EDITORIAL TEAR DOWN THIS WALL OUTRAGEOUS PRICE TAG SHOULD DOOM BORDER FENCE.

HERE'S a classic example of government accounting at work: When the idea was first pitched to build an 850-mile fence across the U.S.-Mexico border, Congress estimated the cost would come to $7 billion. Now we find out the wall would actually cost nearly 10 times that -- $60 billion.

It's time to drop this idea.

Even the $60 billion figure may be low. The estimate, which comes from a Congressional Research Service report, doesn't include other likely expenses, like private property that would need to be purchased in Texas.

Plus there's maintenance. The CRS says the fence would cost $70 million per mile to keep up over the course of its predicted 25-year life span.

Do the math: $70 million a mile times the 850-mile length of the fence comes to a staggering $59.5 billion in maintenance costs.

Add that to the initial $60 billion for construction, and we're looking at what could easily be a $120 billion fence -- one that would presumably need to be replaced in a little over two decades.

To get a sense of how much money we're talking about, consider that last November Californians agreed to take on historic amounts of debt to improve the state's infrastructure. To address transportation, levee, school, water and housing needs that have been neglected for decades, we agreed to borrow $43 billion to be repaid over the course of 30 years.

The nation's cost of erecting and maintaining this fence would be nearly three times what Californians have allotted for the state's most critical infrastructure needs.

That's an outrageous misuse of taxpayer money.

Even if the wall would end all illegal immigration, which it can't, it would still be a bad deal. Assuming an annual inflow of 500,000 illegal immigrants over the next 25 years, we would be paying more than $10,000 per illegal border-crossing stopped. And in truth, the price would be much higher than that, as many illegal crossings would still continue through tunnels and gaps in the fence or by other means.

For all that money, it would probably be cheaper for the U.S. government to simply buy homes for all would-be illegal-immigrant families in their native countries -- and pay them a stipend -- to stay put.

Not that any such outlandish policies are necessary. The only practical way to reduce illegal immigration is and has always been to increase legal immigration: Create a sensible way for people to enter the country legally, get identified, pay taxes and be self-sufficient.

If legal immigration were rationalized, illegal immigration would dry up for the most part.

Of course, there will always be a need to safeguard against criminals, terrorists and other dangerous types who try to enter the country. But a wall isn't going to stop this dedicated contingent.

And politically popular though a fence may be -- the legislation sailed through the U.S. Senate last year with 80 votes, including those of both California senators -- the cost/benefit ratio is way out of whack.

Mr. Bush, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid: Tear down this wall -- and grapple with the real problem of illegal immigration.