Opinion | Hamilton: Border Security: A time for deciding
January 16, 2019
As of this writing, the dispute between those who are for additional border security and those who want open borders remains unresolved and a portion of the federal government is shut down. That, however, does not prevent an examination of the logic or illogic in the arguments of both sides.
The proponents of “the Wall,” which is short-hand for a whole host of border-security measures and not merely enhanced physical barriers, claim the humanitarian position that increased border security would prevent illegal-alien murderers from having access to their victims inside the USA. You decide.
Some, who oppose enhanced border security claim (also on humanitarian grounds), that Walls are immoral because migrants from other countries have a “right” to enter the United States, either legally or illegally. You decide.
Others, who oppose border walls, claim walls do not work but are loath to explain why many of them have their own homes surrounded by walls. That raises two questions: 1. If walls do not work, why do we have walls surrounding our embassies in foreign lands? 2. If walls are immoral, why is America advertising its immorality overseas by walling off our embassies?
Note, the U.S. consular mission in Benghazi was gated, but the wall was very low. It was overrun by an Islamic-jihadist ground attack that killed our ambassador and three others. The nearby CIA Annex compound was protected by a tall, gated-wall which the Islamic-jihadist ground attacks failed to overcome. U.S. casualties inside the CIA compound were the result of indirect mortar fire.
The leaders of the Progressive wing of the Democrat Party, such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and newly elected Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, want the U.S. to adopt Socialism as its form of government. That begs this question: What kind of governmental/economic systems are in effect in the Latin American nations from which the migrants are fleeing toward the United States? Hint: they are all economic-basket-case, socialist dictatorships in which the protections of our Bill of Rights do not exist.
Some opponents of enhanced border security claim the partial shutdown of the U.S. government is a “manufactured” crisis and that there is no humanitarian crisis. But what do television viewers see in those squalid, disease-ridden camps of migrants on the Mexican side of our southern border? What do viewers think about the overcrowded conditions where some of the asylum seekers are housed inside the U.S.? Watching the anguish of the families of the victims of illegal-alien crime makes for gut-wrenching television. For the families of the victims, the crisis is not manufactured.
Some who oppose enhanced border security claim that 98-percent of those seeking entry into the U.S. by illegal means are not violent criminals and are not drug runners. Logic suggests then that the remaining two-percent are criminals. To the families of the victims of an illegal alien, does it matter if they lost their loved ones to someone in the two-percent or the 98-percent? You decide.
Finally, which side is the more compassionate? Big Business/Big Agriculture/Big Hotels/Big Politics, looking for cheap labor and/or for more welfare-recipient voters? Or, those who want immigrants with valid asylum claims admitted to the U.S. via secure borders? Again, you decide.
Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a laureate of the Oklahoma Military Hall of Fame, the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, the Nebraska Aviation Hall of Fame, the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame, and the Oklahoma University Army ROTC Wall of Fame. Dr. Hamilton is the author of The Wit and Wisdom of William Hamilton: the Sage of Sheepdog Hill, Pegasus Imprimis Press (2017). “Central View,” can also be seen at: http://www.central-view.com.