The response by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to President Trump’s January 8 speech on his proposed U.S.-Mexican border wall makes one wonder if reality to them is just an illusion. They kept referring to the wall as “ineffective.” How can a wall that hasn’t been built yet be ineffective?
All evidence, though, suggests that walls are extremely effective.
An article on the Harvard University’s website describes how in 2014, 2,100 immigrants crossed from Morocco into Spain. Once a fence was built, this number dropped to approximately 100 in 2015. In 2014, approximately 19,000 people attempted to cross; this was reduced to approximately 3,700 in 2015.
Israel built a wall on its southern border to stop African immigrants from pouring in from Eritrea and Sudan. According to statistics by Israel’s Ministry of the Interior, 17,000 African immigrants entered the state illegally in 2011. After the wall was completed in 2013, the number dropped to only 43.
You hear some ridiculous “reasons” for not building the wall. Like, illegal immigrants “commit less crime than Americans.” Why do we need any additional crime?
“They’re only looking for a better life.” Bank robbers are looking for a better life, should we just give them our money?
“Walls are primitive.” If they’re the best option we have, what difference does it make if they’re primitive? Eating meals are primitive; we’ve been doing it for thousands of years. We can get nutrition these days from intravenous bottles.
“Let’s use technology, like drones?” Short of shooting immigrants as they cross the border (which neither I nor anyone is suggesting), what good would drones do? Take family photos for immigrants to hang on their living room walls when they settle in?
There is absolutely no logical reason to oppose building a wall. Unless you’re expecting your uncle from Venezuela.