Ann Coulter: Please, No More "Border Security'

AnnCoulter.com ^ | 01/02/2018 | Ann Coulter

[SeekAndFind]

The media are trying to convince Trump that if he abandons the wall, he'll be a statesman, so that as soon as he folds, they can start making fun of him as an untrustworthy liar.

Everyone knows that we can never have a secure border without an impermeable barrier -- something like a wall -- across all of it. The Democrats know it, the voters know it, and the millions of illegals hurtling toward our border like cannonballs know it.

The Democrats' latest idea is to call a wall "immoral, ineffective and expensive."

If they think a wall is "immoral," then they're admitting it's effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States.

Democrats' backup argument is to cite -- every four minutes on MSNBC -- Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for the wall. We're all baffled by Trump not having already taxed remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall (100 percent within the president's authority under various banking regulations), but if we're going to start listing the promises Trump hasn't kept, this is going to be a long column.

In point of fact, however, he never said Mexico would pre-pay. We can tax remittances anytime.

To keep the Third World masses flowing across our un-walled border, the media are demanding that Trump agree to nonspecific "border security." It's like ordering a Starbucks and instead of getting a coffee, you're told to have more "pep." Now move along. Here's your change.

Would liberals accept such airy statements of intent in lieu of clear legal commands for any of the things they care about? (Not to be confused with "our country," which they do not care about.)

Instead of EPA emissions standards, with specific parts per million of pollutants allowed into lakes and rivers, how about a law promoting "enhanced appreciation of God's bounty"? Emissions standards are immoral and ineffective!

Nearly every Republican presidential candidate tried to con voters with these meaningless catchphrases about "border security."

Here are The Des Moines Register's summaries of some of the candidates' positions on immigration a few weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucus:

Jeb Bush: "has called for enhanced border security."

Marco Rubio: "proposes ... improved security on the border."

John Kasich: "believes border security should be strengthened."

Chris Christie: "urges ... using technology to improve border surveillance ..."

Rand Paul: "would secure the border immediately."

Carly Fiorina: "would secure the border, which she says requires only money and manpower."

They all lost.

The guy who won: "Trump has said many illegal immigrants are rapists and are bringing drugs and crime to the United States. He has called for building a wall along the southern border, and has said he would make Mexico pay for it. He said he would immediately terminate President Barack Obama's 'illegal executive order on immigration.'"

Trump got more votes than any other Republican in the history of presidential primaries. No one was falling for "border security" then, and they aren't now.

But instead of doing what he said and building a wall, Trump has hired people who don't even grasp that the point is to make it unattractive to break into our country.

On ABC's "This Week" last Sunday, Trump's head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, announced plans to give illegal alien kids free medical care at the border: "What we've done immediately, (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen and I have directed that we do medical checks of children 17 and under as they come into our process."

Apparently, our working class is rolling in so much free health care that now our country is diverting medical resources to treat other countries' sick kids.

McAleenan boasted that we -- that's you, taxpayer -- will be providing "doctors, physician assistants, paramedics to do an initial intake check so that we know if a child is healthy as they arrive at the border and then make sure they can get medical care if they need it."

Luckily, this won't hurt any Americans because the doctors they're sending to the border are not currently treating any U.S. citizens. Oh wait! This just in: They will be taken away from sick Americans!

(Possible 2020 Trump campaign bumper sticker: I voted for a wall and all I got was free checkups for illegals.)

Doctors aren't like the Petroleum Reserve. We don't keep them cryogenically frozen, waiting to be unfrozen so they can treat illegals demanding free medical care as the price of hating us. If we rush doctors to the border, they are being rushed away from Americans who need medical care.

How about Democrats compile a list, by name, of the Americans they would like not to see their doctors anymore?

As a result of this boundless compassion for anyone who is not an American, how many more sick kids are going be dragged by their parents across hundreds of miles of desert just to see an American doctor?

Mexican cartel member to poverty-stricken Latin American:

Before setting off on this caravan, I want you to know that when you get to the border your kids will be held up for a medical check. And if they find anything wrong, your child will be given First World medical treatment. Also, you won't be allowed to pay. I just want you to understand what you're getting into before you join this caravan.

