The Border Wall: Legal and Necessary

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

... and, the executive branch has the authority to use funding for national security and other executive functions to take care that the southern border barrier is erected.

Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to protect the States from invasion.  The word "invasion" is not just a military term.  In our current dictionary it is also defined as an "unwanted encroachment," of which hordes (and caravans) of persons who refuse to abide by U.S. Immigration Law upon entry, a group that includes drug traffickers, sex traffickers, gang members, criminals, and terrorists, would qualify.

Article II., Section 2 establishes that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief over all of America's military forces, and over the militias "when called into actual service of the United States."  National Security is among the president's primary responsibilities as Commander in Chief.  His authority to take action to ensure that the country is protected is inherent in his role as Commander in Chief.  While funding must be appropriated by Congress, the legislative body should be reasonable in recognizing his requirement to defend these united States, and afford him the funding accordingly.  That all said, some of the funding already exists, as does much of the approval by Congress to erect a barrier between Mexico and the United States.

Congress authorized a barrier long before Obama took office, much less before President Donald J. Trump began to reside in the White House.  64 Democrat Party Congress critters voted for it, and 26 Democrat Senators supported the bill.  It was called the 2006 Border Fence Act.  The barriers erected were in places it was believed they were needed most, at the time.

• 10 miles west to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California port of entry
• 10 miles west of the Calexico, California port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona port of entry
• 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas
• 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas port of entry
• 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas port of entry

At the time the fencing was limited because Democrats argued that fencing the entire border would take a couple dozen years, and with maintenance costs included, reach as high as $50 billion.  While the estimate is ridiculously high compared to the true costs we are now discovering, the Democrats have stuck to their mantra that a border wall from sea to shining sea is too expensive.

As for money spent so far, in 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) had spent $2.3 billion on building 654 miles of border fencing between 2007 and 2015, and that CBP had projected in 2009 that the cost of maintaining its border fencing for 20 years would be $1 billion.

In other words, thanks to congressional blessings, the erection of a barrier began long before candidate Trump in the 2016 Election proclaimed he wanted a wall.

The U.S. Code also calls for the executive to ensure that border security is in place, through fencing, if necessary.  In addition to the need to protect the States from invasion, according to the U.S. Code, the President of the United States, through his State Department, must maintain border security also to assist in quelling drug trafficking.

10 U.S.C. § 284 (Section 284) provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counter-drug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” …

If the invasion into the United States through its southern border worsens (and with the caravans, it's bad enough as it is), the President of the United States is authorized to take action using money already allocated to national security to ensure the invasion ceases, and American citizens are protected from the unwanted encroachment.  He is, after all, the Commander in chief.

The Democrat politicians doing what they can to stand in the way of the President carrying out his constitutional responsibilities are both irresponsible, and treasonous.

Every American, including the Democrats, should be in full support of border security, and putting up a barrier to assist that security for the same reason they lock the doors of their offices and homes.  They don't let just anybody into their offices or homes, so why should we just let anybody in when it comes to the entryway of our country?

Besides, they know that walls and fencing works ... that's why they have walls or fencing around their homes and communities, around the White House, around federal military facilities, around The Vatican, and that's why China, long ago, built the Great Wall of China.

Unlike the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain, this wall is not for the purpose of keeping anyone from escaping, but to protect those who choose to reside legally in these united States from an unwanted encroachment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary