Tim Ballard: I've fought sex trafficking at the border. This is why we need a wall

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Juanita Santaquin Genola, UT
    Feb. 13, 2019 3:11 a.m.

    I am a US citizen who grew up in Latin America.

    I 100% applaud Tim Ballard for what he does. He has taken action instead of just talk. Yet I am against the wall.

    #1 We need to be able to afford it. The national budget needs to be balanced before we take on new expenditures.

    #2 Until our national policy broadens its definition of asylum in order to allow more immigrants to live in the US legally, people who are entering the US illegally in order to escape lives of poverty and violence will continue to do so. While a wall will make human trafficking more expensive, it will also close the door to many who legitimately need to leave their countries to a safe haven --- the USA.

    I know how desperate their lives are. If I were born into a poor Latin American family, I would attempt to move to the US whether that be through legal or illegal means.

    We need to broaden our immigration policy to allow more people who are escaping poverty or violence to enter legally ... not build a wall.

    With all due respect to Tim Ballard, a wall or not is more than solely the issue of making it more difficult for human traffickers to enter the country through our southern border.

  • Summer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 4:28 p.m.

    @louie - Cottonwood Heights, UT
    "By the way, majority of Americans disagree with Mr. Ballard."
    __________

    Even if true, possibly the majority of Americans do not understand child sex trafficking like Mr. Ballard. A few years ago, I participated in a fund-raiser for OUR with a few other people. One activity we did was to solicit donations from people in downtown SLC. As I talked to many people, I was stunned at the number of people who were not aware that child sex trafficking exists here in Utah and the USA.

    Therefore, if people disagree with Mr. Ballard, it is quite obvious they are not aware of the problem like he is. He is THE authority on it in the USA - I'd advise everyone to heed his advice - to save children from the absolute horror of these crimes.

    I have always been against the wall, until recently. Just recently - a few weeks ago - Mr. Ballard's opinion dramatically changed mine.

    Save the children. Build the wall.

  • ConradGurch Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2019 2:44 p.m.

    @cityboy - Farmington, UT

    Do you have any idea what would happen if all of those workers went back to Mexico?!

  • cityboy Farmington, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 1:54 p.m.

    @ Flipphone,

    “When Nancy Poloise (sic) is in Washington or at her home in San Francisco she is protected by walls/ fencing and armed security.”

    Nancy Pelosi is second in line to be president. I think we all understand why she merits a security detail and security protocol.

    If Trump really wanted to address the problem of workers who are in the country illegally, he’d go after the ag industry where it is estimated that 50% of its workers are here illegally. He’d also go after the construction industry where it is estimated that 15% of its workers are here illegally. He’d also go after the service and production industries where it is estimated that 9% of both their work forces are here illegally.

    So why not go after the dairy industry where 50% of the workers are undocumented. It’s because the price of milk would increase by 90% and 3,500 dairies would close.

    Trump would have us believe that these undocumented people are criminals, rapists, and drug dealers. The facts don’t bear those assertions out.

  • pragmatistferlife Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 12:42 p.m.

    "who brags about assaulting women"

    Utterly false.

    Ahhhh.".when you're a celebrity they let you grab them by...." On tape in public.

    Congressional oversight of a President who has had half a dozen of his closest associates indicted for and or convicted of felonies all the while implicating him, is not Presidential harassment it's a constitutional obligation.

  • Flipphone , 00
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:16 a.m.

    When Nancy Poloise is in Washington or at her home in San Francisco she is protected by walls/ fencing and armed security.

    But walls and security to protect America from illegal invasion is out of the Question.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:04 a.m.

    A wall isn't going to stop human trafficking. This is just one more bit of propaganda.

    What we do have is a government who is taking kids at the border and separating them from their families. A few thousand kids are in US custody and will never see their parents again.
    Where is the outrage for that? Why aren't the family first republicans outraged at that?

  • wrkn Beverly Hills, CA
    Feb. 6, 2019 8:01 p.m.

    I commend Mr Ballard for his dedication and brave efforts to combat sex trafficking. I have given $$ to O.U.R. and also been involved in a couple of workplace fundraisers that raised $tens of thousands for the cause.

    That said, I wholeheartedly disagree with Mr Ballard's assertion that a border wall will effectively combat sex trafficking. Here and there we may catch a few more perpetrators and rescue a few more victims, but the lion's share of perps will still recruit and operate as usual.

    The root of the problem is two-fold: 1) Lack of economic opportunity in certain areas of the world, due to govt corruption and exploitation by powerful/rich countries 2) Lack of meaningful punishment of the perpetrators of these crimes.

