Democrats not really interested in securing border despite what they say

Matt Mackowiak:

No one can say how the current partial government shutdown fight will end.

It has been suggested that Republican leverage was higher earlier in 2018 than now, mere days before Democrats take back the House of Representatives.

But that Jan. 3 switch also fundamentally changes the story. Democrats will become responsible for part of the federal government, and the cheap and lazy Democratic talking point that “Republicans control every part of government” will no longer be operative.

Incidentally, if Republicans truly did “control” all of government, they would have already passed the border wall. The only thing holding up a deal is the 60-vote requirement in the Senate. Republicans currently have 51 seats, but on Jan. 3 they will have 53 seats, and relieved of the constant headaches from Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee.

What will matter on Jan. 3 is whether a deal can be reached that achieves three political outcomes: A majority vote in the House (with majority Democrat support), 60 votes in the Senate, and a presidential signature. We will see whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “clean continuing resolution” can get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.

No single promise that Candidate Trump made may be more central to his identity than building the wall on the southern border. This has always been understood to be a necessity in urban areas, where illegal crossings are most common and blending into a local community is logistically easiest.

Democrats are in an untenable position. They have repeatedly voted for additional border security, from the Secure Fence Act of 2006, to a $25 billion authorization as recently as a few years ago.

Are we seriously to believe that border security has suddenly become adequate? Are we seriously to believe that $5 billion for border security cannot be found in a $4 trillion annual budget?

Democratic opposition to a border wall in urban areas is entirely political. They want to be seen as opposing Mr. Trump, rather than working in good faith to secure the southern border. It’s a shame that a critical national security priority would be secondary to preening before the Democratic base.
...

Democrat alternatives to a wall are inadequate and would require greater manpower to enforce the border.  They want to use high tech detection devices, but if that is all you are doing you also have to have a force to space ration on the border that can seize those enchroaching onm the bordre and then you need to have peopel take care of the ones caught until theri cases can be heard.  It would requirew a massive increase in manpower that Democrats have no plands to include in border security.

A wall or fence tends to force people into areas where the Border Patrol can check them when the cross into the US and determine whether they should be allowed to enter.