By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the entire southern border wall will be painted black to deter illegal immigration by making it hotter, a concept initiated by President Trump. During a visit to a section of the wall in New Mexico, Noem highlighted the wall’s height and depth as deterrents, along with the black paint’s added benefit. Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks noted the paint’s rust-prevention properties. This move comes as part of ongoing efforts to complete the wall, with approximately half a mile being constructed daily.
Read the original article here
DHS Secretary says entire southern border wall to be painted black to stop people from climbing it, and the idea is drawing immediate reactions. It seems the plan is to coat the entire length of the wall in black paint, with the stated aim of making it harder for people to climb. Now, this is a decision that has sparked a flurry of responses, and for good reason.
The immediate response is a healthy dose of skepticism. The suggestion is that the black paint will significantly increase the wall’s temperature, deterring climbers. But, as many have pointed out, metal gets hot in the sun regardless of its color. Black, of course, absorbs more solar energy, leading to higher temperatures during the day. The question then becomes, what about nighttime? Climbers could simply wait for the cover of darkness, negating the heat-based deterrent. The practicality of the entire plan falls apart pretty fast when you consider that basic solutions like gloves exist and, you know, aren’t that hard to come by.
Furthermore, the financial implications of such a project are substantial. We’re talking about almost 2,000 miles of border with a significant length of existing fence already in place. Even if we take conservative estimates, the cost per mile, combined with the sheer scale of the undertaking, would amount to a massive investment. Given the challenges of such a project, like the rapid wear and tear of the paint from the elements, the project could stretch on for years. The need for constant upkeep would only add to the already considerable price tag. Is this the best use of resources, particularly given the stated goal of cost-cutting?
It’s also worth noting the origin of the idea. Reports indicate the DHS Secretary is acting at the request of a former president. One could argue that this reflects a continuation of policy from a previous administration. This idea first floated in 2019, and was tested but was deemed impractical by experts. This raises further questions about the thought process behind this plan. Are we seeing a well-considered security measure, or a symbolic gesture? It’s an important distinction to make.
The issue goes beyond just the cost and the effectiveness of the black paint. There’s a deeper concern about the nature of the border “crisis” itself. Many argue that the problem is being dramatically exaggerated and that resources could be better used on more comprehensive solutions. Border security is an important issue, but the focus on a single, easily circumvented element of the problem suggests a lack of vision and a misdirection of funds.
And the issue is not only about the temperature of the wall, which can be addressed with gloves, but what about cutting torches? A determined individual can simply bypass the wall, rendering the entire plan ineffective. The debate, therefore, centers not only on the proposed solution, but on the root causes of the “crisis”. To those who are trying to cross, black paint is probably not going to be the biggest hurdle.
The reactions to the news, across the political spectrum, have been largely critical. The responses range from incredulous to mocking, with people pointing out the various flaws in the plan. There’s a sense of disbelief that such an idea is being seriously considered and implemented.
In the end, the decision to paint the southern border wall black to stop people from climbing it is a move that is sure to stir debate. It is a bold plan but the costs, the impracticality, and the fundamental challenges of the idea, raise serious questions about its viability.