    I just don't understand at all how a border wall addresses either of those causes.

  • cityboy Farmington, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 6:23 p.m.

    @ CL in Salt Lake,

    The walls and fortifications protecting the Nephite cities failed, and they failed twice. Once when possessed by the Nephites as a result of the dissent of the rich and prideful few who wanted a king instead of the duly-seated chief judge and then again when the Nephites, by cunning and tactics, took back the cities from the Lamanites. Similarly, those wanting to “get around” a wall on our border with Mexico will do so. They will overstay their tourist visas, they will enter from Canada, they will cross at ports of entry and they will tunnel, jump and swim their way here. Technology (mandatory E-verify), additional manpower and severely fining businesses that employ illegal immigrants will do much more to stem the tide of illegals than a wall.

    Neither I nor the scriptures say that all that come to this country do so as directed by God. But I believe that many were and are so directed — the Pilgrims, the Huguenots, Mormons, Jews, those fleeing tyranny and those fleeing famine — to name a few. I see no evidence in scripture suggesting that this land can’t also be an inheritance for others.

    The poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty is still valid today.

  • C J Alpine, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 5:37 p.m.

    Sounds pretty logical and correct to me. Good work Ballard!

  • CL in Salt Lake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 2:57 p.m.

    PatrioticAMERICAN:

    "What kind of lesson does a child learn when their parent supports 100% the most powerful "bully" in the world..."

    Trump is the one being bullied. You have it backwards.

    "who brags about assaulting women"

    Utterly false.

    "characterizes all Hispanics as rapists, murderers and drug dealers"

    Utterly false.

    What kind of lesson does a child learn when adults bear false witness against their neighbor?

    eastcoastcoug:

    "What about the thousands of children and women separated and imprisoned, and children sent who-knows-where all over America under Trump's 'deterrence' policy towards immigrants?"

    A false characterization. The children are separated for their own protection -- against sex trafficking by impostors pretending to be their parents, for example. If there is any downside to that, it is the PARENTS' fault -- NOT Trump's fault.

    "I have to ask Mr. Ballard is the border wall really the cost effective solution?"

    It is an established fact that illegal immigration costs this nation hundreds of Billions of dollars each year. The cost of a wall and its maintenance is a "drop in the bucket" in comparison. Is there another reason you are opposed to the wall?

  • CL in Salt Lake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 2:54 p.m.

    Beehive Truth:

    You are not telling the whole truth. As clearly explained in Alma Chapter 50, the wall built under the direction of Moroni was hugely successful.

    The reason the border was later breached was not because the wall didn't work, but because traitors from WITHIN the country -- much as we have today, in this country -- willfully refused to help defend the border. No one said a wall obviates the need for actively guarding ports of entry, for example.

    That is the ONLY reason the border was later breached. If you continue to deny this, it is because you either have not read Chapters 50 & 51, or are willfully misrepresenting them.

    "The truth is MOST sex/human trafficking that comes from across the Southern border comes through LEGAL ports of entry"

    You merely saying it is so, doesn't make it so, especially when it doesn't stand to reason.

    "As far as immigration, we should be supporting those fleeing tyranny and seeking refuge..."

    In "Wisdom and Order," says King Benjamin, in Mosiah 4:27. For one thing, that means legally. It also includes not falsely claiming asylum.

    And you are twisting the meaning of 2 Nephi 1. See my earlier comment.

  • patrioticAMERICAN South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    @Tommy_Boy: "I voted for President Trump & support him 100%...If there is one thing President Trump has the ability to do, it's to make many members of The LDS Church, hate...On Judgement Day, when we have to answer for the hateful & offensive behavior toward others, I don't think The Lord will accept "I did it because Trump was President". There is NO WAY Trump should have this level of influence over otherwise good people who are just trying to make it through this existence....& yet he does."

    Reminds me of a scripture from Alma 31:17, 18 "... Thou hast elected is that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, God, we thank thee... that we a a chosen and holy people"

    Maybe you should ask yourself why you support *100%* a man who engenders such hatred among "otherwise good people"? Isn't that calling evil, good, and good, evil?

    What kind of lesson does a child learn when their parent supports 100% the most powerful "bully" in the world, who brags about assaulting women, & characterizes all Hispanics as rapists, murderers and drug dealers? And what does that teach fellow Saints in Guatemala & Honduras?

  • BYU Africa 🌍 Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 9:34 a.m.

    Pretty convincing argument to build the wall.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Feb. 6, 2019 6:29 a.m.

    "Amazing liberals putting politics ahead of national security and protecting women from abuse."

