In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday, Beto O’Rourke made it clear that his opposition to a border wall doesn’t end at proposals for construction supported by President Trump. O’Rourke also supports removing existing fencing and barriers- that already exist on the border.
Such an approach places O’Rourke’s immigration policy closer to open borders than other prominent Democrats.
Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw phrased the question to Beto on Twitter earlier this week, before the former El Paso Congressman held a rally protesting President Trump’s presence in the city. He pointed out the effectiveness of barriers on El Paso’s international border with Mexico.
Beto gave an honest albeit extreme answer to Crenshaw’s question when being interviewed by the MSNBC personality right next to El Paso’s border. When asked if O’Rourke would take down the existing barriers, Beto responded with a curt and upfront “absolutely.”
Watch video of the segment here:
Such an approach in an urban area would almost guarantee large flows of migrants into the United States, in addition to empowering the operations of drug cartel operatives and human smugglers. It’s relatively common for these sorts of areas across the southern border to have various degrees of fencing- cities such as Nogales, Arizona and San Diego, California being prime examples.
It could be that Representative Crenshaw phrased his question to O’Rourke with an erroneous assumption, as he referenced the decline in illegal crossings in El Paso since the barrier’s construction. If Beto O’Rourke outright supports illegal immigration, surely seeing a decline in border crossings would be a net negative as opposed to a national security policy victory.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.