Kevin Graham wrote:subgenius wrote:... and people can open your front door with a swift kick, yet you still shut and lock it at night...go figure....
You think I'm kidding? I have double french doors that are thick, and they dead bolt lock at the top and bottom. No one is kicking their way into my home.
The question to be asked of any barrier is not whether it is impenetrable (since no barrier is impenetrable, if the motivation for penetrating it is strong enough, and the means for penetration are available).
The question is whether the barrier is strong enough to resist penetration by the kind of person who might wish to penetrate it, given the likely means at that person's disposal.
A solid and well-secured house door meets the test it needs to meet: is it likely to be penetrated by a person whose motive is burglary, who has the means of penetration that such a person is likely to have, and who also does not want to make enough noise or spend enough time on the job to be caught? And the answer to that is 'yes'. It's probably worth the householder spending the money involved.
A wall in open country, facing the test of a highly motivated would-be immigrant with the likely aid of a rope and grapnel, or a ladder? Probably 'no'. And a professional drug smuggler with large funds at their disposal? Certainly 'no'. And that means that the government in question needs to ask whether it is likely to get any useful return for the money involved in constructing the wall, given that there are many other worthwhile and essential things the government could spend the money on.
