Please, No More ‘Border Security’, by Ann Coulter. Three good points. First:
The Democrats’ latest idea is to call a wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.” If they think a wall is “immoral,” then they’re admitting it’s effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States.
Democrats’ backup argument is to cite — every four minutes on MSNBC — Trump’s claim that Mexico would pay for the wall. … In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.
To keep the Third World masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific “border security.” …
Nearly every Republican presidential candidate tried to con voters with these meaningless catchphrases about “border security.” Here are The Des Moines Register’s summaries of some of the candidates’ positions on immigration a few weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucus:
Jeb Bush: “has called for enhanced border security.”
Marco Rubio: “proposes … improved security on the border.”
John Kasich: “believes border security should be strengthened.”
Chris Christie: “urges … using technology to improve border surveillance …”
Rand Paul: “would secure the border immediately.”
Carly Fiorina: “would secure the border, which she says requires only money and manpower.”
They all lost.
The guy who won: “Trump has said many illegal immigrants are rapists and are bringing drugs and crime to the United States. He has called for building a wall along the southern border, and has said he would make Mexico pay for it. He said he would immediately terminate President Barack Obama’s ‘illegal executive order on immigration.'”
Trump got more votes than any other Republican in the history of presidential primaries. No one was falling for “border security” then, and they aren’t now.