“Walls are immoral.” “Walls don’t work.” “Walls are unjust.” How often have you heard these and similar statements made by those on the left? Like so many moral platitudes, they may give warm fuzzy feelings to the ones making such claims, but they have little basis in fact and reality. To demonstrate this, let me ask a few questions.
Why is it that just about everyone and everything is entitled to some common sense protection and security, but the United States of America is not? Why is it that the overwhelming majority of Democrats, leftists and progressive Christians who scream the loudest about America putting up a wall along its 2000-mile southern border have their own security, their own fences, and their own protections?
They are simply being hypocrites and worse when they denounce Trump and the US, while enjoying plenty of their own walls and security. Almost all of these folks have locks on the doors of their homes, and they most likely keep those doors locked 24/7.
Indeed, the wealthier these leftists are, the more likely they will have very elaborate and very expensive security systems set up, complete with cameras, direct links to security companies, and plenty of high walls and guarded fences. Are they all being immoral, unloving, and unChristlike, by having these locks and other security measures?
Are they being hard-hearted, denying others justice, and being horrible conservatives to live with all this protection? Indeed, why stop with their own homes? Let’s look at countless other areas where they most certainly utilise security and protective devices.
Do they have locks in their cars? Do they use those locks? When they take luggage or briefcases with them, do they lock them? Do they use combination locks and the like to prevent others from gaining access? And what about their mobile phones? Do they have passwords or security codes of various kinds to protect their privacy and content?
Do they have website accounts, email addresses, and other internet items that they protect with user names and passwords? Do the banks that they keep their money and other types of wealth in have plenty of proper security, walls, and various forms of heavy duty protection?
When they pay their bills electronically are there plenty of security checks they readily make use of? When they log on to their Facebook or twitter accounts, do they have basic forms of security in place? Do they microchip their pets so that if they are lost or stolen they can be more easily retrieved?
And these individuals who denounce conservatives for wanting a secure border also spends their lives making use of other goods and services which have walls and other forms of security. They send their kids to schools that more than likely have walls and fences.
They attend sporting events in walled arenas that keep non-ticket holders out. They go to nightclubs, discos and concerts with security guards and bouncers. They often go to private hospitals which are members-only. They belong to various groups and clubs that are members-only.
When they fly somewhere they have to show some identification and prove that they and they alone are the proper ticket-holders. When they go to the workplace, many have guarded entry points – certainly for government workers, including politicians.
We can keep going on like this all day. The world of the leftists is every bit as full of security, of protection, and even of walls and fences as that of any conservative. They utilise such security around the clock just like everyone else. Yet they want to condemn conservatives for doing the exact same thing with America’s border with Mexico? Really?
Let me bring in here two articles written last year, but still well worth running with. Both pieces appeared last July, but with the various migrant caravans now at or approaching the US border, they have an even more urgent role to play in this debate.
The first article, “Why Everyone (Really) Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them,” is by Frank Turek. He says in part:
The truth is everyone believes in secure borders. In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is — bent toward evil — borders will be necessary. The only question is “Where am I going to draw the borders for my own security?”
You may not want to secure the border of the United States, but you certainly want to secure the border of your home. The problem is the security of your home is affected by the security on your street, which is affected by the security in your town, which is affected by the security in your state and your country.
And I’m not just talking about your physical security, but also your economic security. People want to come here for the freedoms and prosperity we have in America. This has become the land of opportunity and the most prosperous nation on earth, which would have been impossible without secure borders. Open borders would destroy the very reasons people want to come here in the first place.
The second piece is by Wayne Grudem: “Why Building a Border Wall Is a Morally Good Action”. He first discusses a fair amount of biblical material, rebutting Christian leftists who think that there should be no walls, and then looks at four common objections. Here are the first and last of these:
Objection: “We should be a nation that welcomes immigrants.” I agree wholeheartedly – if they come legally. But it is no kindness to them if the lack of a wall tempts them to risk death by walking across miles of parched desert, at the mercy of violent gangs, and then come into the US without legal documentation, only to live here as a permanent legal underclass, easily exploited, living in constant fear of discovery. In addition, it diminishes respect for the law and destabilizes the nation when millions of people exist in the shadows, living outside the legal recordkeeping functions of the nation.
And there has to be some limit on the number we admit each year. I would like the number to be higher than it is, but a complete “open borders” policy would overwhelm the country. The US population today is 328 million. The population of the world is 7.6 billion, or 23 times the US population. If we allowed in everyone who wanted to enter, as many as half the world’s population might want to come – giving us over 10 times our current population. Even if only 10% of the world (a very low estimate) came in through open borders, the US would suddenly confront the impossible task of trying to assimilate 760 million new immigrants into a nation of 328 million. “Open borders” is not a realistic solution or one that could ever get enough popular support to pass Congress and become law. Building a wall with well-regulated gates declares that while we welcome immigrants, we – not they – are going to decide which ones, and how many.
The US currently admits over 1,000,000 immigrants per year who come legally and stay permanently – far more than any other nation. If you think that number should be even higher (as I do), then suggest a higher number to your congressman and talk to your fellow citizens. Persuade people to agree with you, and work for a change in the law. But don’t oppose a border wall, for that is just promoting more lawlessness….
Objection: “Walls don’t work.” That objection is not true. Sections of high, effective walls and fences have already transformed whole regions of San Diego and El Paso from high-crime zones into peaceful, much safer cities. A high, double wall with modern electronic equipment to detect tunneling would stop perhaps 90-95 percent or even more of illegal border crossings. Once such a wall is complete, most Americans would feel that the border is finally under control, and the remaining questions about immigration could be resolved in an atmosphere of far less tension and animosity.
Walls that already work: In fact, we already have a highly effective system of “border walls” that nobody argues about – in our airports. Every time I return to the US from a foreign country, I have to go through customs at the airport, and so does everybody else. The room where people wait in line to see a customs officer has walls to make sure that all arriving passengers have to go through passport control. I’ve never seen anyone protesting the existence of walls in the customs area or demanding that a section of the wall be removed so that people who don’t want to go through passport control can simply walk into the country whenever they want. That would be an open invitation to terrorists and other criminals, and it would make it impossible for the US to place any limits at all on the number of people who came into the country and stayed without legal documentation.
Yet demanding “no passport controls at airports” is, it seems to me, exactly parallel to saying that we should not build a wall on our southern border. Why should airports be any different from other border entry points? Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and we should eagerly welcome numerous immigrants into the US every year, but they must come in legally, through the gates in the wall, not illegally and dangerously across an open desert.
Both of these articles are well worth reading and passing on to others. They make a solid case for walls and security, and refute so much of the sloppy thinking from those on the left. In sum, let me offer some wise words of a friend which I just spotted on the social media:
It actually shocks me that anyone would ever entertain the idea that ‘walls don’t work’. Zoos have them, homes have them, prisons have them, secure businesses have them, government buildings have them, and your own home has them, unless you live permanently in a tent. And I’d venture a guess you lock your doors regularly.
The phrase ‘walls don’t work’ is to social and geographic considerations the equivalent of 2+2=5, but in a world where people have begun to officially accept the idea you can change from male to female and vice-versa, such obvious untruths will become sadly more commonplace. If walls don’t work, no-one in history would EVER have built one (Incidentally, I’ve been to the Great Wall of China).