Defense in Depth, A Guest Post by Bill and Caitlin Walsh.
So, I recently asked a leftist a question: “Two people cross the Mexican border. One is a 40 year old man, the other a fourteen year old girl. What should happen next?”
Seems like a pretty simple question, right? “They should be interviewed by border patrol to find out the situation,” right? I mean, I understand that there might be a couple of things to clarify in between here, but….
Well, the left has learned something from the Socratic method: Not to fall for it. They have learned NEVER to respond to a question with a straight answer. They know full well that their position is utterly indefensible if it can be fleshed out honestly, and they know that a conservative asking questions is likely attempting to force them to do exactly that. That’s a losing game for them every time. And the smart ones know it.
So we get the first dodge: I need more information! What people, where, how, under what conditions? (This is predictable, but actually part of my plan.)
Me: You don’t have it yet. Are you saying the first thing that should happen is that they should be interdicted by border patrol and interviewed in order to get that “more information”?
Second dodge: I don’t understand! You’re asking what should happen if they get stopped by border patrol?
Me: No ifs. It was a simple question, do you think they should be stopped and interviewed?
Third dodge: I think the border should be secure if that’s what you’re asking! (This one is particularly tricky, because it *sounds* like he answered me, when he really didn’t).
Me: So, you’re saying that they should be stopped by border patrol and questioned?
And this is as far as it makes sense to go with this, because it has become clear that he’s simply NOT going to answer the question. If you find yourself in this situation you can play it from here as you wish, because *you’ve already won!* You have demonstrated, to the impartial observer, that your conversational opponent is not having a discussion in good faith.
Should they have actually, accidentally *answered* at any point, here are some follow-up questions you can ask that they will also refuse to answer, things like “How will you determine whether they’re related?” and “Where will you house them while you wait for DNA tests to come back?” and “Given that 40% of the children crossing the southern border are being trafficked, do you think they should be housed together with their traffickers?” and “Do you think that it might be useful to have physical barriers to redirect them toward available interviewers?” We can keep this going, but you get the point. It’s not like they’re answering them.
So we’ve got some basic “arguing on Facebook” methodology. But it actually has a lot wider applicability than that. See, every leftist politician has said something like “I support secure borders”… But what does it MEAN when they say that? They don’t support physical barriers, they don’t support funding CBP, they don’t support deporting people when caught, they don’t support funding detention facilities, the don’t support appointing more immigration judges… in short, they support NO ELEMENT of secure borders. So, when they say “I support secure borders”, they mean exactly what Benjen Stark pointed out; Anything before the word “But” is bullshit.
They thrive on glittering generalities that don’t—CAN’T—peg to anything specific. You want to get past that, you need specifics. And ANY specific WILL destroy them.
So, here’s what I have learned about illegal immigration, in particular in the past few years. I am going to focus solely on southern border crossers here, (Because visa overstays, northern border crossers, cruise ships, etcetera, also happen.) I know some of you are more knowledgeable than me, so please give me more specifics in the comments.
It begins at the beginning: you’re a Honduran uneducated laborer, you want to go to America for a better life.
You know the chances are MUCH better for you if you have a child with you. So, you go get one. The kid isn’t related to you, it’s just some neighborhood kid that you kidnapped to help you get past ICE; it’s not like anyone is investigating a missing Honduran kid! (at least, not after Obama declared the 2009 constitutional crisis a “coup.”)
Unfortunately, on your way across Mexico, the kid gets stolen from you by sex traffickers. (Google “Tenancingo”, seriously.) Oh well, no problem, it wasn’t your kid anyway. There are kids that rent themselves out to assist border crossers. You pony up the thousand dollars and pay one of them.
Then, in Juarez, you make contact with Juan the coyote. Juan is a cartel affiliated smuggler (read: serial-raping, mass-murdering, mass-grave filling psychopath). Sometimes he smuggles fentanyl, sometimes he smuggles people. Some of those people pay him, others are property. But you prepared well, and you meet his price.
