"2. Breach two walls, one in china and one on the recent mexican border."

At one point in history they were the same.

The book Smuggler Nation has a good section on the history of "illegal immigration" in the region whose boundaries are now engulfed by the contiguous USA.

Of course it starts with the original illegals from Europe.

And then notes that almost as soon as the ink was dry on agreements by the invader to remain on reservations colonies, they started violating their own government's treaties by illegally expanding past westward borders in the colonial era.

In the post-colonial they snuck into the sovereign Republic of Tejas. A Republic whose only disputed claimant was the European colony of Spanish Mexico; but the Ingles kept illegally creeping in.

HOWEVER, when they finally got around to trying to police "their" border with Mexico ( in a way neither the first Nations nor the Mexicans could succeed ) which evil "illegal immigrants" were they trying to prevent from crossing as wetbacks? Why the Chinese, of course.

US agriculture depended upon fluid borders for Mestizos. And at that point in history the US policies towards Mexico hadn't made it an uninhabitable place where American money and guns were fueling dead schoolchildren by the thousands. So day laborers returned daily and seasonal laborers seasonally.

It was only the Chinese who were feared because they came through the Mexico/US border to stay in the US.

But since the US has made vast swaths of Mexico unlivable so that US political cash contributors can continue to profit ( by a known percentage of criminal sales of firearms ) strangely enough, the seasonal laborers don't seem keen to return to what we've created in their country.

( Illegal tobacco sales are even easier to track. And other countries have attempted to sue the US and its political cronies for depending on lawlessness for a percentage of sales which get "laundered" by being treated as legal profit. But the math is simple. X number of cartons are created. X number are sold to distributors. Y constitutes the amount that arrive for legal sale. And Z are declared as lost to theft.

If a significant portion of Z are not counted on the ledger as losses, but as profits then you know that its not really theft. If Z is a steady number annually, then you know that its part of a distribution plan. And if Z matches the numbers calculated by use and seizure of arrivals due to illegal import by other countries, then you know that lawbreaking is a required part of the industry [ which conveniently buys the politicians who prioritize which border concerns are important { drugs } and which are unimportant { babies for adoption, guns, tobacco. } ] )

But yeah, at one time the US/China border was the Rio Grande.

Dante