Let's see if I've got this straight. The idea of building a wall to protect the country against people crossing our borders illegally (!!!!!) is somehow an offputting concept that shows that we're not kind and open people. Seriously, are you kidding (again)?
When the White House is equipped with a lock or two (or three or four), sophisticated security systems and really high (but apparently not overly effective) fences, is that an unfriendly mean-spirited message to the world? We're not . . . welcoming . . . our friends and neighbors? Should the White House be an open house? Of course not - that's absurd. The proper characterization is that steps to attempt to bar entry by those up to no good are perfectly reasonable steps to pursue obvious and legitimate security goals. There is no attempt there whatsoever to bar entry by those who should appropriately be allowed in.
It's the same thing with a border wall. People allowed to come in can, well, come in. People who are not allowed in are physically barred from, well, coming in. I challenge the left-leaning demagogues of the world to take the locks off their doors, or maybe better yet to remove the doors from their hinges altogether, in the name of pursuing a kinder-and-gentler approach to their beloved neighbors. At the end of the day, choosing NOT to protect oneself from those not allowed in is probably the course that is indeed manifestly inappropriate!
How did it get to be the case that it is somehow, in any sane view of the world, inappropriate to bar entry by those that are not allowed to enter? I guess the answer to that question is - you will see it argued that this country has no legitimate interest in enhancing border security when a Democratic nominee wants to generate some nice-sounding bridge/wall motto at the expense of even a scintilla of sense or reason.
Sheesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment