We Need Border Security

The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media

Democrats should follow their voters, who increasingly want more open borders, and reframe the immigration debate by rejecting the very notion that the border needs more “security” and making it clear that the real problem is the denial of migrants’ rights. The time has come for the Democratic Party to push for concrete policies to make the border more open.

That’s not only bad for immigrants who, as a result of militarized borders are more likely to be kidnapped, violently assaulted and driven to cross via the lethal desert. It’s also bad for Democrats, who are handing ammunition to the nativist right at a time when Republicans are on the back foot and polls show that Democratic voters are moving decidedly leftward on immigration and the border.

There is plainly no need for more security on the border. Illegal entries to the United States. . . . began to fall at the turn of the century, and have plummeted since 2006. . . .

The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the already-existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and re-entry must be repealed. . . .

Simple realism dictates that no legislation to grant citizenship to the millions of undocumented Americans who deserve it will be passed until the Republicans are defeated. There’s no use trying to appease them. – The Case against ‘Border Security,’ Daniel Denvir, The New York Times, 2/11/19 [Link]

Fact Check of Quote: This proposal to “open the border” strongly suggests having no border at all. What rights do migrants have to come to the United States? Is this writer willing to exclude anyone? The writer suggests that border security isn’t a problem because traffic across the border is less than it once was. But the migrant caravans from Central America indicate that the trend could be changing.

Another point to consider is the signal that open borders or virtually open borders would send. If we “demolished the already-existing wall and dramatically downsize[ed] the Border Patrol,” how much migration would we encourage?

One definite indication comes from a recent survey by Gallup. It found that 42 million Latin Americans want to move to the U.S. Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO of Gallup, observed that “Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full five million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.

“Rather than find a solution for the several thousand potential migrants currently at the border, let’s start by answering the bigger, harder question — what about the 42 million who would like to come? What is the message to those millions who will seek entrance either legally or illegally? What should we tell them?”

The author of this article in the Times clearly sees immigration from a partisan perspective. He wants citizenship for “undocumented Americans” and defeat for Republicans. These two goals most definitely go hand and hand, as envisioned by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer. In his book How Progressives Can Win, Creamer maintains that the Democrats can build a powerful voting bloc for their party by providing amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens. This is a strategy for partisan gain with little patriotic concern for the well-being of our country. The author reflects this mindset by using the term “undocumented Americans” in reference to illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens are not Americans. They are foreign nationals who lack proper documents because they are breaking our laws. This use of language suggests that this writer is basically indifferent to the worth and significance of our rule of law and our citizenship. He cares little for our country’s security, one might speculate, because he cares little for our country.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here