I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable that the US has one as well, especially given the border with Mexico is well known for illegal crossing and drug smuggling.

Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for, and what do the Democrats have to gain politically from the continued illegal activity on the border? Surely Democrats are equally affected by the criminal behaviour as well(?).

They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, and I don't see why they're going to the mat for this.

  • 41
  • 6
    Comments deleted. Comments should be used to provide constructive criticism to the question or to add relevant meta-information. They are not for answering the question or for debating the subject matter of the question. – Philipp Jan 13 '19 at 0:35
  • 39
    Many countries have a hard border? I think you need to provide some examples, I know only of china's wall. - And the romanian border. However they're all criticesed, with the US in the past being the strongest opponent of a wall splitting countries (berlin wall, famous "ich bin ein berliner" speech was against the idea of building walls). – paul23 Jan 14 '19 at 17:21
  • 11
    @yannis That list contains less than 40 barriers for a grand total of 20,000 km (about 12,000 miles). There are a little less than 200 counties in the world. Based on this there are something like nearly 450 unique land borders and roughly 250,000 km of land borders. Maybe not completely uncommon, but definitely a small proportion. Most of those barriers are small. Like a few hours of biking length. – JimmyJames Jan 14 '19 at 22:00
  • 28
    While a question about why the Wall is such a polarizing issue in the US is entirely valid, this Question contains a lot of pointed rhetoric, rather than asking the question in a neutral manner. It contains talking points about the walls being normal (they are in fact uncommon) and stating that a wall is a normal function of the government (which is not established). The question currently conveys a sense of trying to push towards a particular answer, that the US is wrong to make the Wall a contentious issue. Questions should be asked as neutrally as possible. – trlkly Jan 15 '19 at 10:32

10 Answers 10


The border wall is polarizing because Donald Trump wants it, and Donald Trump is a polarizing figure.

This is a cynical answer, but I think it’s actually more accurate than the other answers, which attempt to discuss the relative merit of the border wall as a policy. The thing is, the merit of a border wall as a policy has been whatever it has been for many years, but widespread opposition to the border wall has only started since Donald Trump started talking about it.

This article shows that a number of polls going back to 2006 (when a border fence was originally authorized by Congress) showed broad support for a barrier, until Donald Trump entered the Presidential race: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americans-used-support-border-wall-what-changed-their-minds

  • 3
    Also perfectly explains why Obamacare was so controversial back in the day: Obama wanted it, so Republicans were against it. Few people actually had specific issues with the program. – JonathanReez Feb 18 '19 at 18:39
  • 1
    @JonathanReez I’m not so sure, because at least there had been prior policy discussions about various other healthcare schemes and polling of them showed that the country was divided on them before the ACA was proposed. However, there are definitely other examples of this dynamic one could find that involve Obama or George W. Bush (who were both polarizing Presidents not named Trump). Pretty much any form of questionably-constitutional executive power now seems to suffer this sort of treatment. Also, attitudes toward Putin’s Russia (all three attempted some rapprochement early in their terms) – Joe Feb 18 '19 at 19:06
  • 4
    @JonathanReez - As for Obamacare, no, the Republicans had rejected the idea of government-sponsored or single-payer health care for a long time before Obamacare was proposed. Also, Obamacare affects the health and taxes of US citizens. A border wall does not, at least not directly or nearly as much. – David R Tribble Feb 19 '19 at 17:20
  • 3
    @Joe - Correct. Most Democrats are on record as opposing illegal immigration and supporting a border wall long before Trump made it one of his key campaign issues (even going back to Reagan's Amnesty in the 1980s). – David R Tribble Feb 19 '19 at 17:21
  • 1
    @DavidRTribble Maybe many republicans had, but things like the Healthy Americans Act suggest that not all of them felt that way. It was much more a real single-payer plan than Obamacare, and had numerous Republican co-sponsors, including even Committee Head Grassley (the same guy who later said Obamacare would "pull the plug on Grandma"). Notably, that was in 2007. When it was reintroduced in 2009 after Obama took office, two thirds of the Republicans who backed it in 2007 no longer did so. – Geobits Mar 1 '19 at 20:18

tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.

