Democrats’ Objection To The Wall Constitutes Treason

Written by Ed Brodow on January 11, 2019

That’s right, I said it. The Democrats are guilty of treason. Just when I was beginning to think that eight years of trashing the republic during the Obama administration was as bad as it could get…it gets worse. This time, the Democrats have shown contempt for the primary function of government: protection of the homeland. By taking the side of illegal aliens against homeland security, the Democratic Party has adhered to our enemies.

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to our enemy, North Vietnam. She was a traitor. The Democrats, by supporting sanctuary cities and refusing to pay for the wall, are giving aid and comfort to aliens who show contempt for our laws and sovereignty and who, by definition, are enemies of the United States.

What reasons do the Democrats give us when they refuse to allocate funds for the wall? The wall is immoral, Nancy Pelosi insists. A wall cannot be immoral. Neglecting the security and safety of American citizens is immoral. The wall is ineffective, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. How can a wall be ineffective when it hasn’t been built yet?

Then they say that walls don’t work, even though history attests to the irrefutable fact that walls have worked for millennia. Walls are working today in Israel, for example, where a wall protects Israelis from enemy incursions. That is precisely what our wall will do—protect us from those who would do us harm: criminal gangs, terrorists, drug smugglers, human traffickers, people who take jobs from our citizens, and those who would force entry into the U.S. by breaking the law.

Next, they fall back on the argument that a wall is too expensive. An ironic argument from a political party that loves to spend taxpayers’ money with abandon. A lot of that money goes to foreign countries where it is used to build walls and protect their borders. If we can do it for them, why aren’t we doing it for ourselves?

And we mustn’t forget the argument that Trump is a racist. Anderson Cooper said on his CNN program that the president “is tired of so many black people coming into this country.” Trump “seems to harbor racist feelings about people of color, from other parts of the world,” said CNN’s Jim Acosta. It is not racism to say we should admit people from functioning countries like Norway and not from dysfunctional “s***holes” like Haiti. We need immigrants who can contribute to our society, grow our economy, and assimilate into our culture. The U.S. government has an obligation to admit newcomers who will have a positive impact. That obligation is to our citizens and our citizens alone. We have no legal or moral obligation to anyone else.

Which brings up the “moral” argument in favor of open borders. The Left believes we have an obligation—based on “compassion”—to admit non-citizens who are suffering in s***hole countries. Who are we kidding? Most of the world is made up of s***hole countries. The residents of those countries would be crazy not to want to live in America. But if we open our borders to all who want to come, it will be impossible to accommodate the resulting tidal wave of immigrants. Try to imagine what would happen if we take in 100 million or 300 million or more “refugees.” The economic and social costs of such a policy would tear us apart. Clearly, we cannot afford to admit everyone who wants to come, nor is our government under any legal or moral obligation to satisfy the desires of the entire planet.

When all those arguments fail, we are told that Trump has “manufactured a crisis.” During his address on January 8, the president clearly listed the reasons—irrefutable facts—why we have a crisis. If the situation on our southern border is not a crisis, what is? Once we accept that a crisis exists, there is no reasonable defense for opposing the wall. Why, then, do the Democrats persist in supporting open borders? There can be only one reason: importing Democratic voters.

The Democrat Party figured out that third-world immigrants will vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Admitting them in droves will turn our country into a one-party system. No Republican will ever win a national election. This justification for mass immigration is an assault on our democratic values. Think about this: If a majority of illegals opted for Republicans, the Democrats would demand an immediate halt to immigration.

The ultimate irony is that before they recognized the potential for new voters, all the Democratic mouthpieces used to be against illegal immigration. In 2010, Chuck Schumer said, “People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the United States legally.” In 2005, Barack Obama said, “Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.” In 1996, Nancy Pelosi said, “I agree with my colleagues that we must curb illegal immigration responsibly and effectively.” As late as 2015, Hillary Clinton said, “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.

Today the Democrats endorse open borders, the lottery system, chain migration, and non-enforcement of our existing laws because they hope that mass immigration will result in Democratic domination of the country. Democrats care about power, and that is all. The proof: Their political objective conflicts with national security interests. The only thing standing in their way is Donald J. Trump, who understands that our government’s primary objective must be the protection of American interests. When one of our political parties cares more about illegal aliens than citizens, it is a direct violation of the public trust and Article III. If we have open borders, and if sanctuary cities and states can deliberately disregard federal statutes, we no longer have a country.

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.

Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator, negotiation expert, and regular contributor to Newsmax, Daily Caller, American Thinker, Townhall, LifeZette, Media Equalizer, Reactionary Times, and other online news magazines. He is the author of eight books including his latest blockbuster, Trump’s Turn: Winning the New Civil War.