Big misconception among many of you about why we Dems oppose The Wall

This is a probably I’ll-fated attempt at a reasonable exchange of opinions on here that will probably go down in flames, but what the hell I’ll give it a shot.

I actually am not here to discuss the merits or lack thereof about The Wall. Instead I’m hoping to address what’s been bothering me about the discussion: the apparent lack of understanding among many in the conservative crowd as to why we Democrats oppose The Wall. Note that I’m not saying my side is correct; I’m saying that we are having two different conversations. Nor am I saying that we (Dems) don’t have our blind spots/misunderstandings as well, and maybe this thread could be a good spot for some on the conservative side to point those out. Maybe a better understanding of where The Other Side is coming from can be helpful to the discussion and stop everyone from thinking everyone else is stupid all the time.

But anyway, here goes. I notice that the general sentiment among the conservative crowd (here and IRL) is that we Dems oppose The Wall because “we want open borders” or we want a bunch of people coming in or something along those lines. I can tell you that this is not why we oppose it. Not even close. Again, the Democratic opposition to the wall has nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal. And this is what I mean by having two different conversations. Republican support for The Wall is very much grounded in immigration/security reasons and I think it’s natural to assume our opposition would be based on those same concerns. But it’s not. If this was our main concern then we’d make a deal for a $5 billion wall immediately and probably even get some cool concessions out of it. The Wall won’t really have much of an effect on this and it would be the easiest deal we’d ever make: we’d be getting something for essentially nothing.

But instead we have completely different reason(s) we oppose The Wall. Again I’m not trying to convince you that these are valid. You can dismiss them as wrong or stupid but at least by doing that you will be addressing the actual reasoning among Team Blue. Here they are:

1) It’s a Dog Whistle (emotional reason). If Trump wanted a comprehensive border security package that incidentally expanded fencing (I.e. The Wall by another name), we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead, by repeating that we need A Wall - especially in light of many other comments about Mexico/Mexican Americans/The Border - he’s insulting Mexico/Mexicans and acting like they are some infestation we need to keep out. Again that might not be how he feels (or you feel), but that’s how it comes across to many of us. It’s important that we don’t back down in the face of that language. Not cool to talk about people that way.

2) It’s a bad precedent (political reason). Dems don’t want to create a precedent where Trump can get his way by threatening a shut down. “If we give him this then what’s it going to be next time?”

3) It’s unnecessary/ineffective (logical reason). I can speak from a lot of personal experience here. I’ve spent a lot of time in Mexico (all over Mexico, but no where more than Juarez) and along the US Border. First, anyone who really wants to get to the US can and will get here with relative ease. You can just drive or fly here like anyone else, and countless people cross over and back every day. The idea that people are riding over on donkeys through the desert is just not an accurate portrayal. And at any rate, having to ride a donkey through the desert is a much tougher barrier than a Wall.

Now I’m not saying a Wall isn’t effective, but it already exists in all the appropriate (read: high traffic) areas. The parts with no Wall are generally those areas that are remote and hard to get to. Most people wanting to cross over will just cross through Juarez/El Paso or Matamoros/Brownsville. Or get on a plane.

Admittedly, yes - expanding The Wall even through these areas will have some effect on people crossing over, but in our view the effort to result ratio is not a very favorable one. Also, I imagine we generally don’t think it’s as big a deal if people come over as y’all do. These are obviously areas where reasonable minds can disagree.

4) Negative effect on border economies/culture (logical/emotional reasoning). Back in the day - especially before 9/11 - people in border cities would always cross over back and forth. And it was awesome. These border communities have historic economic and cultural ties that have really been severed with the increased border security, and they’ve suffered as a result.

5) It’s expensive (logical reason). Similar to point #2, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. No one seriously believes $5 billion will get a Wall of any significance across the entire border.

6) The border is beautiful; a Wall is ugly (emotional/logical reason). This one is really straightforward: I love spending time down by the border. It’s breathtakingly beautiful and I don’t want it ruined by an ugly arse Wall.

7) Trump wants it really bad (emotional). I’m putting this last - and it’s certainly not my reason - but I’m not going to pretend a large part of the opposition isn’t the plain ole human nature you see among both sides.



So there you have it. I think #1 is about 60% of the opposition with everything following decsreasing in importance (right or wrong). I’m happy to discuss any of these with you and especially hear from yall about things we may be getting wrong about the Republican perspective. But I do hope this sheds some light on the Democratic perspective so the conversation can be more than just “Democrats want to let all the Mexicans in,” because I assure you that’s not the case.

I’ll leave with one final thought that one of my mentors always told me: “you don’t understand an issue if you can’t convingly argue why you’re wrong.” I hope I’ve helped y’all do just that