Please consider this hypothetical situation: Assume that President Trump never proposed a border wall in the first place and that you are a member of select committee whose sole purpose is to safeguard our southern border. Wouldn’t you want to carefully evaluate the situation? Wouldn’t you want to have hard evidence as to how many immigrants are coming across the border? Wouldn’t it be important to know the points they are crossing the border? Wouldn’t it be important to really know how and where drugs are being smuggled into this country?
If your committee was actually serious about protecting the border, they would have to delve into questions such as these by gathering actual evidence and not listening to political nonsense. You would want to consult with local experts for their unbiased opinions. You would need to take into account the vast distance of the border, its terrain and inhabitants. At some point in your analysis, you would probably consider the effectiveness of a physical barrier. In places, barriers are very effective, but would you consider that a 2,000-mile-long wall necessary to protect us from border crossing hot spots? Would a great wall protect us from the vast majority of drugs that enter this country hidden on motor vehicles at legal border crossings? Is it practical to construct a wall across hundreds of miles empty deserts and steep mountains when there may be more cost effective means of monitoring these isolated areas?
Would it not be wiser to pinpoint and attack the weaknesses where they exist rather than building an endless wall of dubious effectiveness? After all, cost is important and projected costs are always much lower than the actual experience. God only knows how much such a wall would end up costing this country. It would be astronomical. If you were not a die-hard Trump supporter and looked at the situation objectively, would you support building a 1,500-mile long wall, or consider it simply as overkill? At some point, reality must be considered.