The U.S. southern border wall is becoming a stumbling block in the country’s political discourse, recently culminating in a heated clash between President Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the Oval Office on Dec. 11.
Trump told Democratic leaders he would shut down the U.S. government later this month if Congress doesn’t meet his demand to fund construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Both Pelosi and Schumer insisted discussion be held behind the closed doors — making it appear as though they have no appealing arguments to present for Americans on why they oppose securing our southern border.
The difference in Republican and Democratic approaches to the border wall lies in their two fundamentally different and opposing worldviews – patriotism, represented by President Trump and most Republicans, and globalism, that is shared by the Democrats. These competing worldviews form the different evaluation of the role of the national borders.
For globalists, national states with their traditional attributes like borders are viewed as obsolete. A free, unobscured movement of goods, workforce and information is a pillar of globalization. Borders here are viewed as obstacles to be overcome.
When people started talking about globalization in the 1970s, there was an idealistic messianic view that it would change everything; that globalization would sweep the state away, making it no longer the main actor on the global stage. There was this vision of global power like a continuum through history; the state was a temporary phase, existing from 1648 through to the late part of the 20th century – at which point it would be eliminated. In its place, multinational companies and international organizations would take over the landscape, coordinating world economy, trade, finances and social development.
Many left-leaning scholars and politicians still picture the ideal world of common welfare, which is based on the belief that a globalized economy will grant prosperity and material abundance for everyone; a world where people of all backgrounds will leave in a peaceful togetherness, bonded by love and compassion as the source of conflicts and wars represented by national states will be wiped out.
However, that is not what happened. First of all, the most essential part of globalization — free trade — turned out to benefit only the leaders of globalization that set the rules, enriching multinational corporations and devastating economies of the developing countries. Globalist wars for resources, trade routes and markets have brought disarray to the whole regions, particularly in Africa and Middle-East, and facilitated a rise of radical Islamist terrorism. The leftist world order of globalized Europe, with its permeable borders and all-inclusive immigration policy, paired with high standards of living made Europe a highly attractive destination for all those unfortunate, adventurous and hostile ones from ravaged countries. As the result, core European countries are experiencing numerous problems, starting with high financial pressure on local budgets, soaring crime and disease rates, and erosion of their unique civilization.
America, indeed, was born under a lucky star, and was spared this particular threat thanks to President Trump’s travel ban that the establishment media tried oh so hard to label a “Muslim ban” despite the obvious facts — but since when did they care about inconvenient truth? The borders and the people were protected despite the furious leftist tantrums yelling, “LET THEM IN!!!”
Now, America is facing a new challenge. The failure of leftist policies in South America is driving caravans of immigrants to the Promised Land. Yes, they are poor, desperate and exhausted, and lots of them have children. And it is a pity and horror to see so many lives being ruined by socialism and globalism. Does it, however, mean that they can come to America and take advantage of those who work, raise children and try to make their livings legally? Does it give them a free pass to break the law, work here illegally, vote, collect welfare using fake documents, join gangs, deal drugs? There are all facts that the Democrats deny or excuse, calling those who bring them up “racist.”
As much as globalist elites, including those two distinguished top Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer, want people to dissolve in the collective kumbaya, they are still elected representatives — “elections have consequences,” as Schumer hypocritically reminded Trump during their ferocious rendezvous. All three elected vis-a-vis must represent Americans who entrusted them to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” as they promised when recited the Oath of Office. Are these not the most important consequences of the elections? Obviously, they are for Trump who sees the imminent problem and tries to address it.
But for the Pelosi-Schumer power couple, the most important consequences of the elections are to oppose Trump with any means necessary. Defense of the Constitution against those who break the law is not as important to them as not to let Trump win and have his way with this particular issue.
And the issue here is clear and it is hard to comprehend how can it possibly be sugar-coated: illegal immigration harms the country. Thus, according to The Federation for American Immigration Reform 2017 report, the federal, state and local costs of more than 12.5 million illegals in the United States was around $135 billion a year. Even after factoring in this population’s tax contributions, the group said the total economic impact of illegal immigration was around $116 billion a year — which is still $116 billion more than I as a taxpayer am willing to pay. This is the money that could be used on the creation of the new workplaces, education and medical services for hard-working Americans who actually pay the bill.
Hopefully, our representatives will keep in mind the promise they have made to the people of this country, the spirit of patriotism will prevail, and the wall will be funded. Wouldn’t that be a great Christmas present for all the Americans?
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.