{"id":15731,"date":"2017-11-22T13:12:27","date_gmt":"2017-11-22T18:12:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=15731"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:30:50","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:30:50","slug":"border-wall-bufoonery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2017\/11\/22\/border-wall-bufoonery\/","title":{"rendered":"Border Wall Bufoonery"},"content":{"rendered":"

A recent opinion piece, originally published in the Arizona Republic<\/em><\/a> \u00a0and picked up by USA Today,\u00a0<\/em>offers some inane commentary disguised as \u2018historical fact,\u2019 about President Trump\u2019s proposed border wall.<\/p>\n

The piece is titled \u201cTrump\u2019s Border Wall Future: Tourist Trap that Pays for Itself in 2,000 Years.\u201d Its basic premise is that, \u201cThe Great Wall of China cost many lives, was enormously expensive and didn\u2019t work even back then with no technology. But it did draw foreign visitors.\u201d If that sounds like revisionist claptrap, that\u2019s because it is.<\/p>\n

As FAIR has noted, the Great Wall of China worked<\/a>, just like most of the other walls built in antiquity and more recently.\u00a0 The Great Wall was never intended to be a border barrier. It was built as a static defensive position for Chinese military forces. And it was breached only when a treasonous general opened the gates and let in the invading Manchu. Although the Manchu expanded Chinese borders beyond the wall, for centuries they continued to use it as a defensive bulwark.<\/p>\n

The assertion that the Great Wall\u2019s real value lies in its recent use as a tourist attraction demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge and a poor understanding of defense budgeting. The Great Wall was<\/em> expensive, in terms of blood and treasure. But, overall, it seems to have been a wise investment for the Ming Dynasty, since the Manchu couldn\u2019t breach it without help from the inside. Walls can\u2019t defend against treachery. But when manned by trustworthy sentinels, they do tend to keep the bad guys out.<\/p>\n

Why does the author claim that modern walls don\u2019t work? He notes that most of the images of the Trump administration\u2019s prototype walls have been taken with drones and cites this as proof that, \u201cmodern technology beats walls.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, that conveniently ignores the security fencing<\/a> clearly visible in the drone images<\/a>, which kept photographers from getting close to the sample walls. (A logical observer might take that as clear evidence that physical barriers do, in fact, work rather well. Especially when they are constructed correctly<\/a>.) It also ignores the fact that while technology may make it easier to look over walls, there hasn\u2019t been a plague of high-tech catapults chucking illegal aliens over the San Diego border fence.<\/p>\n

Then he throws out this doozer: \u201cBesides, it is well documented that most border intrusions are done through regular crossing points.\u201d Really? By definition \u201cborder intrusions\u201d are crossings made at locations other than official portals. Inadmissible aliens who manage to worm their way into the U.S. at official crossings do so by fraud. They haven\u2019t made an intrusion \u2013 they\u2019ve actually been admitted to the U.S., but obtained admission by deceiving immigration officials. No one with half a brain expects a border wall to eliminate fraud.<\/p>\n

Building a wall along the southern border is a major undertaking. And, because we live in a democracy, plans for a wall should be vigorously debated. But meaningful debate requires facts. And even clearly labeled opinion columns should be based on facts, not\u00a0 emotional gibberish.