A border fence blocks wildlife! Quelle domage!

The Washington Post published an article--not an editorial--arguing that a border fence would be an ecological disaster.

It took me a full day to realize the implication of this article's premise that we shouldn't build a border fence because it gets in the way of animal migration.

Um, doesn't this apply to ALL fences EVERWHERE? And roads (animals walk onto the roads and get smacked)? And cities? And suburbs? And farms? And shipping? And air traffic?

The only logical conclusion to the "logic" of this article is that all human civilization must vacate the Earth forthwith, because everywhere we build something we get in the way of the wildlife that was there.

Of course in all human endeavors we should try to be good Earth citizens. But to single out our southern border as the only place to abstain from construction...now doesn't that seem non-logical?

Meaning the article is pure propaganda. The writer doesn't love the Southwest border fauna. She loves Mexicans. But not so much Americans.

Note to fellow opponents of this illegal alien invasion: we all need to pay more attention to these bozos' premises. I've read through the comments, and I don't think any of us caught this fundamental logic gaposis.

Note to illegal immigration proponents: fight fair. Both sides should fight fair. When either side resorts to slimy tricks like this it only makes the slimer look slimy. You don't to look slimy, do you?

You won't unless you think your ends are so doggone wonderful they justify the means--in this case, the tunnel vision trick.