I’ll admit, first, that there’s an emotional component: I simply like that we shared the longest unpatrolled international border in the world.
For pragmatic considerations, I don’t believe that the border with Canada can be closed, for any amount of resources that we would be willing to assign to the task. It’s too long, and for too much of its length, it lacks any natural boundaries.
At the moment we cannot close the border with Mexico. And there are some impressive physical obstacles there that make running the border a genuine hazard to life and limb. For approximately 2000 miles the US-Canada border lacks even the check that the St. Lawrence provides. I’m not eager to dig up a cite, at the moment, but the numbers I’d heard for the manpower to be recruited for a Northern Division were around the 5-6000 mark. The length of the US-Canada border, ignoring the border with Alaska, is approximately 3500 miles long. That works out to maybe one person for every two miles of border, assuming they never sleep, and there’s no need for administrative personnel. Which might work, if we clear cut two or three miles around the border. But I doubt that’s what the plan would be - rather it would be a localized patrol in NY (Remember this is a plan proposed by a NYS senator - whatever else you might say for or against Hillary she does play the pork barrel game. She’s not egregious about it, IMNSHO, and to a degree it’s a legitimate goal for representatives. And it’s a degree that, with the exception of this Northern Border thing, I’ve had no problem with. I may not agree with all her ideas - I’ve mentioned before how much I dislike casino crack for state governments, but I don’t think she’s gone beyond what I’d consider acceptable for a senator.), Ohio, and Illinois, mostly other, less populous, eastern and mid-western states getting the rest of the bulk of the people.
Which, if the goal is to make the US-Canada border watertight, is completely bass-ackwards from how resources should be allocated - the north western states, where there’s only sparse populations to be disturbed by clandestine crossings are where I’d think we’d need to be placing people.
So we’re talking a several billion a year program that IMNSHO will do nothing to actually improve security in what I see as the high risk areas. Which means to me that it’s a proposed waste of money for no purpose other than to make the sheeple feel safer. And, if I’m going to be extremely cynical, to get a few thousand more voters into GSA positions, and CSCE membership.
Again, all the rhetoric I’ve seen on this issue is about controlling clandestine penetrations from Canada. Not streamlining border crossings at currently established points. The latter would be something I would consider a legitimate plan, even if I might quibble about the scope of the expansion.
Similarly, I’m against the way that the proposed national ID is going. Which has been put on hold again, because of the current concerns about the US-Canada border. I’m a child of the Cold War. I remember hearing how it was a big point of difference between the US and the USSR that US citizens could cross internal borders without having to produce papers for any official who asks. In the wake of 9/11, the government seems to me to be heading towards just that goal, now.