WSJ Disappoints

I am disappointed that the WSJ chose to endorse the “bipartisan” border deal,  seemingly with the logic that we may never get a better deal than this, and those wiley democrats may withdraw some of their concessions if revisited. The undercurrent seems to be the journal’s persistent ambiguity towards Mr. Trump, remarking that should he be reinstated in the Oval Office, resistance by the opposition will prevent him from negotiating a better deal. Perhaps. Never underestimate the spiteful left. But again, what few concessions they made were all couched in safeguards to prevent arbitration by a neutral party should the Biden administration continue to show that they have no intention of enforcing the law. Catch and release would continue with only the promise of stricter standards on encounters to reduce the numbers. The Journal further suggested that they agree with democrats that republicans are “anti-immigration” as if that’s a bad thing. What they are against is unfettered immigration without vetting, a process that has,  up to now, led to millions of male illegals of mostly military age infiltrating our country, many of whom are from countries of origin who seek to do us harm. This policy has already started to bite us on the backside with street crime and drug trafficking, as these largely unskilled, non-English-speaking trespassers become unwelcome houseguests on the taxpayer's dime. If our goal is to fundamentally change America, our model should not be an anarchic third-world nation.