The march-in-lockstep Dems and their media lapdogs would have us believe that border walls are ineffective, outdated and too expensive. Utter nonsense!

How to explain that the areas along the US and Mexico border where a wall/fence/substantial barrier exists has seen a reduction in illegal immigration by well over 90%? How to explain that the wall in Israel has resulted in a 99.9% reduction in infiltration by terrorists and other illegals?

Let me ask you this: Do you walk through walls in your home to get from one room to another? No, you don't (and if you do I'd love to see that video!). You go to where there is an opening, most often a door. And you don't try to bore through or tunnel under.

It works the same way for fences and walls around residential properties and communities, where you also do not normally climb over the fence or wall - especially not if it is up to 30 feet tall and/or is topped with steel spikes or barbed razor wire.

If you are trekking through the wilderness, or desert as the case may be, and you come to such a forbidding barrier do you try to bore through it or somehow climb over or dig under it, or do you either keep trekking along until you come to an opening or an entry point where you can get to the area beyond the barrier? Or else go back home? If you knew that such a barrier existed would you have made the trek to begin with?

But what about the "All you need to defeat a 30-foot wall is a 35-foot ladder" argument? Yeah, a 35-foot ladder might work. But, even if you could obtain or build such a big ladder, transport it to the wall and then manage to scale the wall and get past additional obstacles atop the wall and escape detection, would you be able to get women and children up and over such a wall? Rather doubtful.

Rather doubtful too that you could carry any substantial amounts of drugs, weapons or other illicit materials over such a wall, don't you think? And if such a wall were further enhaqnced by drones and other electonic and aerial surviellence, and perhaps increased border personnel (instead of merely replaced by such measures), even more difficult still.

How about the newly fiscal conservative Dems telling us that the wall is too expensive? Granted, building and maintaining a wall (or other sustantial barriers) is not cheap - but in the scope of the overall Federal budget, the relatively paltry amount Trump has asked for (and in my opinion is far too little to demand), is but mere pocket change.

AND, what the heretofore free-spending Dems never tell you is that the wall would more than pay for itself by hugely reducing the many tens of billions (over $100 Billion by many estimates) that illegql immigration costs us each year.

OK, then what about the contention that the wall is outdated and could be replaced less expensively with modern technology? What are we going to do - arm our drones and gun down all the would-be illegals?

Folks, forget this fake talking point -You can believe that argument when you see the wealthy Dems in Congress start tearing down the walls and fences around their homes, estates and gated communities. It isn't an either/or proposition. Nothing says that you can't use BOTH barriers and modern technolog and perhaps additional personnel. As a matter of fact, THAT is the plan that Trump is seeking funding for.

Then there are red herrings such as "most of the people in the U.S. illegally are hee because they overstayed their visas" or "much of the illegal drugs smuggled into our country come by way of boats or ports of entry"? In which case I ask the simple and obvious question that puts an immediate end to such fallacy:

If heart disease is the number one health killer in the U.S., does that mean that we should not also try to prevent cancer? Or diabetes?

And finally, at least for the purpose of today's message, we have the nanny-nanny-boo-boo mantra of "Trump said Mexico was going to pay for it". Yes, he did at that. Repeatedly. But he never said that Mexico was going to pay for it BEFORE it was ever built.

The fact is, that if Trump were adamant about having Mexico pay for the wall, there are a number of ways he could do it, albeit mostly after the fact. But if Mexico did not pay for it, does that mean it shouldn't be built? Hardly - and see my ealier notes about the claim that the wall is too expensive.

No, walls and other barriers will not prevent all illegal immigration any moire than they will prevent all drug smuggling and human trafficking - but they will undoubtedly deter it to a very great extent - either preventing such things outright or else funneling them to areas where enforcement and entry are much better controlled.

The indisputable fact is that walls and barrierd DO work - ask Irael, ask the border agents, look at Vatican city, look around the higher income neighborhoods and the homes of members of Congress.

I have to note the irony of what the lock-step Dems said about border seucrity and how they voted on barriers prior to Trump making "Build that wall!" a huge (yuge?) campaign promise. And therin lies most of the rub. The issue of walls or other barriers has nothing to do with expense or effectiveness and everything to do with:

1) Denying Trump and Republicans a victory headed into 2020 by those who let their personal ambitions and agenda and theire rather see Trump fail than America succeed hatred of Trump,

2) Ultimating gaining future Democratic voters through illegal entry, paths to citizenship and chain migration to replace the working class voters the Dems have lost touch with,

and,

3) Cheap labor for the globalist, Wall Stree, Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable types who hold too many Repoublican neocons in thrall who care much more for their bottom line than they do for you and me and our country.

My two cents - and you can take it to the bank.