Perhaps further because the "invasion" of our southern border is not actually being done by a nationstate.
Anyway, I have never seen the logic of invoking a failure to defend America's border as a reason not to defend Ukraine's border. It seems to be self-evident that we have a duty to defend our own border which we are failing to do. But that failure has nothing whatever to do with whether we have a national interest in defending Ukraine's border.
Is there some sort of Newtonian law that says a failure to defend the border in one place prohibits one from defending a border in another place? Is there a law that says if you do defend the border in one place you must defend another border in another place? It seems to me each border should be defended or not depending on our national interest.
Whether we should defend Ukraine's border is a matter of America's national interest quite apart from the internal politics of converting America's electorate into a Democrat slave state.
Right, all the arguments from poverty are pure nonsense.
Our Southern border is not defended, not because we can't afford to, but rather because Democrats believe those illegal immigrants are essential to future Democrat election victories.
So money has nothing to do with it, it's about political power.
Likewise with EVERY other "we can't afford to help Ukraine because we can't afford to... [fill in the blanks].
All of it is because of Democrats' policies, not because of what we can or cannot afford.
Nathan Bedford: "Whether we should defend Ukraine's border is a matter of America's national interest quite apart from the internal politics of converting America's electorate into a Democrat slave state."
Exactly right.