You're making the same mistake. There are other, probably much more effective ways of taking care of border security that don't involve something as stupid as a long wall which has the unfortunate effect of doing nothing about the illegals who are already here.
As an alternative, why not attack the problem on the money side of the equation? After all: illegal immigrants continue to come here, because Americans are paying them to do it. If you took all that "wall money" and instead spent it on registration and tracking, and enforcement against those who employ illegals ... that's where you'd really make some progress, because it directly addresses the problem at its source.
But the "Wall" folks are the loudest in the room. Which is really too bad, when you get right down to it.
Which, for some reason, Jorge Arbusto refuses to consider.
Cheers!
I don't think the "Wall" folks are as adamant about the wall as you think. I, for one, would be quite pleased to see that money spent on tracking and registration, esp. in re: employers and SSN verification.
I'm sure that someone will immediately post behind me about how important the wall is.
Attacking the money side of the equation would be an excellent move. A wall wouldn’t hurt either. In my experience, debate between those options hasn’t been the source of the great immigration rift. The rift has grown between those that want to do something to stop immigration first vs those who want to have some simultaneous amnesty thrown in.