I'm not missing that point, I'm simply noting that building a wall across the entire southern border won't solve that problem because most illegal aliens (about 2/3rds) come into our country *legally* and simply overstay their visas. The same is true of the drug problem. About 90 percent of it comes through existing ports of entry, not through the deserts where Trump want's to spend our money.
Where I fault that kind of thinking is here:
1. Cutting down on the number of occurances of ANY serious problem is a gain. If there are X number of cases of diabetes in the USA annually, who says that some new drug or medical technique is not worth employing if only 30% or 50% or 70% of the new instances of the disease will be prevented?
Sounds silly, doesn't it? Yet that seems to be the argument most used by people who want to do nothing at all about the border security problem.
And the amount of our money that the president wanted to spend is also a phony issue. The opponents now say it is too much, but they themselves vote several times to spend much more. But the president then was either Obama or Bush 2. Right now, the obstructionists in Congress are willing to have the country be harmed before they will do something for the common good which, however, might cause the President to take some credit for having accomplished.
As a matter of fact, the very bill that he just signed that gives $1.3billion or so to the wall also gives
three times as much just as foreign aid to other countries. So what about that argument that the
cost is too much?
2. It is not true that nothing has been done about people overstaying their visas, etc. There has indeed been attention paid to that problem and to the drug issue relating to the ports of entry, and changes have been instituted.
I agree that the media haven't found it worth reporting on but you can find out with a little online search. Incidentally, this concerns only a portion of the problems that not stopping millions of people from walking across the border presents.
