NYT: Anti-Border-Fence Propaganda

Jeez this sort of thing is just amazing to me.
tl;dr: we found four people in Arizona who said that they didn't think that border fences would work. (Implicit conclusion of story: border fences won't work.)

   Seriously, this isn't just BS, it's BS that's part of a campaign of BS. (This is the sort of thing I expect that conservatives are complaining about when they complain about the liberal media.)
   Since we all have to ante up with our liberal cred to be taken seriously: I am not exactly for border fences. But I'm also not against them. What I'm against is the rabid liberal opposition to such a fence. My view is: we should build fences along the border were and only where they're going to be efficient / cost-effective. In the places where fences will help, build them. Where they won't, don't. I'm led to believe that they'd be cost-effective in some places, but not in others.
   Liberal opposition to border fences began with outrage and talk of symbolism (IT'S JUST LIKE THE BERLIN WALL!!!!111), and evolved from there. But the symbolism argument is crap. Two seconds of thought reveals why. And I refuse to explain it. Do the two seconds yourself if it's not immediately obvious to you.
   If it is permissible to have laws limiting immigration, then it is permissible to enforce those laws (humanely, of course). If it's permissible to enforce laws to keep people out, then it's permissible to use fences.
   And, in fact, I think that this is part of what's at the root of liberal opposition to border fences:  I've long believed (but sometimes questioned) that many liberals implicitly (or explicitly) accept an open borders position. Many liberals have a general orientation that is against border-enforcement of any kind: anti-fence, pro-sanctuary city, etc. etc. If a person leans consistently against enforcement of a law, eventually one must hypothesize that they're against the law itself.
   And another thing: I usually try to rise above rhetorical shenanigans, but I do think that people who are against fences tend to (a) say 'wall' instead of 'fence,' because it helps them invoke the Berlin Wall analogy, and (b) speak of a wall instead of walls (or a fence instead of fences) for roughly the same kind of reason.
   And furthermore: people in the story speak of drones and increased border patrols as if these measures and fences were mutually exclusive. Of course they aren't.
   Seems to me that, as with most problems, we have a relatively sane center with respect to this one, and two nutty extremes. The sane center recognizes that we need humane enforcement of just immigration laws. The nutty right wants to round up eleven million people and boot them out, and it has undeniable elements of racism. The nutty left opposes enforcement of immigration laws at almost every point, accuses everyone who disagrees with them of racism, and seems to strongly incline toward open borders.
   I say: stop making the fence question a political one. Leave it up to people who understand law enforcement on the border. It's a damn policy question. Treat it that way.