The case for the wall

If a case has ever been made for a barrier, wall or a secure southern border, it is the writer of the lead editorial in the Jan. 10 edition of this newspaper. It was both informative and enlightening. It is not the funding of the wall but the attitude of the folks who are unwilling to compromise. It seems automatic that “if you are for something I am against it,” but why waste more on a daily basis than the barrier would cost?

I attempted to research the cost to the American taxpayer of illegal immigration but I gave up and assumed that no one really knows. Estimates ranged all over the place, but by taking an average of the estimates one would conclude that by cutting illegal entry a mere 10 percent, it would be more than cost-effective. Anything more would be a bonus. This doesn’t include all the added benefits of less illegal guns, drugs, disease, etc. Granted, many want to enter this country hoping for a better life, but there are also many who have heard stories about the exploitation of American generosity and want to take part. It just is not fair for all these folks to be permitted ahead of the ones who are trying to go the legal route.

There are no easy answers. We are a compassionate people and want others to enjoy what we have but there are constraints on how far we can go. It is just frustrating to have to fight this battle when we have so many more internal problems.

I got a chuckle from actor James Woods’ answer to Nancy Pelosi when she said walls are immoral; he asked her why she had one. I am sure there are people of all stripes with walls. It’s not that but rather the hypocrisy which is so disgusting! Deus existo nobis. HOWARD HUGHES Maumelle