The
demand of President Donald Trump that congress should appropriate money
to build a wall securing the nation’s southern border has resulted in
the longest federal government shutdown in history with no end in sight.
There is considerable opposition to the wall based on two quite
different perceptions of border security. The generally “progressive”
view is that there is no border threat at all, that the thousands of
migrants heading for the U.S. can be assimilated and indeed should be
allowed entry because of U.S. government policies in Central America
that have created the ruined states that the would-be immigrants have
been fleeing.
There
is certainly some truth to that argument, though it suggests that the
United States should essentially abandon sovereignty over its own
territory, which most Americans would reject. The alternative viewpoint,
which has a much broader bipartisan constituency, consists of those who
do feel that border security is a national priority but are
nevertheless critical of building a wall, which will be expensive,
possibly ineffective and environmentally damaging. They prefer other
options, to include increased spending on the border guards, more
aggressive enforcement against existing illegals and severe punishment
of businesses in the U.S. that hire anyone not possessing legal
documentation. Some also have argued in favor of a national ID issued
only to citizens or legal permanent residents that would have to be
produced by anyone seeking employment or government services.
Whether
the wall will ever be built is questionable, but one thing that is
certain is that there is more than enough hypocrisy regarding it to go
around. Democratic Presidents including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
when campaigning have called for better border security, as have
Democratic Congressional leaders who are now smelling blood and
attacking Trump for seeking to do what they have long at least
theoretically sought..........http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-tale-of-two-walls/
No comments:
Post a Comment