    What about the thousands of children and women separated and imprisoned, and children sent who-knows-where all over America under Trump's 'deterrence' policy towards immigrants? Aren't those kids just as deserving of protection? Aren't you Trump-ites putting politics ahead of security for those families??

    The rest of us are just saying, let's find the smartest way to protect our borders. By all means. While it's satisfying to say we will build a 100 foot wall, is that really the most effective? And why are you Populists now so concerned about immigrant women and children when last Summer you were doing everything to justify their imprisonment and separation?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 6:29 p.m.

    Interesting editorial, especially when you consider Homeland Security when questioned at a recent congressional hearing was unable to comment on whether or not a border wall would notably curb human trafficking through the border.

    I have to ask Mr. Ballard is the border wall really the cost effective solution? I find it interesting that people think an expenditure of 5.7 billion now and eventually a 45 billion
    dollar expenditure is even cost effective. You must also realize that once it is constructed there will be maintenance and repair costs that will have little to do with patrolling the border.

    So think about it, the equivalent of a 45 billion dollar wall with maintenance cost could be $4-6 billion annually. Just how far could that money go to improve border security by employing modern surveillance methods, hiring additional people. and adding resources to our immigration processes.

    By the way, majority of Americans disagree with Mr. Ballard.

  • Beehive Truth Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 6:18 p.m.

    @Mark Terran

    The 'facts' as you find them are not so.

    The truth is MOST sex/human trafficking that comes from across the Southern border comes through LEGAL ports of entry, not those immigrants who corss where there is no port of entry.

    Also, as you point out the scripture where Moroni has their city surrounded by a wall does not stop their defeat either so thanks for adding one scripture of building a wall instead of the entire context showing the wall is not the safety thought of at first.

    As far as immigration, we should be supporting those fleeing tyranny and seeking refuge from the evils they are under... bearing the burden of others that they may be light and comforting those in need of comfort... thats in our most basic baptism covenants. So we do, as a church, support the idea of welcoming those folks like the immigrant caravan into our country. And was pointed out to you, its also in 2 Nephi 1.

    Have a blessed day.

  • CL in Salt Lake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 5:06 p.m.

    cityboy:

    2 Nephi 1:6 often is misrepresented in an effort to rationalize illegal immigration. The suggestion is that all who come into this country today, legally or not, are brought here by the hand of God.

    But verse 6 only applies to a time when this land was as yet kept from the knowledge of the world. As proof I am right, one need only look at verse 8, where Lehi admits that if the land were known to the world during that time, many would invade and overrun the land, CONTRARY to God's wishes.

    And you only assume illegal immigrants represent Lehi's seed.

    And Mosiah 4:27 specifies that assistance to the unfortunate must be done in "Wisdom and order." (That includes "Legally.")

    And Mexico was unsettled territory.

    Regarding Chapter 51, I'm actually glad you brought that up, because it describes essentially what is going on in this country today: an invasion taking place, but ONLY because selfish elements within this country have willfully refused to help defend its borders.

    Otherwise, Moroni's wall was abundantly successful, as described in Chapter 50.

    Obey the law of the land. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. That is the official, scriptural position.

  • bluesmule Sandy, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 4:11 p.m.

    How many times do we hear the argument that if banning guns will save one life then it's worth it? So what about this? If building a wall will save one child from being raped by a disgusting old man, then it's worth it, right? Look, I'm Mexican, my family is Mexican, and many of the people that I work with are Mexican. Guess how many of them support the wall? Well over half. The media focuses on small groups of Mexicans and angry white people to try and push against this "bigoted agenda" thing (it also doesn't help that Trump delivers everything in a very condescending, even racist tone) but most people support it. It's funny how the party of the compassionate can only think about themselves on this matter, they don't care about children, they just care about votes. I've always been on the fence about the wall, but now I'm for it. Many other countries have walls and nobody calls them racist. It's unfortunate that Trump was the one to really push this, because it comes across as racist, but the wall in and of itself is not racist.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 2:58 p.m.

    Tommy_Boy - I agree with the general sentiment of your comments. But I challenge you back to how those who support a leader who bragged about his ability to have his way with women, even married women, who uses name calling on a regular basis, makes blatant false claims daily, and who uses divisive language to refer to people from ______-hole countries , and latinos seeking asylum are in general rapist, murders, gang members and thieves - how will they rationalize not holding their leaders to a higher moral standard.

    Yesterday Trump referred to what the Virginia Governor had done as "unforgivable". Need we playback the Entertainment Tonight recordings for him?

    I do wish we could return this back to civil discussions on policy. But it is Trump who introduces name calling and the like into the debate. Yes, their are idiots on the left just as stupid, but they aren't the President, and leader of this nation.

