Right now, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is continuing to fight President Trump as hard as she possibly can on funding for the border wall. At the same time Pelosi is trying to gain the upper hand in negotiations with the President, she’s also trying to win the war of public opinion, taking time in her speeches to explain why the nation supposedly does not need a wall on its southern border.
It’s really not possible for Pelosi to argue against the wall on economic grounds. The $5 billion that Trump is requesting is peanuts compared to what Democrats are willing to spend on things far less vital than border security. Likewise, Pelosi can’t really argue against the effectiveness of a border wall, either. Border patrol agents are overwhelmingly in favor of the wall, and common sense dictates that a tall, strong wall would almost entirely put a stop to illegal immigration.
Of course, the real reason that Pelosi opposes the wall is the fact that she is trying to prevent Donald Trump from being able to deliver on his biggest campaign promise. She obviously can’t say that in her speeches, though. And so, unable to tell the truth and unable to argue against the wall on logical grounds, Pelosi has turned to the most tried and true tactic of the Democratic party – unfounded emotional appeals.
According to Nancy Pelosi, a border wall is “immoral”. She bewilderingly claims to be in favor of border security in one sentence, then claims that a border wall is an immoral approach to border security in the next. These two contradicting statements make zero sense, yet it doesn’t matter – Pelosi tugs on the heartstrings of her base, and they eat it up without giving the logic of her reasoning a second thought.
Nevertheless, it’s essential to put logic over emotion when it comes to major policy decisions. So how logical are Pelosi’s statements really? Is a border wall truly immoral? The answer to this question is a resounding no.
The government of any nation exists to look out for the best interests of its own citizens. Providing security for those citizens is by far the government’s number one reason for existing. Providing economic security for those citizens is a close second – and a border wall accomplishes both of these things. It is not immoral for any nation, the United States included, to put the needs of its citizens above the needs of people from other countries. In fact, it is imperative that they do so.
Claiming that a border wall is immoral is akin to claiming that it is immoral for a mother and father to lock their doors at night in order to protect their children. After all, what if some cold, hungry stranger wants to wander in from off the street? Never mind the fact that they might be a murderer and nevermind the fact that you barely have enough food for your own children – by Pelosi’s logic, locked doors are immoral. Of course, she doesn’t follow this logic when it comes to her own family. Pelosi not only locks her doors at night; she also, ironically enough, has a rather impressive wall surrounding her estate.
Pelosi isn’t arguing that all means of border security are immoral, though – she just claims that a wall is. While everyone knows that Pelosi is in favor of completely open borders, she can’t say that in the current political climate. Instead, she has to claim that the border wall is immoral while alluding to ambiguous “other means” of border security.
Let’s suppose for a moment that Nancy Pelosi does, in fact, have an effective plan for border security that doesn’t involve a border wall, in spite of the fact that she hasn’t revealed a single concrete detail of any such plan. How would this plan be any more moral than a border wall? If it is indeed effective, then the end result is exactly the same – illegal immigrants are prevented from crossing over the border. If it’s not effective, then what’s the point?
Pelosi cannot claim that a border wall is immoral while at the same time pretending to support border security. Either stopping illegal immigration is immoral, or it’s not. The wall or lack thereof has nothing to do with the question. Nevertheless, the logic doesn’t matter to Pelosi. She knows that her emotional appeals will resonate with those who don’t analyze her reasoning. And, unfortunately, the percentage of Americans who are willing to put logic over their emotions has reached an all-time low.