The Wall is just an abstract concept. A concrete project to build The Wall, a plan for how it would look, an estimate what it would cost, where exactly it would be located, or a clear objective that it would achieve, is not part of the discussion.

And it gets worse: The problem The Wall is supposed to solve has not been clearly and fully defined. At this point in time, none of the involved politicians have enumerated the actual real life problems The Wall is supposed to solve, let alone explained how The Wall does so better than alternative options.

So how come people on different sides fill in the blanks differently? There are plenty of strong assertions around the weakly defined The Wall project. These assertions usually carry along plenty of untrue implied statements. Let's give an example: OP's words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" imply

  1. Continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal
  2. The Wall can and will stop or significantly reduce smuggling
  3. The Wall can and will stop or significantly reduce illegal immigration

OP's words are true - if we assume "many" to mean "more than 2" - but all 3 implied statements are clearly false.* The comments provide anecdotal evidence that despite being obviously false, people do fall for these implied claims. While there are untrue or unproven implicit statements in circulation on both sides, I chose these particular claims because they are part of the original question I'm answering, and because they seem to be popular enough that I subjectively classify them as notable.

The divide over the idea of The Wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the deliberate spread of false and misleading information.

All in all, The Wall is an abstract concept that promises a simple solution to an oversimplified problem, and the question of how 'The Wall' would solve real world problems hasn't been answered yet.

*Disclaimer: The below shows, on request, why the 3 implied falsehoods are such. It is not strictly relevant to, or part of, this answer, but it will satisfy some people's curiosity.

1) Continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal - false Only a tiny fraction of worldwide borders have walls, while the overwhelming majority or borders do not have man made barriers. If you follow the link, you'll notice that even among the small fraction of borders that have man made barriers, the majority of these are related to past, present, and/or probable future armed conflict, such as Ukraine-Russia, Korea-Korea, Saudi Arabia-Jemen, India-Pakistan, Syria-Turkey, etc.

2) Trump's wall can and will stop or significantly reduce smuggling - false A majority of drugs cross the US-Mexican border through ports of entry, therefore a new wall is entirely unable to affect a majority of smuggling. In addition, smugglers already use methods that do physically defeat current walls and will also defeat any new wall (catapults, planes/drones, tunnels).

3) Trump's wall can and will stop or significantly reduce illegal immigration - false In the public discourse "illegal immigrants" (incorrectly) refers to 3 kinds of people**: Visa overstays (who make up 40%-60% of undocumented immigrants entering the US), asylum seekers, and people who try to cross the border undetected. Visa overstays are entirely unaffected by a wall. Asylum seekers can easily surrender themselves in any place where the wall has to move a few feet away from the border for physical reasons, without having to cross a wall. Asylum seekers can alternatively also surrender themselves at a border checkpoint. The last category - people who try to cross the border undetected - will be affected by a wall. These people already need tools/vehicles and often hire experienced guides to cross the border - a wall will force these guides to find ways to circumvent it (ladders, ropes, blankets).

In addition to the above, the symbolism of The Wall plays strongly into a pre-existing political divide, as outlined in Michael Kay's answer.

  • 44
    "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it. – Wes Sayeed Jan 12 '19 at 0:28
  • 31
    @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government. – Joe W Jan 12 '19 at 0:46
  • 9
    When you say "OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true." you should add some sources proving that they are not true. – Graipher Jan 12 '19 at 7:54
  • 25
    @Peter: To the methods of drug smuggling which render the Wall irrelevant you could add airplanes, cargo ships, purpose-build submarines en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine and for all I know, drones. Of course most of those could be used for humans, too. And of course there's the great extent to which US drug prohibition has, by causing the growth of cartels &c, encouraged many Latin Americans to come to the US as an escape. – jamesqf Jan 12 '19 at 19:59
  • 6
    @jamesqf those are not profitable for most human trafficking. They work for drugs because that can be sold very lucratively in the US. Human trafficking works on the principle than many people pay a relatively small amount of money. A rich person may be willing to pay something in the tens of thousands$. That works out to less than a grand per kilogram of 'goods'. A kilogram of cocaine goes for 50K wholesale. And cocaine requires much less attention (drinking, feeding, etc.) – JJ for Transparency and Monica Jan 12 '19 at 20:10