  • cityboy Farmington, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 2:56 p.m.

    @ Mark Terran,

    If you read further in Alma 51, Moroni’s walls ultimately did not stop the attackers. Neither will Trump’s wall prevent illegal immigration. But while you are searching scriptures on this matter, try these two: 1) Lehi’s discourse (2 Nephi 1) on this land being an inheritance for his seed AND those who should be led here by the hand of the Lord; and 2) King Benjamin’s address in Mosiah 4.

    To understand the position of the church on immigration we should read the “Utah Compact” and the Church’s two statements. They call for discretion, protection of families, recognition of the contribution of immigrants to our economy and society and a path forward for “Dreamers”. Do you agree?

    We are a church of immigrants. Church members were driven incessently, in part, because a large portion of them were immigrants, with a different language and culture. Brigham Young led his band west as immigrants onto land owned by Mexico.

    As a practical matter I believe our borders should be securred and that a comprehensive immigration policy should be implemented. But I also believe a wall is an ineffective approach whose sole useful purpose is as a political symbol to Trumpers.

  • Daedalus, Stephen Arvada, CO
    Feb. 5, 2019 2:25 p.m.

    The problem is undisputed: child sex trafficking is a very bad thing.

    A proposed policy solution to child sex trafficking in America is building more barriers along the southern border.

    So it is reasonable for readers to want to hear an expert opinion as to effacacy of the proposed solutions, such as:

    - What is the approximate ___% decline in sex trafficking that is predicted if America spends $5.7B for the specific wall that Trump has proposed.

    - What is the approximate ___% decline in sex trafficking that is predicted to result if America implements the wall alternatives proposed by Democrats.

    You will NOT find this most basic of information anywhere -- anywhere -- in this op-ed. Even though the writer goes to great pains to profess himself an "expert".

    Why?

    Because it is not an expert opinion.

    It is well-crafted agit-prop.

    No more, no less.

    Agit-prop encourages readers to turn off their critical thinking skills by playing on their emotions, with titillating and heartbreaking anecdotes. So the unsupported conclusion (Trump Wall = Best) slips into readers' minds without any need for fact/reason-based persuasion.

    Agit-prop works and this is op-ed is exemplary.

  • Tommy_Boy Independence, MO
    Feb. 5, 2019 1:55 p.m.

    I voted for President Trump and support him 100%.

    If there is one thing President Trump has the ability to do, it's to make many members of The LDS Church, hate. Members hate him at a level far greater than they thought they had the capacity to hate. Members also believe they are justified in their hatred. That what was taught in the Sermon on The Mount no longer applies to them. Worse than this is that members hate other members, including family members, that voted for Trump. I know families, including close relatives, who no longer speak to each other. Adult children who no longer associate with their parents because they voted for Trump. On Judgement Day, when we have to answer for the hateful and offensive behavior toward others, I don't think The Lord will accept "I did it because Trump was President". There is NO WAY Trump should have this level of influence over otherwise good people who are just trying to make it through this existence....and yet he does.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 1:48 p.m.

    Mark Terran
    "...for he [Moroni, an eminently righteous man] caused that his armies should ... commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities..."

    So the question I have for you, is did the walls work to save Moroni and his people?

    Why your getting all religious, did the walls at Jericho keep the invading hoard out?

  • Mark Terran Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 1:19 p.m.

    @Beehive Truth -

    As a member of the LDS Church you did NOT covenant to look the other way at illegal immigration. That is false doctrine. And I know the doctrine. The notion that walls are "unchristian," also is false doctrine. Also: Persons who willfully disrespect this nation's sovereignty, borders and laws, whether as sex traffickers or otherwise, are threats to this nation, by definition. And of course sex traffickers are more likely to avoid ports of entry if they can be avoided. Alma Chapter 50, Book of Mormon:

    "...for he [Moroni, an eminently righteous man] caused that his armies should ... commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites. And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities. And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high."

    Read: WALLS.

  • cityboy Farmington, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 11:51 a.m.

    Mr. Ballard is on a quest to throw starfish back into the ocean. But I commend him on his efforts. A wall, however, isn’t the solution to the world’s human trafficking scourge. Of the Top 10 countries for human trafficking only one (Venezuela at #10) lies south of the US border. The others are in Asia, Africa, and Europe. As far as the victims of trafficking in the US, in order they come from Thailand, India, Mexico, the Phillipines and Haiti — only one of which would be affected by constructing a US/Mexico wall.

    Research has shown that Trump’s anti-immigrant approach only helps traffickers to keep their victims in their control through fear of deportation. Under Trump applicants for T-Visas, those issued to victims of trafficking, are staying under cover for fear of deportation.

