A real Mexican standoff.
Opposition to a border wall takes the form of exasperation and snark but little in the way of argumentation. One frequently heard argument is that illegal immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans. At the very least, U.S. Sentencing Commission data raises serious questions about that claim. Another common response is to call sententiously for “building bridges, not walls,” as though real walls preclude the construction of metaphorical bridges. Senator Charles Schumer, in the Democratic response to the president, called the wall “ineffective and unnecessary.” Opponents of the idea of a physical structure impeding unwanted migration claim that they support border security wholeheartedly—it’s just that walls don’t work.
But what evidence is there that walls—for millennia the most basic unit of construction and defense—are ineffective? A wall, or fence, runs along much of the border near population centers like San Diego and El Paso, and these barriers appear to work, to the extent that a partial wall can be said to work. A 440-mile wall separates Israel from the West Bank; it has dramatically reduced terrorism. Saudi Arabia has a wall on its border with Yemen and has begun construction of a wall on its Iraq border, too. Hungary, Russia, Lithuania, and Slovenia have built border walls. Belfast and Derry have “peace lines” (walls) separating Catholic from Protestant neighborhoods. The 1,800-mile, impermeable India-Pakistan border is visible at night from space because 150,000 floodlights light it. The United States maintains 25,000 soldiers in South Korea to preserve the integrity of the fence dividing the Korean peninsula.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that critics oppose a wall not because it wouldn’t work but because it would.
Well, I mean, DUH.
Many on the left seem clearly offended by the idea that nations have the right to determine who crosses their boundaries. Today’s sanctuary-cities lobby grew out of the 1980s crusade of “solidarity” with Central American revolutionary movements; it echoes those earlier movements’ conviction that northern migration from Latin America is righteous anti-colonialism, a revenge of history. It echoes, too, a sense, pervasive if often unstated, that Americans don’t deserve the country that their ancestors—including African slaves—built.
I repeat: DUH.
President Trump has given the Democrats a chance to make a deal. He appears serious about building the wall. If no progress is made toward an agreement, Trump will have two options: further temporizing of his position, up to and including concession of defeat; or attempt to exercise presidential authority—subject to legal review—to declare a national emergency and build the wall on his own.
After which attempt he will find himself in a fight for his life—Leftist derangement having metastisized the way it has the last two years, and given their escalating penchant for violence, maybe even literally so instead of just politically-speaking. Elsewhere (via Insty), Michael Barone uses Leftymedia’s hair-on-fire reaction to Trump’s speech the other night to lay out a little more factual detail:
As American Enterprise institute’s Michael Rubin pointed out in 2017, Israel’s wall with the West Bank, Morocco’s wall with Algeria, India’s with Bangladesh, Hungary’s with Serbia and others have reduced illegal crossings to near zero. To the point that this year, Rubin reports France, Iraq, Lithuania, Estonia and Norway are putting up walls. “It is simply counterfactual to suggest that walls won’t work,” he writes, “willful subordination of facts to the politics of the day.”
And why are walls immoral? Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., recognizes the “Berlin Wall was to keep people in” argument, but insists a wall to keep people out is “medieval” and “a symbol of ‘us and not us.’” Well, yes—U.S. citizens and not U.S. citizens.
Likewise, House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., says Trump’s call for the wall is rooted in “xenophobia and racism.” To say that it is impermissible or racist to distinguish between American citizens and others is to make a case for open borders.
Annnnnd say it with me one mo’ time ag’in: DUH!! And again, here’s the real problem:
Yes, the mainstream media deliberately misleads the public all the time. On issues like border security they have been promoting a false narrative for so long that many of them don’t even know they are lying. The younger “journalists” brought into the fold have been fed the narrative from a young age and are more ignorant than disingenuous.
The narrative goes like this: the only people trying to cross the border are plucky do-gooders who merely want to make better lives for their families both here and back home.
On the rare occasions that there is a discussion in the MSM about the darker elements crossing the border, they are dismissed, largely by saying that the bad stuff just doesn’t happen that often.
Sane people would argue that there are no acceptable levels of murder, rape, overdoses, or gang violence that are related to criminal elements.
Liberals, however, have no qualms about innocent Americans dying in pursuit the progressive dream of minting millions of new Democratic voters overnight.
There you have it, all wrapped up in a nice, tight little bow.