Sstrhsrtj

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable that the US have one as well, especially given the border with Mexico is well known for illegal crossing and drug smuggling.

Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for, what do the Democrats have to gain politically from the continued illegal activity on the border, surely democrats are equally effected by the criminal behaviour as well ?

They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, don't see why they're going to the mat for this.

From your comment under the question:

You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.

Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.

Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.

The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.

The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.

tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.

Until recently, a continuous physical barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border was not widely discussed as a realistic solution to an actual problem at the border. This changed when The Wall was introduced in the 2016 presidential race as a talking point and found to resonate well with a subset of voters.

It's all about the "idea" of The Wall. At this point there is still nothing more than the idea. An concrete project to build the wall, and a plan for how it would look, or even what it would do, is not part of the discussion. Such a plan to have a discussion about simply doesn't exist.

And it gets worse. On top of just not knowing what the wall is, nobody managed to clearly and fully define the problem the wall is supposed to solve. Right now, any attempt to dive into the facts of the wall discussion will fail at before it starts, because none of the involved politicians can enumerate the actual real life problems it is supposed to solve, let alone explain how it does so better than alternative options.

The wall is a simple symbol, which convinces some voters because it's easy to make strong assertions about it. Assertions which carry many implied falsehoods that influence voters. Take OPs words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" which imply 3 things:

1. That continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal


2. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact smuggling


3. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact illegal immigration

OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true.

The divide over the idea of the wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the intentional spread of such false and misleading information through implied false statements. (here come the downvotes by FOX viewers)

All in all, a wall is a simple solution that doesn't address a complex problem, except in the minds of some of the voters. And both sides - one much more so than the other - play around the issue by avoiding any actually relevant hard facts and data, to avoid being called out by the other side.