    There is no “silver bullet” to solve this problem, including building a wall. We need to start by educating ourselves, becoming involved individually, being aware of the signs of trafficking and be willing to report suspicious activities. As well addressing the founts of trafficking, including homelessness, runaways, pornography, hopelessness, abuse in the home and the victims’ poor economic conditions.

  • Beehive Truth Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 11:49 a.m.

    (cont...)

    Most trafficking/trading happens through the legal border entries themselves not illegal border crossings, and mostly our Northern border with Canada. Some are brought to the USA, or sent to other countries, through merchant sea faring.

    As a member of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am finding the things these guys will try to sell for their 'blessed wall' is a travesty; both to Christianity as well as basic human decency itself! This one is not about a party line, it is about covenants I took upon myself that far outweigh anything political.

    This article will only undermine REAL efforts to stop human trafficking and divert funds and resources to an area that has little to do with it in actuality.

    Mr Ballard should be ashamed using his position to spread misinformation to support a wall that will not actually make a difference in Human Trafficking!

  • Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan San Diego, CA
    Feb. 5, 2019 11:48 a.m.

    re: Moderate - Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    You wrote:
    "Mayfair - "But this paragraph from the author really made sense to me:
    "we need a wall to force them to a point of entry."

    Suppose the southern border is completely sealed off. Will all traffic go through the ports of entry? Of course not. They simply go to Canada and cross the border from the north."

    Oh yeah, like the caravan of migrants who came to the border here in San Diego could 've just hopped a quick flight to Canada and came in through our northern border, since they all were just filthy rich *sarcasm*

    As one who has worked literally within arms reach of the border fence, I can assure you that, in the places where the natural terrain would not allow for fence construction, those areas of the border are monitored with much more resources than where the fence is. Before the fence was built, they would cross the Tijuana river valley into the US. Now, with the fence, they have been pushed more east, where crossing is much more dangerous. But they come anyway. They risk death to come here. The fence will absolutely force them to cross at the legal ports of entry. Anyone who says different is uninformed.

  • Independent24/7 Henderson, NV
    Feb. 5, 2019 11:42 a.m.

    @ Beehive Truth, honest question. Why does it have to be one or the other? Does one problem, trafficking across the southern border, not exist because there is trafficking in Utah or vice versa? Why can't we, as human beings, acknowledge both problems. It doesn't have to be a world where addressing one issue means we can't address another or that by acknowledging one issue means the other issue doesn't exist anymore. Why would we logically not want to address a legitimate problem, simply because there is another problem somewhere else. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It shouldn't be one or the other.

  • Independent24/7 Henderson, NV
    Feb. 5, 2019 11:30 a.m.

    I am beyond stunned at some of the comments on here. A literal first hand account from somebody who truly does know. I've been following Tim Ballard for years. He is 100% legit. He describes literal horrors and I still see comments about "costs too much money", "won't stop the whole problem so why bother" "Trump said Mexico will pay for it" "Trump is just throwing a fit". It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifyingly sad. Tens of thousands every year. And they come, in large part, through the unprotected parts of the border. An actual humanitarian crisis. And the even sadder part is that if the political sides were reversed, the left would be running these trafficking stories all day and all night. No a wall won't solve the whole problem, but it will help. The walls that we currently have help. Even the total cost of 20-30 billion is peanuts, literal peanuts in compared to the money our government wastes on useless and silly stuff. And still we fight over something that should simply be common sense. Sad, sad, sad. I would ask God for forgiveness but as a nation in this regard, we don't deserve it.

  • Beehive Truth Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 11:14 a.m.

    I wont bother reading this article as I have worked directly with RockStarr Ministries, an organization that works actively to rescue people caught in the evil of sex/human trafficking.

    Most of the fight is not at an imaginary line in the mountains and sand at our Southern border. A large majority of the fight happens right here in Utah... the mecca of sex trafficking trade. In fact, it is in such large force here in Utah that they have a national conference of law officials every year here in Utah because we are the hot bed of its activity, trade, and victimization.

    In fact, Utah is a favored place to abduct and manipulate victims of sex trafficking because of our owns state's refusal to face the issue as well as our lack of educating people properly and shaming cultures that dont fit the supposed 'perfect Christian model'.

    How a wall, that serves no educational purpose, built 1000 miles away from here is going to change such things is an absurd statement that bears little fact to those who have served in an active position against sex trafficking and not just for some political PR privilege.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 10:47 a.m.