And when those kids die, Secretary Nielsen can demand more free medical care for illegals breaking into our country. Instead of having a wall, we'll have a series of interlocking charity hospitals on the border treating the poor of the world before crossing into a country that didn't ask for them and doesn't want them.

Sorry, America. You lose again.

[Yo-Yo]

As I said the last time this story was posted:

The Democrats got Bush 41 to accept a modest tax hike in exchange for spending cuts ‘in the spirit of compromise,’ then forever afterwards bashed him for breaking his “read my lips” promise.

Trump said “I will build a wall.” A wall he damn well better build, and before 2020.

[TigerClaws]

Too many politicians making money from drug and human trafficking with an open border.

Trump is winning this battle. People will question why we need “non essential government” and call for budget cuts.

Trump should veto any budget that fails to include wall funding. Then target specific pet projects for Dems to flip votes.

[Da Coyote]

If the Repubs fold on this, we can forget about that party.
And since we all know they will fold, we had better get moving on a real opposition party.

Right now.

Really.

[dynoman]

Ann needs to quit yapping like a purse dog.

[dynoman]

“Too many politicians making money from drug and human trafficking with an open border.”

EXACTLY what Trump said yesterday at the cabinet meeting.

Also said if a wall is immoral someone better talk to the Vatican!

[Baynative]

"Ann needs to quit yapping like a purse dog."

...and learn to finish a sentence without saying, "Uhmmm"!

[Yaelle]

Ann is weird. She is so focused on herself. I agree with some things she says but she is over the top but not for “good beliefs.” She isn’t really authentic and she really has such a need for attention. There is something off about her.

Since she actually willingly got closely affectionate with Bill Maher, to me she’s like the girl Jerry Seinfeld tried to date on the show who was rejected by Newman. Can’t get over that.

[dynoman]

Good luck with that.

[Leep]

GOP can’t wait to install Hillary.
She is more than willing to “cross the lose”
As long as she gets a cu

[Cassius Flavia Agrippa]

We on this website are not in the arena, if Ann isn’t.
So do we get to criticize Obama?

[Red Badger]

The Democrats' latest idea is to call a wall "immoral, ineffective and expensive."

Whenever were those reasons to not spend money in DC?..................

[jonose]

Trump should sell some government assets to pay for wall.
Lots of government land we aren’t using, have a railroad that could be
Better run privately. Many many others. Largest yard sale in history!

[Leep]

Moldy carp ...I no I filed in “cross the isle”
Stoopid auto correct!

[vetvetdoug]

Ann is right. Ignoring her warnings and predictions means one has a serious case of cranio-rectal inversion. Her yapping is affecting Trump like a ampule of smelling salts. He may be perturbed at it but it is reality.

[alloysteel]

Walls may be old-school, but technically, so is the wheel, and you don’t see anybody agitating to do away with wheels, do you?

Walls, be they natural, as in a canyon, or laid up stone by stone and mortared together, or poured as a monolith as in concrete, are a barrier, perhaps communicating to those who approach to turn to one side or the other to find an easier access, usually a previously designated and carefully controlled access point.

Now walls CAN be climbed over, or burrowed beneath, or with sufficient force, be broken, and the interloper may then simply walk through the breach. But none of these strategies will escape the notice of watchers on the wall, who would have to be in place, not as a substitute for the wall, but as its complement. The watchers may be drones, or remote cameras, or overflying aircraft, but none of these technological marvels could in any way, shape, form or manner be substituted for the physical barrier that is the wall.

The Democrats should stop looking for ways to reinvent the wheel. Wheels, like walls, are meant to serve a particular purpose.

[afterhoursarmory]

She goes really light on a lot of the congresscritters.
Trump needs help to get this through and it will be a serious battle even if he gets the funds. We haven’t even gotten to the eminent domain lawsuits, the EPA lawsuits, the green weenies lawsuits all judge shopped to delay, delay, delay.
I’ll be amazed if we get and serious traction on “new” wall before 2020. Not faulting POTUS; its the rest of government that is against the people.

[dynoman]

Was Obama the doer of great and worthy deeds, and covered with the blood sweat and tears from the doing? No. Most of us could have done better than he did. Not so with Trump.

[Cassius Flavia Agrippa]

Well, he was certainly in the arena. Who decides who can and can’t be criticized, and when deeds are great or not?

[dynoman]

Ask the man who wrote it.