Tunnels Under Trump's Wall Already In Progress

-edited

Border agents discover tunnel on Texas-Mexico border.

Patrol agents discovered a tunnel under construction in Hidalgo, Texas that would have gone under the border wall.

The 60-foot long tunnel is reportedly almost impossible to see standing near the Rio Grande River. That's because it sits at the bottom of a 30-foot embankment, so you can only see it if you're on the river. Agents said they brought pictures to show President Trump during his recent visit.

"You've seen them on the news in Arizona and New Mexico and stuff like that but I've never seen one in the Valley,” Brand said. “That's the first one I've seen that's in our back yard."

The Hill adds Tunnel Commentary.

"You've seen them on the news in Arizona and New Mexico and stuff like that, but I've never seen one in the Valley,” Orthal Brand Jr., who is president of the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District 3, told the local station. “That's the first one I've seen that's in our back yard."

“It’s hard for me to put a piece of equipment on the edge of a 30-foot sand cliff, and reach down and try to collapse something, without putting my own piece of equipment and my operator at risk,” he said.

Brand said he is working with the Border Patrol and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to find another way to get rid of the tunnel. He told the Rio Grande Guardian earlier this week that his team also plans to enlist the help of an explosion company.

“My men climbed down and looked at it. It needs dynamite to blow it. I would like to praise the marine division of Border Patrol,” he told the international news service.

“Boots on the ground would not have seen it. Helicopters would not have found it. Drones, sensors, would never have found it,” he added. “You could only see it from the river. They looked at the cliff and found it. It was all covered up with bamboo and brush. It looked kind of dry, which alerted them to it.”

Double Wall

Perhaps we need my double wall proposal: Build two walls, 40 yards apart, and shoot anything with two legs that gets between the walls.

I was not serious, but it would work. Several responded that they like the idea. One suggested mines.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments
No. 1-25
Brother
Brother

An El Chapo drug tunnel, Illegals don't go through that. I doubt the picture is the actual tunnel (media garb) we need that border (fencing) if it could be a wall I say yes. We need to end subsidizing this way of entering this country or you will be screwed. The democrats need to be pushed up against the wall.

inonothing
inonothing

I want totally open borders. The government don’t own us. Why do I need a passport to leave? Why do we need VISAs? Governments want to control their people and the way to do that is to confine them.

Advancingtime
Advancingtime

Sorry, correction, Advancingtime Advancingtime 1 min

The 80 -20 rule supports a wall in that it is easier to "WALK" across a border than tunnel under a wall. Oh, how we take "edit" for granted and miss it when its gone.

Advancingtime
Advancingtime

80 -20 rule supports a wall in that it is easier to wall across a border than tunnel under a wall.

Carl_R
Carl_R

The reason I have a hard time taking the anti-wall arguments seriously is that they are inherently inconsistent and illogical:

  1. The wall is too expensive: Um, OK. But you can't make that argument with proposing something that is equally effective, but less expense. In the absence a proposal for a less expensive alternative, this argument fails of it's own weight.
  2. The wall is immoral: Um, OK, but to make this argument, you have to concede that they work, which is inconsistent with the point 3 below. If a wall doesn't work, it can be irrelevant, but it can't be immoral.
  3. The wall won't be completely effective: Of the arguments against the wall, this is the strongest, but it is still weak. To be a complete argument, as in point one, it needs to include a proposal for something that will be more effective. In the absence of a proposal for something more effective, I will only accept this argument from people who apply the same logic to their personal life. Since locks are not completely effective, by the same logic, they should leave their own home unlocked with the doors open. If they do, good for them, and I will concede that they have an intellectually consistent position.
  4. We should just have totally open borders. This is the real position. Why are people unwilling to just admit it?

I honestly don't think most people really have an opinion on the subject. I think they just hate Trump, and so whatever he wants must be bad. Why did people like Pelosi vote for walls before? Because, they made sense. Why don't they vote for them now? Because Trump wants it.