    @ Utahbluedevil, unfortunately as was well articulated in this story, many of those coming accross the boarder are rapists and murderers. For the life of me, I can't understand why 99% of people are not in favor of protecting the most innocent among us by curbing this crisis of child sex slavery, drugs, etc, by building a wall and other measures to really secure the boarder. How pathetic that there are those who oppose protecting children because of deeply held political ties. I applaud all of those who are thoughtful enough to consider that their opinion on this topic may be deeply flawed and that a wall is part of the only option. Mr. Ballard could not have been more convincing to anyone with a conscience. Thank you Mr. Ballard for all that you've done and are doing to protect children.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    Mayfair - "But this paragraph from the author really made sense to me:
    "we need a wall to force them to a point of entry."

    Suppose the southern border is completely sealed off. Will all traffic go through the ports of entry? Of course not. They simply go to Canada and cross the border from the north.

    Why is Tim Ballard "fighting sex trafficking at the border?" The best chance for the victims is that they reach the United States where they have a better chance of being rescued. Keeping them out is simply turning a blind eye to the problem.

  • BMelton Indianapolis, IN
    Feb. 5, 2019 10:30 a.m.

    I've personally met Tim and he's a very honest and humble man. As a mom, I would want to know I did everything in my power to protect my children in this increasingly crazy world. If this means build a stinkin wall, then build it. If it means having a security system in my home, then buy it. If it means buying a gun to protect what is mine, then buy it. People this is our future we're talking about, the future for our kids, our grandkids, our great grand kids, and so many more generations to come. I understand not everyone believes what I believe and that's okay and perfectly fine with me as we're all different, but all the same. But we must stop fighting each other and fight what is truly wrong with our society, and unfortunately that is ever changing.

  • Count Rushmore Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 10:24 a.m.

    "This article is nothing more than Russian propaganda."

    Thanks for the laugh. Why, yes, of course, Russia wants us to improve our national security. That makes sense. And apparently our economy, too. What other positive things does Russia want for America -- record employment levels of minority and women? Wow, "Russian collusion" has sure been horrible, hasn't it.

    I am reminded of a quote by our second-greatest President Ronald Reagan: "the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's that so much they know isn't so."

  • Mayfair Logan, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 10:04 a.m.

    I am not a Trump supporter.

    I would not have said I was a wall supporter, because I thought it would just be tunneled under.

    But this paragraph from the author really made sense to me:

    "Their arguments about arrests at ports of entry actually prove our model. We want to rescue kids at the ports of entry. We want to seize drugs there. That is our whole point. But we need a wall to force them there. We need the well-armed and well-equipped ports of entry to be their only option. This “only-option” approach, of course, requires more than a wall. It also requires border agents, drones, sensors and tunnel detection technology."

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 8:47 a.m.

    This late night infomerical of a wall sure sounds like a miracle! Is there nothing it can't do? Stops illegal immigration, terrorists, drugs, sex trafficking, rabid dogs, the Santa Ana winds, and chupacabra. America will be so safe after this wall is built, we can turn in our guns!!

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Feb. 5, 2019 8:47 a.m.

    Russia, Belarus, Iran, and Turkmenistan, China, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela, Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Pakistan, Romania, Serbia, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, along with EU member Hungary, have far greater sex trafficking and slavery problems far greater than the United States.

    The major difference between the United States and these countries is we actually report sex trafficking and slavery. The United States is far below the list of these other countries.

    To say the United States is at the top of the list for sex trafficking is a bold-faced lie. Yes we have a problem and yes it's there but we are far from the top of the list.

    This article is nothing more than Russian propaganda.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 8:28 a.m.

    Another new tunnel discovered this week.

    The wall will not stop or even slow this problem.

    ute alumni said: "All made up. That’s what the left says.so it must be true"

    I read every comment, not one said this, your dishonesty is so trumpian and right out of roger stones playbook of claiming what your accused of, is being done by the opposition.

    Nope the "fake news" people are strictly a radio construct that trumps people shout when they don't like the truth.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 6:58 a.m.

    The wall concept advanced by Trump won't solve the problem.

    But even more troubling, to put it mildly, is the American consumption of child prostitution, pornography and drugs. I guess the US is loaded with really bad people, who create a demand for a "product" that Central Americans are striving to meet. It's the old law of supply and demand. You think a wall is going to fix that? No way.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Feb. 5, 2019 5:47 a.m.

    n8ive american - the difference is that the existing wall was built in a bi-partisan manner, jointly defined and funded, and wasn't promoted with claims that the people coming across were rapist and murders, and that Mexico will pay for the wall. It's not the what that is immoral, but the method to promote it. The debasing of an entire people to justify the building of the wall.

