If, as is a popular position, drugs and other contraband don’t come in where physical barriers exist, then wouldn’t that be an argument in favor of physical barriers? If we can “ignore” the areas where barriers are and focus where they aren’t then it seems like that would allow our border patrol to be more effective and efficient because they can focus on areas with more likelihood of illegal activities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The true fact is that they don't know exactly how much comes across unprotected areas of the border. All they know is how much they've been able to capture versus how much in any area after a barrier is erected. It is the same with those who bring it in hidden in vehicles at ports of entry. They only know about those they've discovered as having hidden quantities in vehicles. How can they know how many passed through without their illicit cargo being detected?
Only the buffoons who oppose securing the border are those who pretend anyone believes drugs are smuggled by only one method. A wall or fence addresses one method and reduces, if not eliminates that method freeing up law enforcement to focus on other methods.
That’s kind of the point. If barriers channel things to where there aren’t barriers, then it’s potentially allows the focus of resources on other areas. It also suggests that additional barriers will help that process be even more effective.
Of course the idiots are arguing “They’ll just tunnel under the walls”, and “Things don’t come in where there are walls”, at the same time. But using arguments that (at least partially) contradict isn’t a problem.
There's really no legitimate argument against a border barrier. No one who supports one even suggests that they are perfect, so that implication by opponents is lame and false. One pretend intellectual tried to insist that congressmen from every district along the border opposes a wall...all but one being Democrats. He provided no other info, such as the poll they took that provided that stat. But it would be difficult for a politician, such as the one who is of the district in which, say, El Paso is, where Border Control insists the barrier erected there has led to a great decrease in illegals and drugs coming across. It's all no more than an anti-Trump position because Trump wants it. All of their objections are put forth to hide that obvious compulsion.
No argument on that. The point of the post is that the left is arguing two positions that contradict (at least partially) each other.
Post a Comment