He prepares you for the crossing, and tells you what to do if you get intercepted. Just say “Asylum”. That’s all.
Unfortunately, you DO get intercepted. When you meet ICE, they see that you have a child with you. Most of the time, that means they just wave you on, because they haven’t got room at the child detention facility (can’t have kids in cages, don’t you know). But you get unlucky again. They take the kid to child detention. Everyone at the ICE office knows him by name, so maybe it wasn’t a good investment. Fortunately, Juan told you to say “asylum”, so ICE takes you to a place where they finger-print you, ask you some questions, and then give you a court date 5 years out. Then they release you. Cool!
So, you call up Juan again, and he directs you to a Western Union office and a bus station.
You go where he tells you, and spend the next 5 years working in the “shadow economy”. Some days, you get work as a day laborer, others, you steal someone’s identity and work in other menial jobs. Sometimes, you send money home. It’s life.
Then your court date comes up. You know good and well that you have no legitimate claim to asylum, so you don’t go. The court issues a deportation order. But they don’t have any idea where in the country you are, so nothing happens.
You spend the next 10 years the same way you spent the first 5. Working as you can.
Now, you hit it unlucky again. ICE catches you in a random sweep of the day laborers location. They process you, see that you’ve been in the US for 15 years, and now you have a child here. (Didn’t spend ALL your time at work.) Well, they’re not *heartless*; they ignore the deportation order, and release you.
That is the reality of the southern border at this time. It’s one of the more spectacular examples of two things. One is “sabotage”, and the other is “defense in depth”. “Sabotage” is when one deliberately makes a system not work, and “defense in depth” is when one creates a series of barriers that one must cross to accomplish a goal. So, here’s what I mean by that. The Democrats have obfuscated and complicated the process at literally every step, to such a degree as to make the entirety completely nonfunctional. At every level. Why are illegal immigrants not caught more often? Because Democrats won’t hire more agents, and won’t agree to building physical barriers. Why are those caught not detained? Because Democrats will not build more detention facilities. Why are more illegal immigrants not simply returned? Because democrats have created a complicated asylum process. Why does it take 5 years to process an asylum request? Because Democrats stonewall immigration judge appointments. Why do so few illegal immigrants get picked up by internal ICE? Because Democrats refuse to respect the rule of law. Why are they, even AFTER being issued deportation orders and caught by ICE not deported? Because Democrats don’t want to “separate families”.
At every level, in every way, the Democrats in Congress have aided human traffickers, sex slavers, and mass murderers, over decent humans. This situation is irredeemable.
This is a particular example, and it’s stark. But it goes this way with EVERY issue. Ask a leftist the very most basic question you can, and you will never get an answer. Try “What imbues a human life with value?”, and you’ll get a pile of hard luck pregnancy cases, and some very impolite descriptions of your character. Ask “What characteristics define a woman?”, and you’ll get called a transphobe. (Matt Walsh has made much of his career out of this.) Ask “To what standard should we keep those that simply decline to work?” and you’ll get called heartless.
This isn’t an accident. They KNOW that they can’t actually defend ANY of their positions, so they deflect from actual discussion OF those positions.
And here is where OUR failure begins, and where Donald Trump has shown us the way. We need to stop letting them get away with it! We need to start pointing out that their policies have led to tens of thousands of child sex slaves being brought across their unmonitored border, that the minimum wage leads ONLY to generational poverty, and benefits virtually no one. We need to keep asking the questions, and ignoring the obfuscation. We need to STOP pretending that they have “good intentions”, because anyone that is willing to lie to bring about their goals CANNOT mean well.
When you lie to someone, it’s always done for a single reason. When you lie, it’s always because you know that, if you told the truth, they wouldn’t do what you want them to do. Lying is ALWAYS an attempt to steal the choices of the person you’re talking to.
They think they’re wiser, of course, the right person to be making these choices over the benighted and misinformed. But if it were that… why can they never answer simple questions?
Keep asking them. The obfuscation is all the response you need.