The English language is a wonderfully powerful and expressive tool — if it’s used competently and honestly. So, let’s see if we can talk competently and honestly about the border wall.

As I write this, the government is partially shutdown. The point of contention is the so-called border wall: specifically, the President and the Democrats are at loggerheads over funding for any portion of a wall. The President insists that he will not sign a spending bill that does not include at least some funding for a wall — the precise amount changes — while the Democrats (who control the House where funding bills must originate) are adamant that no funding will be forthcoming.

Do we need a border wall? No. We can manage border security through a variety of means; a physical barrier is merely one component, and arguably an optional one, of our border security infrastructure.

Can we afford a border wall? Of course. That is, to the extent that our profligate government can afford anything, it can afford the tiny fraction of a single percent of the government’s annual expenditures that the President has requested.

Would it be illegal, immoral, cruel, or otherwise monstrous to build a border wall? No. People use walls and fences all the time to secure areas from illegal and unwanted entry. In fact, the argument can easily be made that a border wall would be a particularly humane way of discouraging illegal immigration, in that it would reduce armed encounters between border enforcement and illegal immigrants, and discourage vulnerable people from setting off across inhospitable land in the company of vicious and exploitative “guides.”

Would it be ineffective at controlling illegal entry? Well, it wouldn’t be sufficient, in and of itself, but it would certainly make the process of entering the country illegally more difficult, make securing the border easier and safer, and communicate to would-be immigrants our resolve to police our border and discourage illegal entry. Whether it is the most cost-effective way of doing those things is debatable, but it seems clear that it would have those effects.

Is a border wall an expression of racism? That’s a challenging allegation to defend: I know it is false in my case — I want to stop all illegal immigration, regardless of race — but it’s probably true for some small number of proponents. But pretty much everything, we are told, is an expression of racism. We have to raise the standards, demand more evidence, if we’re going to entertain that idea. I see little evidence that America is a racist nation and considerable evidence to the contrary.

So why not build a border wall? What is the thoughtful, serious, honest argument against it?

I think there are two reasons. First, there is a vocal, active minority on the left that is offended by the idea that America has a right, never mind an obligation, to regulate the influx of foreigners onto our soil. I think this minority is sufficiently outspoken and politically active as to command the loyalty of Democratic lawmakers. I think those lawmakers, therefore, believe that they can not be seen as having compromised, in any way, with those who oppose unfettered immigration.

Secondly, I think the matter of a border wall has become, understandably, identified with the current President, and there is substantial pressure on the left (and in some corners of the ersatz right) against allowing any administration victories in what is a signature issue.

In summary, I think the right wants a border wall for the reason the left does not: because it says something about America and America’s right and duty to defend what our country represents against the unchecked influx of alien ideas and customs. The right wants a symbol that we take that right and duty seriously. The left wants no such symbol because it denies us that right and rejects that duty.