How nice of the Democrats and their pro-amnesty Republican friends! They want to help President Trump facilitate what they hope will be his surrender on the border wall, thereby betraying his supporters and the overwhelming majority of Americans who want illegal immigration stopped once and for all. Their solution to his “problem,” they claim, can be found in how he defines the word “wall.”
President Clinton tried that with the word “is.”
They are working overtime to try to convince Trump that he can score an easy win by simply giving them DACA and save face by telling the rest of us that a “virtual” wall is a wall. Trump’s opponents are willing to deal on many things. However, the one thing they aren’t willing to give on is a wall, because a wall will be an effective means of stopping the constant flow of illegal immigration into this country. Sure, you can dig under it or try to go over it, but without a wall, those who aren’t willing to play by the rules will just keep coming – because they can.
Well, virtual means “almost” or “nearly,” but not completely or according to any strict definitions. Virtual is a fuzzy word at best, while a wall is concrete – literally and figuratively – made of an impenetrable material.
These two words are not even the same parts of speech. Virtual is an adjective. Wall is a noun, which means a literal person, place or thing. Virtual is a modifier. Wall is, in this case, a real thing.
Sorry, the public may be gullible, but not that gullible. This won’t fly!
The biggest objections of those opposed to a wall are that it will cost too much and it won’t do any good.
The first objection does not hold water. The border wall is reported to cost around $18 billion. Despite what you may have heard or read, the cost of the border wall would more than pay for itself. The Center for Immigration Studies, using data from The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, calculated the fiscal imbalance immigrants create – taxes paid versus services used – and discovered that, even if only a small portion were stopped at the border each year, 9 to 12 percent, it would be a net gain for the country over a 10 year period.
But let’s assume for a moment that this argument from the amnesty pushers was correct. If the issue of DACA were that much of a priority, why wouldn’t they be willing to shell out the $18 billion? You might say the federal government wastes more than that on toilet paper each year! After all, the Democrats are willing to waste billions on bridges to nowhere; needles for drug users; grants to prop up questionable, unproven, unscientific theories; homo-erotic art projects and handouts that keep able-bodied citizens from finding meaningful work. So why not simply give Trump his $18 billion? Hold that thought.
Their other argument is that a wall simply will not work. OK, then come up with something that will.
No, the hard truth is that, though a wall may not be practical over the entire 2,000-mile stretch of our southern border, if one is built wherever practical, it will allow us to concentrate on the gaps that are left over water, chasms, etc. However, we will no longer have to worry about the hundreds of miles of unprotected land anyone can simply walk across at will.
The Democrats’ survival depends on an endless supply of folks who don’t speak the language, have limited education and are dependent on Telemundo and Univision (wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party) for their news – people they can make dependents of their socialist utopia. The open-border Republicans have become dependent on their big business backers who demand an endless supply of cheap labor. Both of these groups are hoping against hope that Trump will take their suggestion and try to sell us on this “virtual” wall as part of a deal, because their political lives depend on it.
They don’t want a border wall, not because it isn’t practical, will cost too much or won’t work. They don’t want the border wall precisely because they know it will work.
If that were not the case, why not take his deal on DACA? Why not simply give Trump the money and let him build his big, beautiful wall?