From your comment under the question:

You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.

Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.

Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.

  • 22
    I'm just looking for the answer that says that comment, +1. "seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue" because the 'leader of the free world' made it one. Why? Don't ask us why one guy did something. Especially that guy. – Mazura Jan 12 '19 at 21:26
  • 26
    re the 5 billion part. Estimates for a full complete wall go up to 200 billion not to mention the maintenance which can that again every 10 years. – Magisch Jan 14 '19 at 10:17
  • 2
    That's the problem democrats (or any sane individual) have with giving carte blanche to build a wall. That's like signing a blank check from your child's tuition fund and handing it to a stranger. – Mazura Jan 15 '19 at 23:47
  • @Mazura Congress seems to have "carte blanche" to waste billions for literally everything else. How about the $50 billion that goes to foreign aid every single year? Did you support that? I didn't. How about the $770 billion on so-called defense, to man over 800 military bases in 170 countries. Did you support that? I didn't. $5 billion is a drop in the bucket & the shut down actually cost us $11 billion. This fight isn't about money. We pay more than $5 billion in interest per week on the national debt. – Aporter Feb 21 '19 at 4:43

It's a polarising issue because it symbolises hostility towards foreigners, which is intrinsically an emotive subject.

If you actually want to reduce illegal immigration in the most cost-effective way possible, then other methods (e.g. more careful vetting at ports and airports) probably work better; but the wall sends a visible message "not wanted here".

It thus draws out a division between people who think foreigners should be treated with as much respect and dignity as possible, and those who regard them as an intrinsic threat to the American nation.

Europe has also been building physical barriers against would-be migrants. This hasn't attracted the same level of controversy, mainly because the democratic process in Europe works rather differently.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jan 16 '19 at 18:55
  • I'm not going to excuse those EU barriers, but the majority of them are probably inferior in technical terms (and cost per unit of length) to what Trump plans. – Fizz Sep 5 '19 at 13:51

The problem with this wall proposal is that we already have a wall. It was built in the 1990s under President Clinton, and expanded under every President since. And the existing wall looks every bit like the Berlin/East Germany wall in sections, complete with double fencing and dog runs. Had then-candidate Trump proposed expanding this wall, it probably would have been uncontroversial. It also would have been much cheaper, but given his personality and his previous remark about "rapists. And a few good people" admitting that we already have a wall wouldn't have been very successful as a campaign promise.

As an aside, Clinton's wall actually backfired. Before the wall was built, Mexican workers usually tended to come only for a few weeks for harvest season, and then return home.

The wall made the trip much more expensive and difficult. The hope was that this would deter Mexicans (and people from points further south) from crossing into the US. Instead, it deterred them from leaving after harvest season. What used to be undocument non-immigrant workers became year-round undocumented immigrants, who then started bringing wives and children.

That fact is not very well known, though, so it's not likely a factor in why Trump's wall proposal is so polarizing.

