Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says that the the wall President Trump supports on our southern border is "immoral." But how can a wall be immoral?

It can't, as John Feehery, an opinion contributor at The Hill, points out:

It’s all about politics, folks. 

Walls, in and of themselves, don’t offer moral judgments. 

Thanks to Hot Air, which printed excerpts, we are able to savor an editorial in (of all places) the Washington Post that also questions whether walls can be in and of themselves immoral. It chastises Speaker Pelosi for such language. The editors write:

Those seeking a compromise might reasonably invest their hopes in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a canny political pro who is second to none in getting to yes. However, she will have an easier time pulling a rabbit out of this hat if she stops opposing Mr. Trump’s wall in absolutist terms, calling it “immoral,” as she did last month, and “an immorality between countries,” as she said Thursday.

We understand the sentiment: Mr. Trump’s inflaming of prejudice and lying about the danger posed by immigrants is indeed immoral. But the problem with a wall isn’t that it’s immoral; Democrats have never opposed border security, including by means of tall fencing where that makes sense. The problem with Mr. Trump’s wall is that it would be ineffective and a waste of money. Illegal border crossing into the United States has been dropping for decades, as measured by the numbers of migrants arrested at the Southwestern frontier…

Rather than talk about the immorality of a wall, Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose. In return for a few billion dollars for a segment of the president’s wall — which would immediately be challenged in court by property owners along the border — Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1 million “dreamers,” young migrants brought to this country as children by their parents.

As Hot Air points out, the Post garnishes its editorial with enough nasty comments about President Trump that it can hold up its head in liberal circles.

At least in the excerpt printed in Hot Air (the Washington Post requires a subscription), the editorial doesn't provide factual evidence to back up its claim that the border wall would be "ineffective and a waste of money."

I'd have thought we might want to see more models for this evolving wall before such pronouncements.

A well-designed wall might avert the terrible humanitarian crisis we now see at the border, encouraging parents (and those posing as parents) not to bring little children on thousand mile plus journeys by foot. 

And it would help us control our own borders.

As long as we're on the question of effectiveness, Democrats keep talking about drones.

What do drones do?

Do they actually prevent anyone from crossing the border or merely provide information about such crossings?

I hope President Trump, Speaker Pelosi, and SenatorSchumer will all do their best to provide up to date information on the wall when they speak tonight.

But the point is that walls in and of themselves cannot be immoral.

We haven't had such gibberish spounted and words used so wildly inaccurately since Humpty Dumpty fell of that . . .  wall.