Walls are racist, and only monsters want to use barriers to separate people.
That’s the classic liberal line, at least. Conservatives and especially President Donald Trump are frequently smeared as cold-hearted for wanting the U.S. border secure, while also painted as deeply racist if they bring up the proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall.
None other than the left-leaning New York Times just showed how silly these claims are, however. It turns out that barriers — yes, even walls — work pretty well for increasing security after all.
On Wednesday, keen observers noticed that the newspaper which attacked Trump over his proposed wall had added large, ugly concrete blocks around the perimeter of its headquarters.
The new barrier is “part of our continuing efforts to enhance security at our headquarters building,” a representative from the famous newspaper told The Washington Examiner.
A photo from Times employee Alastair Coote showing the concrete barrier was posted on Twitter Wednesday morning, prompting people to note the irony.
“The paper’s left-leaning editorial board opposes President Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border,” explained The Examiner.
Indeed, an April think-piece from the editorial board of The New York Times mocked the southern wall concept as “irrational,” while also calling plans to use National Guard personnel at the border “foolish” and “spiteful.”
Yes, in that paper’s view, only spite can explain using tried-and-true methods of stopping unauthorized access to an area. It couldn’t possibly be that barriers which physically impede entry are used at every secure location in America, from court houses to embassies and The White House.
You can now add The Times’ own building to that list. Meanwhile, another liberal opponent of stricter border enforcement — Mark Zuckerberg — has also come under fire for his apparent two-facedness.
“Anti-wall crusader Mark Zuckerberg is building a giant wall around his Hawaiian property,” Vanity Fair — hardly a conservative voice — pointed out not so long ago.
Zuck and The Times aren’t alone. Other liberal celebrities including George Clooney frequently hide out in luxury behind fences, walls and armed bodyguards. Using physical barriers as access control is common at any place that is serious about security.
That’s because it works. Other nations which have their own border problems have used walls with great effect already.
“Israel has erected a wall between itself and the West Bank, which has significantly reduced the threat posed by Palestinian terrorists in that region,” The Western Journal reported in May.
Over in Hungary, illegal immigrants from Syria and other locations frequently flooded the nation’s borders before they implemented a solution. You guessed it: A wall.
“Once the fence and the patrols were put in place, the results were nothing short of dramatic. Illegal immigration reportedly fell from 6,353 per day in the fence area to only 870 the day after it was built. Now, officials say that the daily number is closer to 40 per day,” The Journal also reported in 2017.
The real problem with The Times’ concrete barrier isn’t that they did it. Actually, this is pretty smart, especially when part of an overall security plan.
No, the problem is that they never acknowledge that they might have been wrong. Pretending that walls are criminal, while simultaneously using walls to keep out criminals is the epitome of hypocrisy … and the least they could do is admit that wanting security isn’t actually racist.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.