Why a Wall?

 

“…and I’ll make Mexico pay for it!”

Who cares if Mexico pays for it? We’re arguing over $5,000,000,000 in the budget; it’s an unimaginably huge amount in terms of my pocket book but the federal government wastes that much money on nothing every day. Yeah, I darn well would prefer if the feds didn’t waste all that money all the time. Border defense constitutes one of the fundamental duties of the government, and I’m willing to pay for it. The question then becomes what’s the best way to go about it?

Well, you’ve got other options: E-verify. Better enforcement on visa overstays. Radar and helicopters and active border patrol units, hey, that’s what we already do. Why don’t we just beef up the current operations?

The problem is, as it always is, politics. Without going into it too deep, look at Marco Rubio. In 2010 he was the Tea Party’s golden boy; he articulated conservative ideas well, he was young, good-looking, and he was actually a minority so that none of that Democrat identity politics would work on him. And then the Gang of Eight happened. The Tea Party’s golden boy was proposing amnesty.

My point isn’t to pick on Rubio in particular. Politicians lie, always have, always will. You gotta figure they’ll always look out for #1. But that usually comes in the form of pandering to your voters and your donors; makes one wonder why the GOP so consistently lurches to the left of its base on immigration. I’ve seen a number of explanations and none that seem complete. My best guess is that the politicians have read the demographic charts, they assume that the ever-growing Hispanic percent of their district will take a strong view on immigration. The votes they’d lose from a smaller portion of the electorate that holds strong views on the subject is going to be more than they’d lose by disappointing their base (who, let’s face it, are already going to vote for ’em over the Democrat).

And, to be fair, there are some perfectly reasonable ideological stances that argue in favor of immigration. More people means a bigger economy. Free trade theoretically includes the free exchange of labor across borders. A lot of people come here to pursue the American dream. Heck, I dislike e-verify simply because I don’t like people tracking my movement, especially the government. Maybe that politician is voting that way based on noble reasoning. If so he shouldn’t have sold his views as something else to the public.

For ages, we’ve had politicians who’ve superficially agreed with us, but can’t ever seem to get the job done. The best we seem to get out of them is boilerplate rhetoric, stuff that’s carefully crafted to sound tough to the base but be easy to walk back later.

And here we get back to Trump; Trump read the market and realized there was an unmet demand. Instead of offering the standard he says he’s going to build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it. People have said they’ll build a wall before, but make Mexico pay for it? You can’t walk that back to appeal to a constituency who supposedly has fond associations with Mexico. Trump wasn’t just taking a position; he was nailing himself in place. The fact that he can’t back down from that position lets his voters believe that, when they vote for immigration restrictions this time, maybe it’ll stick.

And that’s also why the wall itself is important. Take any other measure; if one administration raises the funding for the Border Patrol the next one can lower it again. Helicopters and radar and whatnot can be given and taken away. E-verify can be ignored. But a wall? It’s much harder to take a wall back. The politicians can lie all they want; if they had to spend some serious political capital to tear the wall down, brother, it ain’t gonna happen. Maybe they pull the guards off, maybe they offer amnesty. On the other hand, maybe we’ll get more politicians who realize that their voters don’t like being played for saps.

Published in Immigration
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Contrary to what you might think reading the Rightwebs, California didn’t invite all these people here at the demand of martini-sipping Marxists; “we”invited them here. Us. Businesspeople, Republicans who wanted cheap labor and for the past half century have always gotten it. When I moved here it was Democrats who were suspicious of illegal immigration because it created problems for their core constituency, urban Blacks. It was the GOP who wanted the berries picked, the hotel beds made, and the restaurant dishes washed.

    Unlike the Blacks, the Latinos seemed docile to whites, accepting of a secondary role in society, and voted in proportions far lower than their numbers. Of course, the JP Gotrocks conservatives heard the complaints that importing lots of desperately poor people would, in time, strengthen Democrats, but they had a ready-made answer that would solve everything: social conservatism. The Latinos, they were sure, would always be humble, God-fearing people. La Iglesia will keep them in line. 

    And it worked. Until it didn’t. 

    • #61
  2. Matt Balzer, Straw Bootlegger Member
    Matt Balzer, Straw Bootlegger
    @MattBalzer

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    Of course, the JP Gotrocks conservatives

    What is this, the 30s?

    • #62
  3. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Matt Balzer, Straw Bootlegger (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    Of course, the JP Gotrocks conservatives

    What is this, the 30s?

    If only you people selling apples and on the bread lines would switch your debentures to zero-coupon bonds, the so-called Depression would be seen for what it is, a chimera. Why, I know a cleaning woman who bought American Molasses at 4 3/4 and she is living in a Park Avenue mansion today. 

    • #63
  4. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    First off, I challenge the premise. There is a noticeable chunk of the central Ohio metro area that has become a near no-go zone because of illegals.

    Good point.  Even Nashville had a lot of illegals.  But they all had to pass through a border state at some point, and I was mostly wondering where are the polls taken of border state citizens?

    • #64
  5. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Songwriter (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    First off, I challenge the premise. There is a noticeable chunk of the central Ohio metro area that has become a near no-go zone because of illegals.

    Good point. Even Nashville had a lot of illegals. But they all had to pass through a border state at some point, and I was mostly wondering where are the polls taken of border state citizens?

    It’s complicated. If you read VDH, you’ll get the impression that California is exploding like the Hindenburg. It’s not. We pay heavier taxes because of illegal immigration, allegedly something the feds can control. But we also receive the benefits, and there are some: cheaper semi-skilled labor. The state has some of the most anti-illegal attitudes and some of the most pro-illegal ones.

    Texas is widely considered to have better Anglo-Latino relations than we do. Geography might help; Texas and Mexico are more similar, industry-and-culture wise, than California and Mexico. The Pacific coast is a permanent cultural difference. 

    New Mexico is unique in that its Latino culture is not based on emigration from Sonora two years ago, but on being here before the founding of the US. It has more Democrats than usual for today’s southwest. Arizona is gradually becoming more like California, but not because of Californians moving out. Arizona is simply becoming less unique, more like the rest of the country. 

    The border states have much more Latino population than most of the interior states, so that complicates the question of what these states feel about border protection. So, no, I don’t think we should have any priority in setting national policy. 

    • #65
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.