The wall at the border of Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego.

To all the politicians and voters who are against building the wall on our southern border with Mexico, I’d like to offer the following analogy/argument.

Everyone lives in a house, apartment or some form of physical dwelling which has locks on all exterior doors and all the windows. Why is that necessary? Are the locks to prevent unwanted entry? Yes! Are the locks to prevent theft of one’s possessions? Yes! Are the locks to prevent squatters from occupying the structure? Yes! Are the locks to create a sense of security and safety for the legal occupants? Yes! Do politicians have home security cameras and alarms in their homes in addition to window and door locks? I’d bet that the answer is YES.

Craig Hoffman

Next, let’s consider the border with Mexico as one wall of the “house” of the United States. Do the citizens who reside in this “house” deserve to be protected from illegal entry by others? YES! Do the citizens deserve to have their property and possessions protected? YES! And do the citizens deserve to have their “house/country” protected from illegal squatters who overstay their visas, enter illegally and deprive legal Americans of jobs, commit crimes and murder legal citizens? Absolutely YES!

As a homeowner protects his or her property by allowing only known or trusted persons to enter their property or dwelling, the United States has the right to protect its property via the legal entry/immigration process, and the means to ensure that that happens is to secure the border(s) from all illegal entry. Any person who is against a physical barrier at the border with Mexico to deter illegal entry by others should be required to remove all the door and window locks from their own homes. After all, what is the difference between the border with Mexico and the walls of their homes?

The cost of the wall is dwarfed by the documented cost of medical care, the education of children, incarceration for criminal activities, etc. for those who have come here illegally – some of them, multiple times. And those costs do not even address the pain and suffering of those who have lost a loved one or had their lives uprooted by the criminal actions of illegal entrants.

A wall will greatly reduce the importation of illegal drugs, guns and the human trafficking that currently occurs from Mexico. With the decline in respect for law enforcement and other people’s property or belongings over the last several decades, this type of security is becoming more and more necessary. Any politician who does not comprehend and support these concepts is unworthy of representing the people of this country.

Craig Hoffman lives in Cheshire.


CTViewpoints welcomes rebuttal or opposing views to this and all its commentaries. Read our guidelines and submit your commentary here.

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. All of the comments on the various items from the most recent CTMirror email blast have vanished – what gives??

      1. I wouldn’t be so quick with the conspiracy theories. I suspect a glitch in the start-up of the new web pages. Either that or they’ve decided to start fresh after the close of business for the day.

      2. The first amendment’s right to free speech refers to government’s regulation of speech. Private organizations, including CT Mirror, have the right to monitor the content of their own platforms. And we will – comments that don’t comply with our policies will not be approved for publication.

      3. Perhaps Mr. Putterman is familiar with the Forward newspaper in print for nearly an entire century. Even with a large staff supported by generous donors and some 28,000 readers the Forward closed down and dismissed most staff. Over the years Forward became increasingly “Leftist”. And readers and contributors responded appropriately.

        Even the nationally prominent NYTimes and Washington Post allow subscribers to post some rather far out views. Why not the CT Mirror.

      4. I am familiar with the Forward. NY Times comments are moderated. We don’t object to far out points of view. Indeed, if they contribute to a productive dialogue we welcome then. We just object to far out tone… and even not-so-far out tone. Comments that contribute to the conversation will be approved. Disrespectful comments will not be. We’re also not particularly inclined to permit one-sentence over-simplifications, bumper sticker style sayings. We are very clear about what we will and will not accept in our comments policies https://ctmirror.org/comments-policies/.

Leave a comment
Cancel reply