Over the last several years, progressives have become more and more steadfast in their opposition to a wall along the southern border of the United States.
Over the last several years, progressives have become more and more steadfast in their opposition to a wall along the southern border of the United States. Some of this hardening can be attributed to a simple need on the part of Democratic politicians to project their alleged virtue to the voting public.
This virtue was on display when incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the following on December 6:
Other Democratic politicians and progressive media figures share Pelosi’s view that a physical wall along the southern border of the United States is «immoral,» but that a secure border is a worthwhile pursuit. Let us set aside the debate concerning whether or not these public pronouncements are genuine, and focus on the pronouncements themselves.
How is a technologically secured border a moral endeavor, while a physically secured border is an immoral one?
To answer that question, one must first understand the practical difference between one and the other. While conservatives understand that a sufficiently advanced physical barrier would very likely impede or stop entirely the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the United states through Mexico, they know that a «technological» border, as proposed by Democrats and some Republicans, would be much less effective.
