David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at The Federalist wonders if Democrats can explain their position that a wall is “immoral.” He writes (abridged):
“A wall, in my view, is an immorality. It’s the least effective way to protect the border and the most costly. I can’t think of any reason why anyone would think it’s a good idea —unless this has something to do with something else,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently explained.
I’m pretty ambivalent about the prospects of a barrier myself, and I oppose any unilateral emergency measures that allow government to more easily take private land to make it happen. But the Democrats’ blanket opposition to any “wall” has a number of logical inconsistencies that expose a different kind of agenda.
For one thing, is a wall really the “least” effective way to protect the border?
It is true, as President Trump has claimed, that Israel’s security fence, erected after a deadly terror campaign against civilians in the early 2000s, has been effective. There was an immediate and precipitous drop in terror attacks inside Israel. And, as The New Yorker recently reported, “a razor-wire electric fence” along the border in Szeged, Hungary was all that was needed to stop refugees from flooding into the country. The European Union was angered that the Hungarians built the wall because it worked.
So it’s reasonable to believe that many Democrats simply don’t want a new wall because walls stop illegal immigration.
Read more here.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- The Battle is on to Replace John Bolton - September 13, 2019
- Witness the Raw Power of Diversification - September 13, 2019
- Trump Cannot Replace Bolton from Bush and McCain Teams - September 12, 2019