Walls, Laws, and Balls

One evokes peaceful feelings while another throws off a historic scent and

another perhaps repression/intimidation/security.

Why the differences? All are just walls in one form or another. Is it the material (stone, brick, concrete), where it is (woods, ancient place, border), its contextual purpose or or time or perspective?

In its day borders between neighbors were regarded as “good”, although Robert Frost seemed to question that concept except with respect to cows and perhaps apples. The Chinese kept the “barbarian horde” out with their wall and in modern times border walls attempt to do the same. But keeping out means keeping what’s within the walls safe and secure. Walls protect what’s inside — from the elements, from outsiders, from those that would seek to take/destroy what is worth keeping safe and secure.

Since 9/11 there’s been a sense of being unsecure, unprotected, vulnerable, living in a dangerous world and our leaders to date have done little to nothing to assuage that feeling — at least to me they have not. We’re talked to — to death — about how strong America is and how secure we are, but it sure doesn’t feel like it with “terrorist acts” occurring in San-Berdoo, Orlando, and elsewhere. When the homestead feels threatened the homeowners secure it.

This week President Trump signed a number of Executive Orders that hopefully give Americans an increased sense of security — border wall building, temporally halting for 90 days visas for immigrants and non-immigrants from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq. Also suspended are the intake of refugees for 120 days and caps the number at 50K — lower than Obama but higher than Bush II.

Certainly that’s not all the Muslim countries — Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a few others are absent from that list — but those are ones where there’s substantial terrorism infrastructure. It’s not a religion based restriction but a recognition that those countries’ ideological belief structure fosters an environment that generates people that seek to do Americans harm. Not all will harm us but some will — more than is reasonable. If there are others they should be added to the list and receive the same treatment.

Predictably the regressive left and MSM are throwing fits about how all this is anti-immigrant in a land of immigrants, that it’s against American values, not who we are, etc, etc. Histrionics to be sure. Legal immigration is not something anyone really opposes. Refugees — those in need of protection from political persecutions, or war, or famine — that don’t seek to do Americans or our values harm are welcome. “Economic refugees” are not refugees — they are immigrants and need to be treated as such according to the prevailing laws. Watching Europe descend into near chaos due to near unrestricted open borders is what Americans want to avoid and is perhaps a large part of why Trump is President.

Americans are not obligated — morally or otherwise — to take in any/all refugees regardless of circumstances or world situations. That’s not what our founders intended at all. Our Government — however large it needs to be — is supposed to protect Americans FIRST and foremost. Laws, walls, and balls is part of what it takes for that feeling of security to return to Americans and President Trump seems to understand and possess all three.