Editorial: The wall that isn’t…


(Photo courtesy of the AP Exchange)

… and will never be.

The bottom line is this: every politician, especially Donald Trump himself, knows very well that rhetoric supporting the construction of a border wall between Mexico and the U.S. serves no other purpose but to act as pacifier for which their constituents can remain occupied exuding their racial, ethnic, and nationalistic prejudices. It’s the ultimate red-meat.

The notion that members of Congress suddenly forgot that Mexico is our ally and major trading partner is ludicrous. They’re very aware of this, as well as the fact that building a wall along America’s southern border wouldn’t solve one problem regarding immigration. They’re banking on their voters not knowing that illegal immigration is at a 40 year low, nor that most immigrants here illegally actually come via plane and overstay their legally obtained Visas. In fact, it seems these politicians are even willing to bet their constituents haven’t ever heard the phrase “show me a 10- foot wall and I’ll show you an 11-foot ladder.”

Hypothetically, in a world where there was no such thing as eminent do- main, economics or modern technology, maybe then a border wall would be a solution to a problem we don’t have.

The problem is really that the special interests controlling these politicians don’t want us talking about real issues like climate change.

According to The Guardian, tens of millions of people will be forced from their home in the next decade. In fact, in expectation of what’s to come, the United Nations has even called on governments to agree on new legal framework to protect climate refugees. The UN also argues that climate change played a part in the build up of the Syrian war, with successive droughts causing 1.5 million people to migrate to the country’s cities. Many of these people had no reliable access to food, water or jobs.

Perhaps the reason we’re not talking about these overwhelmingly important issues, and instead talking about a wall, can best be explained by taking as closer look at the President’s financial ties, as well as his cabinet’s, to Russia and Russian oil.