  • 4
    Your answer is insightful, but I don't think it actually answers the question "why is the wall a divisive topic". I do think what you have could be taken in several directions to answer that part as well, and would be interested in reading that expanded answer. – Peter Jan 14 '19 at 11:42
  • The part that I meant to directly answer the question was from "had he proposed expanding the wall it would have been uncontroversial" to "rapists. And a few good people", and the reference to the campaign promise. You are right, the rest of it is elaboration to provide context and background (and thanks for calling it insightful!) – Kevin Keane Jan 15 '19 at 0:33
  • 2
    Re "workers usually tended to come only for a few weeks for harvest season", harvest tends to be a moveable affair. It might start with winter/early spring havest of strawberries & vegetables in California's Imperial Valley (or even in Mexico), and finish in the fall with apples, peaches, &c in Washington state (or even into Canada). Which is why the workers are MIGRANT workers. Would seem far better (since most Americans won't do this work) to simply make such workers legal. – jamesqf Jan 15 '19 at 20:05
  • 1
    @jamesqf Keep in mind that this was 30 years ago, so making such workers legal today wouldn't change anything. That said, there are visas available for this work, but the quota is very low, and the red tape makes it difficult to use (which farmer knows a year in advance what the weather will be at harvest time?). There also was the braceros program in the 1950s and 1960s, which was also plagued by its own set of problems. That is probably one factor why people in the 1980s perceived migrant harvest workers as a problem. – Kevin Keane Jan 16 '19 at 21:12
  • 2
    "That fact is not very well known, though" Indeed, and this answer really needs some citations. – TylerH Jan 17 '19 at 16:27

Here's a sampling of the arguments I've heard from people opposed to the wall. Often from people who live near the border:

  1. Walls and fences are of little value if they are not guarded. Many areas of the border have no telecommunications and are difficult to reach. Example
  2. Tunnels can go under walls.
  3. Most illegal immigrants and drugs come into the country through other means.
  4. In some areas of the border, people have ranches and other property. You first have to take their land through eminent domain and then block their access to the river. Example
  5. When heavy rains hit an area, they run to the nearest river. If you got a wall there, where's the water going? A fence might work better in such areas but debris will collect on it and cause flooding unless it is cleared. Example
  6. Wild life does not respect borders. A wall and even a fence will create ecological consequences that are hard to predict. Example
  7. Native tribes occupy lands that span the border (this is true in the north too) and a wall would divide them. Example

Much of the opposition to the wall is due to the belief that it will be costly and ineffective while creating problems. They disagree that it will be a "real material difference to the electorate", at least in the implied positive way you put it. In a nutshell they don't agree with wasting money on something they see at best as being mostly pointless and at worst highly problematic.

  • 8
    While I agree these are all practical and factual arguments against a border wall, and +1 for bringing them up, I don't agree this is the reason it's so polarizing. The US is not having a practical and factual debate right now. The wall is an emotional proxy for hopes and fears about immigration. – Schwern Jan 15 '19 at 21:49
  • 1
    @Schwern I'm addressing this: "Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for". I believe that the idea that the debate over the wall is pro-immigration vs. anti-immigration is bullshit. There's a false narrative that if you are against the wall, you must want iimmigrants coming into the country illegally. This is nonsense. Many people are against the wall because they are against foolishly wasting resources on a symbol simply so that Trump can claim he make good on a silly campaign promise. – JimmyJames Jan 16 '19 at 14:32
  • @JimmyJames the major point people are missing is that a barrier is the only way to prevent people from physically crossing the border. Once they cross even if caught due to surveillance or being spotted by border agents, it creates a huge expense. Once they cross they are entitled to due process. Which costs $. They are "entitled" to room and board while being detained. Which costs $. I don't remember even a rough number of people who are detained awaiting their due process right now, but it's a large #. – Aporter Mar 5 '19 at 12:30
  • @Aporter But a barrier doesn't prevent people from crossing. Walls can be scaled, tunnels dug. You still need border guards. And if they can't prevent someone from crossing on foot, why can they stop someone from climbing or digging? Technically, once on the wall, they would be in the US anyway. Also this proposed barrier will cost many many $. Way more than what Trump claims. His is a ridiculous lowball estimate. – JimmyJames Mar 5 '19 at 14:58

I'm not trying to go full PoMo here, but meaning is often socially constructed.

