Yeah, I'm on the conservative wavelength that knows how the military works, and what it does (to wit, kills people, breaks things, and wins wars). You're on the liberal wavelength that thinks the military's a bottomless reservoir of manpower to support your pet project. (It isn't.)
If you put a large fraction of the US military on the border (and closing 2,000 miles of border will, indeed, require a large fraction of the military) on an unending mission, then any international crisis means either (a) the US does nothing, or (b) illegal immigration ramps right back up to present levels. Our enemies would love for us to face such a difficult decision.
Yeah, defending the U.S. border from illegal intrusion invasion is a "pet project." NOT a priority. (And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Poohbah leave their front door w-i-d-e open for strangers)
Just what world are you living in? Wait. Don't answer. It's the world of NO borders.
"If you put a large fraction of the US military on the border (and closing 2,000 miles of border will, indeed, require a large fraction of the military) on an unending mission, then any international crisis means either (a) the US does nothing, or (b) illegal immigration ramps right back up to present levels. Our enemies would love for us to face such a difficult decision."
It's NOT all or nothing as your border enforcement scenario plays out.
If the U.S. government deems it's own border unworthy of defending, we have invited the entire world to "come one, come all." Talk about our enemies loving a decision.
But then again, why not just join the other globalists and declare ourselves the 'United Federation of North American States'? At least in that case the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans require no 'Border Patrol.'