I continue to be amazed at how some otherwise-rational people refuse to accept the fact that a wall is necessary to secure the southern border of the United States. I will herein try to make this argument in a logical, reasonable way…

Virtually any space that is owned by someone has defined borders (the legal boundaries). These boundaries – whether clearly delineated or not – serve to define who owns, controls, and/or is lawfully entitled to be on that property. In even simpler terms: Your area is yours – you get to be on it, and you get to decide who else may be on it.

When someone's property has no clearly defined or delineated boundaries, there still is no legal question as to who owns it and who may lawfully be on it. But the problem arises that, without clearly delineated boundaries (borders), others who have no right to be on that property can potentially argue – and frequently successfully – that they did not know they were not supposed to be there. In even simpler terms: If you want to control or limit who can be on your property, you have to clearly delineate the boundaries.

Someone's property can be delineated in a number of ways: markings, signs, electronic sensors and the like. These measures can outline and define the boundaries, but do nothing to control or limit access to the property.

Someone's property boundaries can be observed in a number of ways: camera surveillance, personal observation, alarms, drones and the like. These measures can view who has tried to gain entry or who has already gained access to the property, but do nothing to control or limit access.

Someone's property boundaries can be delineated, controlled and protected (limiting access) primarily by barriers (fences and walls) with specified ingress/egress points (doors and gates). The concept is simple: The walls provide deterrence to and prevention of entry; and the doors allow control of authorized entry and departure.

So in summary and in even simpler terms: a combination of strategies must be present to delineate and separate mine from yours, to watch my property, to keep authorized persons safe while inside my property, and to keep unauthorized persons out.

Every building we enter every day has walls and doors. In our own houses for example, the walls and doors define the space that is ours, and they let us choose who comes into our space and in the manner we choose. This is not mean or racist or bigoted or unreasonable or immoral – it is the way civilized people live: For example, our doors are usually in a common/public area rather than in our private/personal space (we might allow someone into our living room but not into our bedroom). And if someone chooses to violate our space by trying to gain entry improperly or unlawfully, what do we do? We protect our space by employing self-defense strategies or calling for appropriate authorities. How can any reasonable person not understand this or think that delineating and controlling our space is immoral, inappropriate or bad?

President Trump has NEVER said that a wall was the totality of border security. Rather, he has repeatedly said that it is just another tool to provide border security along with technology (alarms, sensors, CCTV, etc.), personnel (additional Border Patrol and law enforcement personnel), and immigration law reform. It is a comprehensive, multi-faceted program. Here's an example: Just because you live in a community with a police department and might have a doorbell camera, you would not consider removing your front door. Simple concept… If 50 people whom you do not know show up at your house demanding to be let in, you would be glad that you had a door and walls – and you would still call the police. And by the way: when the police arrived and arrested the trespassers and some of the trespassers had children, the families would not be kept together; the children would be referred to Child Protective Services while the parent was taken to jail and the matter was adjudicated.

The fight over “the wall” is obviously not about common sense or reasonableness or logic – it is about nothing other than the politics of one side disagreeing with the other for the sake of partisanship. And this continuing, childish disagreement is harming the security of our country.

Source by Jon C. Paul