In recent days I have seen a new phrase mentioned very frequently in Liberal media when issues of border security are being discussed, and that phrase links the word “militarize” with “border”, such as in the following editorial from the LA Times (emphasis added):
….and You might think they’d recognize, as many demographers now do, that illegal immigration is going to stay down for a while and that continuing efforts to militarize the border will yield diminishing returns. <source>
And let’s journey a little further into the Liberal mind and see how the Editor could write the above sentence, in which border enforcement is set up as something allegedly scary-sounding and supposedly ineffective (“diminishing returns”), and also write the following sentence that says the exact opposite (emphasis added):
The number of immigrants coming illegally to the United States has been declining for several years. What accounts for the change after decades of steady increases? On this side of the border… tougher border security has made the treacherous journey too expensive and dangerous for most, according to the report.
So which is it? Has tougher border security resulted in a diminished invasion, or has it been ineffective? I think we know the answer, of course, but the LA Times would prefer to credit border security and yet dismiss it at the same time.
As for the term “militarized border”, I say — of course it is militarized. In fact, all sovereign borders are militarized, all over the world; how else to protect one’s borders? Have Liberals ever seen border crossings without armed officers checking passports? Oh wait — they have, and we have, and 11 million Mexican nationals have: the southwestern United States, and look what it has gotten us.
A country without borders is not a country.
Borders must be defended by armed forces, or else they are a sham.
Militarized, in other words, but it is as it should be.