https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/border-emergency-what-border-emergency/
You needn’t read Michael Walsh’s piece, especially if you are inclined to think that rational arguments in favor of border-wall funding are shopworn or obtuse.
I bring it up only to mention that we seem headed for another government shutdown over wall funding. As a Trump supporter, I view the prospect with optimism: If our last shutdown was a dry run, the next one should be positively illuminating. Even “Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter” might approve.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Rational argument? There are no rational arguments for an expensive boondoggle that will do more harm than good. The WALL plays the same role in our politics as Confederate statues – a phony cause around which haters can rally.
LikeLike
Of course there are “no rational arguments for an expensive boondoggle that will do more harm than good.” There are, however, rational arguments for the border wall as proposed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rational arguments are made with real facts and real evidence. Tough, I know. But them’s the rules.
LikeLike
Human trafficking and sexual assault are common among the tens of thousands of migrants who cross our borders illegally between ports of entry each month. Where walls have been erected, illegal crossings are abated. Tough, I know. But them’s the facts.
LikeLike
Made up facts and/or irrelevant facts. There is zero evidence that any stretch of wall has abated sexual assaults (which Trump has greatly exaggerated) or human trafficking (which is not actually “common” at the Southern Border – Trump is lying about that too).
It is worth noting that the more extreme Trump’s border regime has gotten, the more people are crossing illegally. If you play by the rules and know that you will face incarceration and/or the theft of your children you are MORE likely to enter illegally and that is what is happening.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/03/08/why-illegal-crossings-on-americas-southern-border-have-hit-an-11-year-high
LikeLike
RE: “Made up facts and/or irrelevant facts.”
The bulk of your Economist article is behind a paywall for me. But the part I can see, especially the photo of a woman hauling a toddler over a border fence, is enough to grasp the validity of my comments.
Do you dispute the openning statement at your link: “February had seen an eleven-year high in unauthorised border crossings from Mexico”?
Do you dispute that it is dangerous to haul toddlers over desert terrain and tumble-down barriers?
What numbers can you muster to refute the claim that human trafficking is common at our Southern Border, or that sexual assaults are common among the migrants who avoid our ports of entry?
The trafficking, the sexual assaults and the dangers to children are well documented. I do not not regard them as “irrelevant facts.” Do you?
LikeLike
“Even though the president and GOP leadership had claimed to support legal status for Dreamers as an end in itself (and thus should have been prepared to support legislation that does nothing but that), Democrats nonetheless agreed to back a Dream Act that includes funding for Trump’s border wall, limits on the ability of legal U.S. residents to sponsor their adult children for immigration, and a reduction in diversity visas — provisions championed by Republicans and loathed by the progressive base.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/trump-rejects-bipartisan-dreamers-deal.html
He could have had the wall fully funded and Dreamers protected and some restrictions on legal immigration.
A couple of minor issues that he wanted would have been the compromise.
Easy-peasy.
So why should anyone believe anything that Trump says he will do?
LikeLike
From your link: “Of course, the entire reason the senators asked Kelly for the White House’s demands in December was that they hadn’t taken the October wish list seriously.” In other words, it wasn’t a bipartison deal and the senators didn’t bargain in good faith with the president.
LikeLike