[Phoenix8]

Let’s examine what does follow then. A country that does not enforce its own borders and allows mass illegal immigration then becomes the world wide enforcer of other countries borders. Such enforcement in this case could potentially lead to war with a massive nuclear power. I suppose one could argue a military invasion is different from a human one but in the end isn’t the result the same?

Seems odd and while I’m not really an expert on Nathan B Forrest I don’t think he would be on your side on this one.

Forrest for whatever his other faults was a brilliant military leader and was willing to sacrifice hs life to protect the south’s borders….his people.

Still I don’t think we disagree on everything.

[nathanbedford]

Still I don’t think we disagree on everything.

Indeed, we don't disagree on very much and almost nothing at all on this issue.

I would defend the southern border to the last millimeter, I believe it is number 1 or number 2 of our national priorities. I believe the security of Ukraine is important but very much lower on our ladder of priorities.

I would defend my home before my neighbor's home, certainly, but I would defend my neighborhood as well. Of course, I would not strip the southern border of weapons to defend Ukraine and I am thoroughly sickened that effective weapons to defend Ukraine were left in Afghanistan.

I simply do not see any logic in setting our defense of the southern border as a condition precedent to defending our interests in Ukraine. One is not necessary for the other and not logically connected, except in our emotions. Emotions are a very treacherous foundation upon which to forge policy. But I do understand the irresistible power of the slogan ...

one slogan is worth a thousand reasons.