<blockquote>I’m curious, Dave, if your devotion to the concept of diminishing marginal utility in relation to national security has limits?

Obviously we can’t protect against all risks but what other places are you willing to sacrifice safety because it is expensive? Alaska, Hawaii, maybe Nebraska or Idaho?</blockquote>

It's inevitable.  It is standard law-enforcement practice to concentrate the police in areas with the most crime.

A larger LAPD presence in Bel-Air (2.8 violent crimes per capita <a href="http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/violent-crime/neighborhood/list/" target="_blank">over the last six months</a>) would undoubtedly deter or prevent some crime. But if the officers came from the Chesterfield Square neighborhood (229 violent crimes per capita over the same period) the result would "sacrifice safety" by allowing more crime overall.

The BP numbers show that about 2% of the illegal crossing attempts occur in Big Bend sector. That suggest a comparable fraction of BP resources should be committed there.  And indeed, the LA Times article indicates that there are "just" 500 agents in the Big Bend sector, out of just under 20,000 (according to Wikipedia) agents nationwide.  500/20,000 = 2.5%, mirroring the fraction of illegal crossing attempts there.

<blockquote>I’m also curious about your base for this assertion. These immigrants have left their homes and traveled hundreds or thousands of miles in difficult circumstances to try to enter the US illegally. Why do you think most of the people who have done this will give up at the idea of going into remote areas of Texas?</blockquote>

The numbers show that during the same time that millions of illegal crossing have been prevented elsewhere, the Big Bend sector traffic has not increased significantly in absolute terms.