    And the Wall is immoral because it does not address the second half of the equation.

    The "Wall/Fence" can be built. But it will need to be done through a comprehensive immigration package that includes border protection, revisions to make legal immigration more possible, and resolving the issue of DACA.

    The wall should not be built as a symbol of prejudice.. and that is what is the current proposal. I have no issues with border security, it is essential. But do it the right way.

  • ute alumni Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:10 p.m.

    All made up. That’s what the left says.so it must be true

  • n8ive american Shelley, Idaho
    Feb. 4, 2019 9:48 p.m.

    Remember when former presidents Clinton and Obama called for a wall? Even candidate Clinton said there was a need for a barrier to prevent illegal immigration and that we have to control our borders. Dems thought it was moral then. What changed? Trump wanted a wall and is working to build it. The Dems are simply fighting Trump because it's Trump.
    See the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Then-Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19. (Notably, then-Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer voted for it, too.)

  • NeilT Harrisville, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 8:28 p.m.

    Every time an attempt is made at comprehensive immigration reform by either party the far right opposes it, calling it amnesty. It is time to get past the political polarization and put country over partisan politics. Unfortunately the chance of that happening is near nonexistent . The article does offer a valid argument for building the wall. I just wish we could have more bi-partisanship in politics instead of the us vs them mentality as promoted by talk radio and the extremists in both political parties. To the dems give up build the wall and lets move forward.

  • Puukko Orem , 00
    Feb. 4, 2019 7:49 p.m.

    Sounds like New York needs to look into their disgusting child sex problem.
    I'm amazed DN printed this article. I take back most of the times I've call
    DN biased. Two thumbs up.

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 7:06 p.m.

    Mc - West Jordan, UT,
    There is another reason the Dems are opposed to a wall and it is reflected in Ronald Reagan's experience on this same topic.

    During his presidency he did not stand firm and accepted a compromise that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens in exchange for increased enforcement, featuring E-verify. Notice that once you have granted citizenship to an individual it is almost impossible to rescind. E-verify was very effective for the short time it was used, but was quickly rescinded. Reagan later said accepting that compromise was one of the worst mistakes of his presidency.

    In the case before us today, the Democrats recognize that electronic surveillance, extra personnel, and concertina wire are easily overcome, removed, or de-funded. But a wall? That is more permanent and future elections and legislation cannot easily reverse the effect. And Democrats do not like compromising in ways they cannot later undo after they get what they want out of the deal.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 6:44 p.m.

    Yay DN!

  • Sequoya Stafford, VA
    Feb. 4, 2019 6:47 p.m.

    those who victimize children deserve the strongest actions of the law.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Feb. 4, 2019 6:32 p.m.

    @Yuge Opportunity Here -

    "I am pleasantly surprised that D News has published this article."

    I'm flat out shocked. This article completely supports Pres. Trump and his arguments for a wall. It is well written with verifiable, factual information and concisely logical in its reasoning, which is why the left will ignore it.

  • LVURNME ,
    Feb. 4, 2019 6:28 p.m.

    "The wall." People seem to be either for "the wall" or against "the wall." Do all those who say they are for "the wall" want a physical barrier the entire length of the border (rivers, mountains and remote deserts included)? Probably not. Do all those who say they are against "the wall" want no physical barriers at all? No. Jayson Meline said it well: "This does not mean a wall in urban areas and extension is not needed in identified areas by the experts. Prudent application of a wall and technology driven surveillance is needed."

    Vermonter wrote, "I still don’t get why Trump, Ryan and McConnell didn’t tackle this well before November 2018." It's because Republicans can't agree amongst themselves about immigration. I (who usually vote Dem) thought George W. Bush's proposal was a good one, but his party wouldn't go along.

    Polarization WITHIN both parties has magnified polarization BETWEEN the parties and made it impossible to get much done in Congress. Political motivation now seems to be the driving force on both sides, unfortunately. The result is that reasonable people - Bob Bennett and Jon M. Huntsman Jr come to mind - are sidelined.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 6:12 p.m.

    I am pleasantly surprised that D News has published this article.

    It is packed with reasoned thought about our southern border from one who has seen it.

    It could have been cut in to four slices, published over 10 days...but that would be too much to ask.

    Add to this recent drug seizures and the constant caravan pressure, and you could build a pretty good case for border security.

    Still, the interior enforcement component needs work. Offering amnesty can undo much of the deterrent effect of a wall. It is much wiser to modify intake rather than reward unlawful activity.

  • airnaut Everett, WA
    Feb. 4, 2019 4:56 p.m.

    Sure thing - Tim.