Anything can be politically polarizing if a critical mass of people perceive it to be that way. We could be talking about a waist-high barrier in someone's back yard if such a thing came to national attention and had some sort of symbolic weight.

Think about some issues that are political issues (at least in the US) that shouldn't be: climate change (~97% of experts are worried about this), voter fraud (almost never happens), etc. But as I've said elsewhere on this site, these things aren't just subjects for discussion but membership cards, marking people as one of us/those people we hate.

We cannot have real conversations anymore about these topics. They have been hijacked to denote tribal affiliation. Attempting to make any sort of argument on the object-level question will end in disaster. Indeed, based on the comments and downvotes, merely citing an example pointing this out has been a disaster.

The case of climate change is particularly instructive: I've repeatedly had the following conversation and it goes the same way every time:

Other Person: "I don't see why anyone would doubt the scientific consensus on climate change"

Me: "Are you a climate scientist? Hang out with any? Read any peer-reviewed literature on the topic over the last 20 years? Even just the abstract of a single paper from the last 20 years? How do you know what the scientific consensus is?"

Other Person: "You're obviously one of those science-denying Fox-watching troglodytes."

Every. Single. Time.

Now certainly, some people do in fact understand that such really is the scientific consensus. But, and this is germane to my point, most people won't even do a single google-search's level of due diligence.

The real problem is that I'm addressing the statement at the object level. What the other person is actually saying is "I'm a card-carrying member of the Republican-haters club" and when I say what I say they translate it to "I'm a Republican, come at me bro".

Illegal immigration faces the same slogan-chanting-zombie-ism: the wall is just the rallying point for opposing forces. It could have been anything. I'd have preferred they picked something that didn't cost $5 billion, but that's another topic.

  • 7
    This doesn't quite explain why this particular issue turned out so polarising. As you say, anything can become polarising but not everything does (to this extent). So why this issue? – JJ for Transparency and Monica Jan 13 '19 at 1:10
  • 3
    @JJJ sorry I wasn't more clear, but the point I was trying to make is that it's quasi-random. Why do some species thrive while others die out? You can say their more fit to the current environment, but that just pushes it back a step. What determines the environmental conditions? Politically this plays out as slight difference of opinion + tenuous connection to pre-existing narratives + feedback loop = something people in other countries make fun of you for. – Jared Smith Jan 13 '19 at 20:08
  • 1

The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security; and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.

The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.

  • 22
    I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down. – user1450877 Jan 12 '19 at 1:10
  • 10
    We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $ – MolonLabe Jan 12 '19 at 4:45
  • 6
    You could add a third group: people who think the Wall would not just be ineffective and thus a waste of money, but would be counterproductive in addressing the actual problems (to the extent that they really are problems, and not just Trump race-baiting), even if Mexico really would pay for it. – jamesqf Jan 12 '19 at 20:03
  • 2
    @jamesqf: And a group for whom deterring unrestricted immigration is not a policy objective (not sure if you meant your third group to be that, or it is a fourth) – Ben Voigt Jan 13 '19 at 18:21
  • 4
    @MolonLabe, I've heard that argument but how do you measure the effectiveness of sending $1B to, say, Venezuela for humanitarian purposes and a reduction of the number of people fleeing that country to the US border? The main purpose of foreign aid, it seems to me, is to stabilize another country so the residents can remain there safely. Would it be better to let them flee and have millions of people on the US border instead of thousands? – CramerTV Jan 14 '19 at 20:43

The wall itself (whether effective or otherwise) is a symbol for the entire debate concerning how open America should be to immigration.

enter image description here

Large numbers of people also incorrectly believe most immigrants are here illegally, making their opinions on illegal immigration a proxy for their opinions on immigration generally enter image description here

One of the reasons for this debate is that it is very difficult for people to enter the United States legally.

