Is the Border Wall Immoral?

Nancy Pelosi tells us that the border wall is immoral.  We must not build it because we, as a better nation, are than that.  In the past, Democrats voted in favor of fencing, but now they have recognized the error of their ways.  Now they cannot sanction something that shuts out innocent migrants.

I, however, am at a loss.  Why did the wall suddenly become immoral?  Who is it hurting?  Apparently the illegal aliens.  We are also told by Nancy and her ilk that these folks are only seeking a better life. They make a harrowing journey of thousands of miles just to help their children.

Someone should tell liberals that most crimes are committed in order to obtain a better life.  People rob banks to get the money to do so.  They also kill those who get in the way to improve their situation.  Some even engage in rape to gain personal satisfaction.

Breaking the law is not excused by wanting a better life.  Even if it improves their children’s circumstances, it over steps the bounds of civil society.  This kind of justification pardons all manner of evil.  As a result, it condones anarchy—which is immoral.

We are also told that a wall is medieval.  It is old-fashioned and therefore outdated.  In fact, walls go back at least ten thousand years.  Why then did ancient cities have them?  Because they worked.  If something is old—like agriculture—that doesn’t mean it is ineffective.

Instead liberals like Pelosi want a virtual wall.  They insist that technology is cheaper and more efficient than concrete or steel.  All we need to do is put up drones to keep track of border crossers.  This will keep them out.

The trouble with a virtual wall is that it is imaginary.  Taking pictures of undocumented migrants without physically apprehending them is a farce.  What are we going to do with those photographs?  Spread them across the border as kind of rotogravure?  

Given this inanity, Democrats are accused of wanting open borders. They, however, contend this isn’t so. They claim to understand that a nation is not a nation if it cannot control its frontiers.  The difference between them and Trump is that they will be more effective.

But this too is an absurdity.  I learned as far back as the first grade that you don’t just listen to what people say; you watch what they do.  The reality is that liberals have defended open borders at every turn. They are not for law enforcement, but lawlessness.

From the institution of sanctuary cities to calls for abolishing ICE, they put up obstacles to maintaining our national integrity.  They are not only willing to shut down the government to deny Trump a measly five billion dollars; they don’t want to spend anything on enhanced security.

Instead they say we must reimagineimproved techniques.  Nevertheless, when asked what these are, they are silent.  Actually they are more likely to change the subject.  The point is that they are lying.  Their goal is to destroy Trump, while bringing in millions of potential Democratic voters.

So who, I ask, made Nancy and her teammates moral arbiters?  What qualifies them to decide what is right or wrong?  Their track record of perpetually lying would seem to eliminate them from contention. They can’t even provide a cogent explanation for their opinions.

Of course, when push comes to shove, they assert that they are uniquely compassionate.  They care about the underdogs and are dedicated to helping them.  Yet once again, I appeal to results not promises. If you care about the poor, you do things that actually help them.

Liberals like Pelosi specialize in posturing.  Do you remember when she told us that congress would have to pass ObamaCare before we could know what was in it?  Was this a democratic attitude?  Didn’t it imply that she knew best and others needed to fall in line?

Because many Democrats believe they were anointed to save the world, they do not worry about little things like being moral.  When they lie, these are noble lies.  When they inflict injuries, it is to protect others.  They are only breaking a few eggs so they can make an omelet.

In the recent electoral cycles, Democrats let the mask slip. Nowadays they are prepared to acknowledge their socialist proclivities.  But they are not yet willing to admit tens of millions were slaughtered in the name of their ideal.  I submit that people like this have no right to decide what is moral.  They are neither nice nor wise!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University