Jake Tapper nails it:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjNECTpyUc8&w=560&h=315]
RECOMMENDED READING
Asbury University revival roundup: February 14, 2023 (7:45pm) 
Why last night’s Mike Pence interview was so hard to watch 
If there is a spirit of anti-Christ in America right now, we saw it yesterday. But Kirk, Carlson, and Ingraham are free to channel that spirit because we are not a Christian nation. 
LONG FORM: Treasure of the Broken Land
John: I have to say, this full court press by the media to convince people of the Opposite World Truism that “walls don’t work,” is comical.
Earlier, we heard from a historian who pointed out that walls were not always successful in keeping out Goths, Muslim pirates and all manner of invading, military hordes. So, that’s the proper contextual, apples to apples comparison to deterring an individual or groups of non-resident aliens trying to cross the border illegally? These two scenarios are the same? Seems more than a bit … tortured. (Yes, also a medieval tradition.)
Today, we have Tapper snarkily explaining (and, don’t get me wrong, I like me some snark) that if you favor walls, you’re also down with leeches and all manner of cruel, unwoke primitivism from the Dark Ages (maybe even Monty Python-inspired trebuchets to launch unfortunates back into Mexico; that was a missed opportunity).
Reasonable people can and do differ on many aspects of the immigration debate. But the “walls don’t work” mantra is just dopey. We know they work. That’s why, inconveniently, people like Nancy Pelosi and other wealthy elites who fulminate about the wrongness and inadequacy of border walls tend to have them around their gated compounds. What for? Medieval historians and other learned authorities have assured us they are totally ineffective in keeping people out or protecting those within.
The apt comparison is: does an (imperfect) wall work better than no barrier at all? One would think the answer to that question is obvious — yet, not dispositive, given all the other policy considerations in play — but then one would not count on the times in which we live. And if, as it appears, we have now reached a point where the very act of building a wall along a border is claimed to be immoral, then we have reached new levels of hypocrisy and fake outrage.
Great stuff here by the Cato Institute. Last time I checked, they were conservative/libertarian: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
And this article presents a much more nuanced analysis, which kind of makes my point. They raise legitimate issues of legality (such as disputes over intervening land ownership rights), cost, efficacy (relating to potential weak points along the entirety of the border). This is a much different and more serious argument, than: Walls Don’t Work.
John, Tony, while you’re talking about walls and history, it might intrigue you to know at one point West Shore Evangelical Free Church had a motto that we would be a “church without walls”. There’s probably a lot to unpack there!