(Cross-posted at my FB page where comments are allowed.)
Leading Democrats have reversed themselves on the need for a border wall to help secure the U. S. Mexico border. Notice, I said 'help secure.' No one thinks that a physical barrier suffices to insure border security.
It should be noted, though, that many of those voices loudly condemning a border wall as cruel or ineffective have previously gone on record about our need for thorough border security.
In 2005, Barack Obama declared, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S. undocumented, undetected, unchecked, circumventing the people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer knew the dangers of illegal immigration back in 2009. “People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally,” he said.
Even Hillary Clinton said in 2014: “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in and I do think you have to control your borders.”
Our leading Democrats were for it before they were against it. How should we interpret the reversal? Two possibilities.
A. Clinton, Schumer, and the rest did not mean what they said when they said they were for border security. They felt safe saying it because they knew no decisive action would be taken, and that the stream of Hispanic illegals would continue unabated to their political advantage. Saying what they did not really mean, or only half-meant, allowed them to posture as patriots concerned with the security of the homeland while reaping the benefits of illegal immigration.
B. They meant what they said, but reversed themselves to oppose the hated Trump.
I incline toward (A). What say you?
Recent Comments