You just know the Dems’ hypocrisy is showing when even the left-leaning PolitiFact rates the claim that 27 Senate Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 half-true.
Among those who voted for the wall were then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Despite PolitiFact’s efforts to their paint support for border fencing “the lesser of two evils,” Clinton had stated of her own volition three years earlier that she was “adamantly against illegal immigration.”
Obama was even firmer in his conviction that the flow of illegal aliens across our porous southern border needed to be staunched. Here he is in 2005:
Now that a president Democrats love to hate is seeking support for an even more comprehensive physical barrier on the porous southern border, top Democrats are inventing all sorts of reasons why the wall should not be built. In March, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) complained that the proposed wall was “too high,” though she stopped short of clarifying too high for what. More recently, she has argued that walling off “neighbors” is “obnoxious” and “immoral.”
Many Democrats have complained about the cost of erecting an 18-foot-high wall, which according to estimates could run as high as $30 billion over ten years. But that amount is a third of what taxpayers spend on illegal immigration each year.
Now a new complaint has been voiced, this one by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota that he’s opposed to Trump’s wall because “you can’t see through it.”
You can’t make this up.
In 2006, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and 23 other Senate Dems voted for 700 miles of border fencing.
Confronted about why they oppose a barrier today, Dems are now claiming they're against a wall because you can't see through it. 🤔 pic.twitter.com/aClqHN6u4h
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) December 14, 2018
Another common argument is that the wall won’t be effective — that enterprising illegals will find ways to get around the wall or under it. You’d think that no nation ever successfully erected a border wall that could serve as a model. Perhaps Dems should spend some time with a highly informative article in the Harvard International Review titled “Walls of Separation: An Analysis of Three ‘Successful’ Border Walls.” The piece outlines techniques and solutions that the U.S. government could employ on a wall of its own.
Of course, for the party of no to do that, they would first need to tear down a current obstacle: their opposition to anything that Donald Trump proposes solely because he is Donald Trump.