Nancy Pelosi's New Argument Against Border Wall Couldn't Be More Pathetic


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked on Thursday during her weekly news conference about President Donald Trump’s recent trip to California to examine border wall prototypes, and her criticism of the eventual border wall reached an absolutely pathetic level.

According to the Washington Examiner, the House minority leader was asked if her party was prepared to grant approval for border wall funding, given that the deadline to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — to which Democrats had attempted to tie border wall funding — had come and gone.

“What do you think?” Pelosi replied with a snarky smile. “I mean, should we give a border wall for nothing? I don’t think so.”

“First of all … Did you see it? How high it is? I mean, really? In a civilized society, we do something like that?” she asked rhetorically. “As obnoxious as it is, you know that’s a community there with a border running through it.”

“A wall that big separating people? I mean, really? This is like, a big wall,” she continued, prior to a failed attempt at making a joke about the Trump administration seeing and being inspired by the tall tin wall that used to separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain.

Republicans, Dem Senator Revolt, Hit Back at Schumer for Changing Dress Code for Fetterman

She then hearkened back to the recent failed efforts at bipartisan legislation put forward which would have saved DACA and allegedly made “serious concessions” on border wall funding, but stated, “For nothing would we give the wall? No. I mean, what would be our motivation?”

“Let me be clear,” she continued. “If the dreamers never existed — and thank God they do, our inspiration, our pride, thank God that they do — if they never existed, we still have a problem with what the president wants to do.”

You can watch Pelosi stutter her way through this ridiculous criticism of the border wall as “obnoxious” right here:

Do you think Democrats will come up with any excuse to not fund a border wall?

So there you have it: Nancy Pelosi thinks the border wall will be “obnoxious,” too high and unnecessary in our “civilized society.”

She also expressed her thanks that such a class of people as “dreamers” existed — bear in mind these are people who are in the country illegally — and made it clear that Democrats had no motivation to secure the border with a wall without a deal for dreamers — just before seemingly scuttling that argument by stating Democrats would still oppose the wall even without the dreamers in the mix.

Louder With Crowder suggested that Pelosi could very well have been projecting the public’s view of herself onto the wall — “Obnoxious, unsightly, and unnecessary in a civilized society” — and revealed how little interest her party has in securing the border no matter what.

Indeed, Democrat elitists would likely prefer the wall, if it even ever existed, consist of little more than welcome signs greeting those migrating across the border in an illegal fashion.

Pelosi has proven herself to be nothing more than a hypocritical joke on countless occasions, and one who objects to an important national security measure on the basis of how aesthetically pleasing it will appear once complete.

MTG 'Setting the Record Straight' with Big Move - Is She Paving Her Way to VP?

That is just absurd, but is exactly what we have come to expect from Pelosi and her fellow Democrats over the past year. Absolute absurdity and opposition to the president for the sake of opposition.

It has grown tiresome and beyond ridiculous — not to mention obnoxious.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , ,
Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. He has written about current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments.
Ben Marquis has written on current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. He reads voraciously and writes about the news of the day from a conservative-libertarian perspective. He is an advocate for a more constitutional government and a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, which protects the rest of our natural rights. He lives in Little Rock, Arkansas, with the love of his life as well as four dogs and four cats.
The School of Life
Little Rock, Arkansas
Languages Spoken
Topics of Expertise