  • If you are the child (over 21 years of age) of a US citizen, you are in the first preference. The wait for a US visa in this category can be six years.
  • If you are the child or spouse of a green card holder, you are in the second preference. The wait for a US visa in this category can be five to ten years.
  • If you are the married child of a US citizen, you are in third preference. The wait for a US visa in this category can be eight years.
  • If you are the sibling of a US citizen, you are in fourth preference. Several things can affect waiting times of family-sponsored green card applications.

People who think we should be more open to immigration see this and oppose steps to enforce our immigration laws because they see our immigration system's rejection of people who want to contribute to our country's success as both immoral and counterproductive, as well as a general failure for our government to enact laws to open up our immigration system more generally (indeed, evidence points towards actions that go in the exact opposite direction). They also see it as against our basic cultural values, against a potential source of economic prosperity, and against the source of some of our most impactful successes. This motivates a lot of the "sanctuary" legislation and more general opposition to the wall.

On the other side there are a few camps, those hostile to foreigners because they are essentially racist (it is perhaps educational to wonder why there is no clamoring to build a wall between the USA and Canada and secure our northern border). Then there are those hostile to foreigners because they are foreign (see Michael Kay's answer, additionally they may see competent foreign competition as a threat to their own employment or salary) and finally those that are hostile to immigrants who enter illegally because they see them as inherently law breakers (they entered "illegally", after all) and therefore automatically criminals and likely to commit more crimes (despite the general lower incidence of crime among immigrants when compared to the population at large). (Edit: I believe the arguments helpfully laid out by TheLeopard in the comments below are representative of those given by this last group) enter image description here

  • 4
    This doesn't make sense. The way to increase immigration is to make legal immigration simpler. No one is trying to do that. They are only trying to maintain illegal immigration. – jpmc26 Jan 16 '19 at 8:50
  • 4
    Illegal aliens shouldn't be in the country, so Americans shouldn't have to suffer their crimes at all. Among nearly 4,000 first- and second-degree murder convictions, undocumented immigrants accounted for nearly 13 percent — significantly higher than their percentage of the population. Undocumented immigrants also accounted for five times the rate of convictions for money laundering and kidnapping, and were three times more likely to be convicted of drive-by shootings. washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/26/… – TheLeopard Jan 16 '19 at 16:36
  • 2
    @TheLeopard So I found the study you quoted and it's worth mentioning, the author of that study, John Lott, has been caught cooking the books on his statistics in the past (detailed here under Myth One). – TemporalWolf Jan 16 '19 at 22:36
  • 4
    NOBODY knows how many illegal aliens are in the country. There isn't even a common ground range where experts agree, unless you count +/- 20 million common ground. Thus, while all the charts and tables in this post appear to describe something; what they show is absolutely meaningless. – Dunk Jan 17 '19 at 15:24
  • 1
    "it is very difficult for people to enter the United States legally" -> the law is difficult to follow, so I'll just go ahead and break it? This argument makes no sense. – JonathanReez Feb 18 '19 at 3:53

They could make a deal

The problem is Trump himself. He reneges on deals, sometimes even before the "other side" has left the room. Before you can possibly make any sort of deal, both sides need to have some credibility that the other would uphold their side of a bargain. To date, Trump, as President, has not shown that he is willing to back his words and tweets with any reliability.

surely ... are equally affected by the criminal behaviour as well?

I don't agree that the border is suddenly a crisis. The majority of illegal immigrants arrive with legal visas and overstay their visa. These will not be affected by any sort of magic wall. The insistence on a wall along the border with Mexico and complete silence about a wall along the border with Canada strikes me as mendacious racism.



When East Germany built the Berlin Wall, they claimed that it was to protect DDR from "fascists" sneaking over the border sabotaging East Germany. In fact, it was built to keep East Germans from escaping. That so much effort has been devoted to the current "emergency", along to so many lies, tells me that the real reason for the wall is not to keep Mexicans out, but Americans in. I see no reason to assist Trump in building a Tortilla Curtain.

  • 1
    This is an absurdly biased answer. – Aporter Mar 5 '19 at 12:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .