Help support world source media dot com, now, by becoming a patreon on our website.
At world source media dot com, we have early report premiers, that premier way sooner than on our Video Channels!
Now if you are seeking the latest trends in Fashion, and electronics and gifts and more of the coolest things that you never new existed at the best prices, please feel free to visit www dot. At this mall dot com, once again that is w w w dot. At. this. mall. dot com
Now if you are seeking the truth or guidance or need a prayer request or studies, Please visit follow yes shua now dot com at www. dot. follow. y. e. s. h. u. a. now. dot. com.
On Thursday, failed senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke declared emphatically that he not only opposes Trump’s call to build a wall, he wants all existing border fences torn down, including outside his home town of El Paso. But in his explanation for why he’s so adamantly opposed to the wall, the presidential hopeful ended up making several points that align with the conservative case for building the wall.
O’Rourke was asked by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, “If you could, would you take the wall down now? Knock it down?”
As Hayes made clear, the question was prompted by a post by Texas Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw directed at O’Rourke pointing out the effectiveness of border fences: “[Beto O’Rourke] should answer a simple question tonight with respect to the border debate: If you could snap your fingers and make El Paso’s border wall disappear, would you?” wrote Crenshaw, adding: “Because this DHS graph shows that when the wall was built, illegal crossings dropped significantly.”
Beto then provided his rationale for dismantling all existing border walls: “Here’s what we know: After the Secure Fence Act, we had built 600 miles of wall and fencing on a 2,000-mile border. What that has done is not in any demonstrable way made us safer. It’s cost us tens of billions of dollars to build and to maintain.”
If he had stopped there, he might’ve been okay; instead, he continued — and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: “And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death.”
In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It’s also worth noting that those “asylum seekers” O’Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be “asylum seekers” by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens. Fox News’ Brit Hume made this point in a post responding to the interview
“More than 4,000 human beings — little kids, women and children — have died,” O’Rourke continued. “They’re not in cages, they’re not locked up, they’re not separate — they’re dead, over the last ten years, as we have walled off their opportunity to legally petition for asylum, to cross in urban centers, like El Paso — to be with family, to work jobs, to do what any human being should have a right to be able to do.”
As The Daily Wire noted Thursday, the Republican National Committee has produced a website containing some facts about the crisis on the border that O’Rourke and his fellow Democrats are conveniently ignoring, including: