Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.
Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
The differences between a fence and a wall notwithstanding, I think the key issue is 'operational control'.
One, perhaps extreme version of operational control could have troops pacifying Juarez. Another oddball question- is there a strategic advantage to placing the border somewhere further south? Is there some line more easily defensible? I can't really tell from a map.
A Trump appointee to Homeland Security may well be able to start working on border defenses immediately. Funding could be a problem, but since HS is already expected to achieve this operational control, they could prioritize a huge chunk of their own funding to it. I am sure there are very many other things they do that are unnecessary.