpose is not to reduce immigration, but rather to reduce/eliminate illegal immigration. With a secure border barrier, legal immigration quotas could actually be increased. A border fence is not antiimmigration. It is pro-law, and is an essential component in any plan to be sure that we know that we are extending the welcome of America to people who want be law-abiding.

A secure border fence is completely consistent with a guest worker program – in fact, a guest worker program will work only if there is a genuine barrier to illegal immigration.

The national security risk associated with illegal immigration has virtually nothing to do with Mexican citizens, or even other Hispanic nationalities. The greatest national security risk comes from the literally thousands of illegal immigrants from such countries as Syria, Iran, Yemen, Indonesia, Libya and Jordan. Why are people from those countries doing in Mexico in the first place?
It costs too much to be even considered
Estimates of the cost per mile of a multi-layer state-of-the-art border fence similar to the ones in Israel (Gaza and the West Bank) range from $1 million to $3.7 million. Even at the upper end, that would total less than $8 billion – roughly the cost of four B-2 bombers.
It won’t work
The border security fences in Israel aren’t simple concrete block or chain link fences. They are multistage structures involving barbed wire rolls, heavyduty metal fencing, ditches, patrol roads, closed-circuit television cameras and motion detectors, roughly fifty yards wide. They have been shown to reduce 90% of the previous level of terrorist attacks – and those are people who consider suicide missions as an honorable undertaking.
If it does work, all it will do is re-route illegal immigrants north to cross into the US over the Canadian border.
There’s some truth in that; but first note that it would occur only if the fence was being effective. So the question includes an assumption that the kind of fence we are proposing would in fact be effective. We would of course concur with that. If it works on the southern border, it would work on the northern border also. So let’s build one fence at a time, beginning with one along the border that represents the majority of the current problem.

Statistically, the Southern border accounts for over 90% of non-Mexican illegal immigration (See Border Patrol spreadsheet “OTM stats” elsewhere on this website.)

It is generally believed that it is much easier for someone from a third country to get into Mexico than into Canada.
We’re a nation of immigrants. Isn’t it hypocritical to put up a barrier along our borders bearing a Do Not Enter sign?
We are indeed a nation of immigrants, by and large legal immigrants, and if we want to remain one, we need to stop illegal immigration and increase legal immigration.
The economy depends on a certain level of illegal immigration, especially in the Southwest.
If the economy needs lower-wage workers, and if immigrants will work for those wages when American citizens will not, then we should open the doors to those immigrant workers – legally.
The political party responsible for putting up a border security barrier will forfeit the immigrant/Mexican/Hispanic voting bloc.
Surveys actually show that immigrants who have become US citizens want to clamp down on illegal immigration. After all, they argue, we came in according to the rules, so why should we support those who don’t? So the party responsible for getting a handle on the illegal immigration problem may actually reap the benefits of support from legal immigrants.
Let Freedom Ring, Inc., the sponsoring organization, says that its mission is to promote three things: Constitutional government, economic freedom and traditional values. How does the We Need A Fence project fit into Let Freedom Ring’s mission?
The Constitution states that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is to provide for the national defense and to repel invasions. (Article 1, Section 8.)

Economic freedom implies a respect for law under which that freedom can flourish. Illegal immigration undermines the economy and threatens the livelihood of legal residents. When there is legitimate economic need for lower wage-earning labor than the existing market can supply, immigration limits should be increased to meet that need. Absent a meaningful physical border security barrier, adjusting immigration quotas is largely ineffective.

There is value more traditional to a democratic society than the assumption that citizens will obey the law. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration sets the stage for a decline in the respect for other laws as well.