There are some who say that terrorists constitute an army. I know this because I voted for him for President in 2000 and proudly plan to do it again in a few weeks. And we ARE at war - but our enemies don't use tanks any more. They use RPGs, car bombs, AK-47s, 767s, crude WMDs, anthrax in mailed letters, etc.
Building a wall to stop unarmed individuals from entering the U.S. shouldn't be such a difficult task
My emphasis in bold. How would a 10,000-plus mile long wall covering every inch of US land border have stopped 9/11? Walls can be penetrated, tunneled under, breached via bribery and misdirection, and scaled. Hence my assertion that such a wall would grant us nothing but a false sense of security for an astronomical cost, at the inevitable price of vigilance.
We look for disruption and deterrent of the enemy, not perfection, which doesn't exist.
No one can believably promise perfection except for the One who I sing songs about on Sunday mornings.
Of course other types of 'walls' have to be put in place too, such as putting restrictions on immigration in general. Our grandparents came here through places like Ellis Island. They were screened for illnesses, had to have a job already lined up, had to have a sponsor and a place to live. That was in the days of sanity. If we continue to leave our borders as open as in the days before 9/11 then we are guilty of gross stupidity.
There's no way to stop all undesirables from entering the U.S., but there is a way to slow it down and deter them. If you have cancer and the doctor says he cannot cure you, but he can give you chemo to slow it down and give you more time, then any reasonable person would go for that option. Your theory seems to be a defeatist one, it's like saying that since the police can't stop crime in our cities and towns, then why have them at all? I say build the wall and incorporate a sane immigration policy. These are not ordinary times and the problems we face require some extraordinary measures.
Securing the borders is necessary but not sufficient. We need to do other things too. The Maginot line forced the Germans to go around it. That's what land mines and fortifications are supposed to do -- to channel the invaders. But the French failed to follow up and provide for a proper army to defend against that.
It is much better and cheaper to stop them at the border that to try to round them up after they are here.
The value of securing the borders is in keeping out massive numbers of illegal voters. The threat is showing itself now. We are seeing local politicians in California and other southern states that are sympathetic to illegals and doing everything they can to make illegals a privileged criminal class who are above the law.
If border security is a "false sense of security" then please tell me what you think a "true" sense of security would be? Would you do nothing?