[USNRet93]

Again, without delving into the silly politics of it all, you have to detach personal feelings from rational decisions (something the left often has difficulty with). The "'Nuff said" comment indicates a close-mindedness that benefits neither the warfighter or taxpayer.

To use an example you brought up, if drones are more cost-effective than a wall why shouldn't that option be studied? Just because a politician threw out the wall idea to get elected and it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?

You may not agree with the Euros' politics (I typically don't), but good on them for looking at other options for border security. We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

Never mind the physical impossibility of running a non-stop wall along an arbitrary (i.e. non-natural) border. Google "watershed" if you don't understand.

Serious thread drift but what he said...