"This Wall Didn't Stop The Pandemic"

That was approximately the title the NYT previously had on this editorial. That is, perhaps, the strawmanniest title I've ever seen. Though unbridled illegal immigration, an out-of-control welfare state, and political correctness didn't stop it either...so I guess both sides failed us...
   Not to put too fine a point on it: the purpose of the wall is not to stop pandemics. And nothing has yet stopped this one.
   Though it's not much of a stretch to think that it might impede pandemics--among other things--at some point.
   The subtitle of the piece remains "Hostility toward immigrants is hurting the fight against the pandemic"...though no one anywhere near prominence in the U.S is hostile toward immigrants. What they mean to imply, of course, is that it's Trump. Because, as we know, if you're against a nonstop deluge of illegal immigration...you hate immigrants. All of them.
   The authors do admit that it's smart to stop taking in asylum-seekers...which astonished me. At any rate: props to them for being reasonable about that issue.
   And I agree with them that certain forms of immigration enforcement probably ought to be throttled back until we're in the clear. Though I doubt the story about the Spanish signs. Or, rather, I doubt it's the whole story. Since it's anti-Trump and in the Times, it's very unlikely to be.
   The wall seems to bring out the stupid in the left...though it's not exactly deeply-buried. Today's dopey argument by the Times isn't quite as dopey as People will just climb over or dig tunnels under. Which itself probably isn't as dopey as Build bridges, not walls or (breathy voice) Walls divide... If those even count as arguments...
   Anyway. I don't mind having a serious discussion about the border fence. But the arguments coming from progressives these days rarely count as serious.