I supposed it’s absolutely possible, that there are people out there who have no inkling of current events. As such, the folks in question would be entirely unaware of questions of United States border security and immigration policy and law.
That being said, I believe the majority of folks in the U.S. are aware of what’s happening on that front; most particularly since it has been so strongly “thrust into the limelight.”
I wanted to take just a moment to address a couple of concepts surrounding these issues. The thing is, I don’t just want to address the problems. Rather, I want to talk about these concerns in a way that is internally consistent, the hope being that it’s not just me for whom this is the case.
To begin with, it has been said by some folks that, many of the people preaching the ineffectiveness of a “border wall” have surrounded their own properties with walls.
The truth is, even if they had not done so (and most of them have absolutely no argument against the idea that they have), they still have walls on their houses, locks on their doors and windows, and often, expensive security systems in their homes.
I want to make it clear, nobody with the least amount of sense is “blaming” them for securing that which they have managed to come to be in possession. We all tend to do that—granted, sometimes to our own detriment.
I can’t imagine a more reasonable thing than to apply this to “larger possessions,” like countries. The truth is, I can’t imagine being alone in that either. The “capital of” the Catholic church is surrounded by walls. Whole countries have walled off large portions of their borders. The point being, you’ll get no argument from me, that this is “reasonable policy,” either personally, or for a nation.
Having made that plain, allow me now to discuss a couple of the arguments that have been made against “reinforcing the border.”
Before I do that, let me first say that parts of the border are already secured using methods similar to the ones presently being discussed (walls of varying types being the preeminent among them); And the “problem for” those not supporting such solutions is the pretty strong evidence that they work. San Diego is often cited as an example of just how well they work.
Obviously, no solution is going to deal with every potential problem, and there’s no doubt this is true for the type of border security currently on the table.
This brings us to what I will address as the “first argument against” the currently proposed measures. That being that—essentially—“Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Or placed in another more directly applicable phrasing, “People who want to do so badly enough, will find a way into the country, wall be damned.”
On the face of it, this sounds like a pretty reasonable argument. The problem comes when you consider that people still put walls on their houses, locks on their doors and windows, have security systems, and often generally wall off their personal property. It may not be so obvious to some, but the point is, there are people out there who can and will defeat such measures (some being able to easily do so).
The obvious question is, “Does that stop you from putting locks on your door and locking those locks?” The equally obvious answer is, quite simply, “No.” No need for undue emphasis here.
Boiling it down, the fact that people can and will find ways to access that to which they have no right, doesn’t stop people from seeking and working to protect it—nor should it.
At the very least, it will make them less of a target. At the best, it will keep them from ever having to know things like the dread of home invasion.
On to the second (and, I think for this article, last) point.
There are a good many people who seem to fail at an important realization. If you break into someone’s house, and steal things. You will likely be charged with various crimes; most would argue this is rightfully the case. You will stand in a court, in all likelihood, for breaking and entering, theft (potentially felony theft), trespassing, and potentially, for other related crimes.
By the same token, there are laws that say coming into the United States without permission, or staying when it is not proper so to do, are punishable offenses. And I should point out that, pretty much every other nation in the World has similar laws.
Again, such protections are not considered by most to be unreasonable.
The point here, is that those coming into the U.S. using other than sanctioned methods, and those staying in the U.S. past the point at which they are no longer “welcome” (without some strongly extenuating circumstances) are in breach of law. Put another way, the very act of coming or staying here, is illegal—hence the term, “illegal alien.”
That way of saying things was intended to be a descriptor of their state, not some far-out attempt to stigmatize the person or persons in question.
Everyone can recognize that there are times when one is at least tempted to break (and potentially continue to break) the law. This is particularly true when one is desperate. Nonetheless, when one breaks the law, one should expect suitable and prescribed remedies to at least possibly apply to them.
My contention is that the United States is relatively soft on those who break such laws as a rule. We try to be humane, and I think we largely manage so to do.
One more thought to wrap this up. I’ll sum it up in a question, “Would you ask a thief whether or not he or she should be punished for his or her thievery?” I think most will consent to the idea that this is not how things ought to work.
To take this a step further, would you ask a person in favor or support of thievery whether or not thieves should be legally punished for their activities (again, barring extenuating circumstances)? Again, I think the answer would be a solid, “No.” In most folks’ book.
Okay, here we are at the “time and word limit”—and just in time!
May your time be good and as usual, thanks for reading.