If no wall, what then?

Dear editor:

My two letters of Jan. 15 and 23 asked for objective proof that appropriate and sufficient border walls are ineffective in stopping illegal immigration across our or anyone’s border. Since they have gone objectively unanswered, I feel as if I proved my point and I’m on a roll.

Therefore, I wish to address the Democrat’s stated counter position on how to secure the border. I will use an analogy to prove my point as to why their offer would be ineffective.

When the door to your home is unlocked (the equivalent of a border without a wall), does a surveillance camera and motion detector inside your house do any good to keep out an intruder? By the time you discover they’ve gone inside, they’re already in your home and it’s too late. If the intruder knew that even if caught by the police essentially nothing would be done to them, they wouldn’t care that you had surveillance. They would take their chances at not being caught. That’s the equivalent of what the Democrats want to do to secure the border. These measures would only be effective to catch the few “intruders” who somehow manage to get past the wall, not the tens of thousands pouring over our southern border annually.

As I’ve stated in my first letter, one can have a vigorous discussion concerning whether illegal immigration or unrestrained immigration across our southern border is right or wrong, moral or immoral. But that’s not the purpose of this letter. This third letter is specifically to make a case for the ineffectiveness of security measures that only are capable of apprehending those who have already entered illegally into the United States. Once inside the United States they are just about impossible to remove.

As Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Jack Sternberg, M.D. Hot Springs