    Just like drugs,
    Sex will always be for sale so long as there is a MARKET.

    Fix the PROBLEM,
    and stop trying to build a make-believe wall around it.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 4:51 p.m.

    Hard to believe people refuse to respect the knowledge gained by years of experience just to justify their own political agendas. Food for thought - this is only one facet of several important reasons to build a wall.

  • Jayson Meline Chubbuck, ID
    Feb. 4, 2019 4:42 p.m.

    Fixation on the wall is looking beyond the mark; and diverting us from uncomfortable root cause problem solving,

    This does not mean a wall in urban areas and extension is not needed in identified areas by the experts. Prudent application of a wall and technology driven surveillance is needed.

    But our culture creates the demand of illicit drugs and exploitation of humans.

    Employers refuse to be good citizens, unless compelled, to verify employees are authorized to work. The government won't enforce laws applicable to them.

    Prohibition and the psuedo war on drugs only created tactical complexes that fail. Saturation-like education as we saw many decades ago on the effects of tobacco use that appeals to prudent use of agency, with proper incentive based on fact, is non-existent.

    Foreign policy in our hemisphere has actually enabled and been complicit in the pressures being placed on our southern border starting with the drug trafficking taking hold to wide-spread economic disaster.

    All we talk about are tactics to absolve ourselves of forming real strategy born of stinging introspection as opposed to application of the victim doctrine espoused by leaders of both parties.

  • JSB , 00
    Feb. 4, 2019 4:23 p.m.

    @ t702 - Las Vegas, NV "The opposition party has voted for a border wall before - either they are lying now or they were lying before, which one is it? The critics has yet to produce a single solution to the problem except continue with their failed policy" I agree with you.

    I did not support Trump when he ran. I didn't vote for him. But, the fact that the Democrat party once favored the wall and now is opposed to it reveals that Democrat party is so irrationally anti-Trump that they will oppose the wall just because Trump favors it. The good it might do to curtail sex trafficking the democrats refuse to consider. They would prefer to have sex trafficking and defeat Trump than curtail sex trafficking. I don't know if I will ever vote Republican but given the ugly Democrat hypocrisy on the issue of the wall, I will never vote Democrat.

  • delasalle Sandy, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 4:11 p.m.

    The author makes all compelling points. And it's not hard to see that even the smallest of "walls" would act as a deterrent. My question never has been whether it would be effective. My question is whether it is worth the cost. I opposed going into Iraq and Afghanistan not because I didn't think there were bad people there but because the benefits didn't seem to justify the cost. We go in and lose several thousand soldiers not to mention local civilians just to save a few hundred from terrorist attacks in the US? It doens't compute.

    With the wall, I would like to see proof first that spending billions would significantly reduce both illegal immigration and this type of sex trafficking. The POTUS thus far has avoided any type of detailed explanation that walks through this either because he is incapable of doing so or because one doesn't exist, both of which are very likely.

    My issue with the right is despite preaching limited government and fiscal responsibility, as soon as they agree with an issue all analysis and budgeting goes out the window, and they are more than happy to spend into oblivion to win a few points for very little marginal benefit.

  • Maverick10 Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 4:11 p.m.

    Never, never, and never again. No need for the wall. The biggest waste of 5 Billion dollars.

    Worst President in our History.

    Enough Said.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:56 p.m.

    I've got mixed feelings about it. Is it to fence me in. My guess is there are, an will be tunnels. In my science fiction mind, they have a thousand ways that monitor the boundary. Rumor has it every alliance and tv, computer an radio is watching an listening on us.

  • 1zand0z Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:51 p.m.

    Tim is not saying a wall will completely eliminate sex trafficking..

    what tim IS saying is that a wall will force traffickers and predators to go another route and access a port of entry where the odds of the predator getting arrested go up substantially. he gave tangible examples of past cases where this exact thing happened.

    personally i believe a border wall will help.. its not the ONLY solution, but its a solution we need to consider.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:53 p.m.

    Sure would be nice if people could let go of their irrational hatred of Trump for five minutes and listen to reason. You present them with a way to protect exploited children, and because Trump supports it they call it racism. How disgusting. Do you people really not see how destructive it is to ascribe everything you don't agree with to racism? It's tearing our country apart. Enough already!

  • Golden Rules Okay, OK
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:27 p.m.

    Most people do not enter by crossing barren wastelands on foot. Constructing this wall would require building roads to get the construction equipment there. With no towns nearby, there will be no way for a person to work at the border wall in most areas. So won't building the wall in remote areas actually make our country more accessible to illegal entry because we will be creating roads from border towns to all points of the border? Would non-developed land be more of a barrier in some case than a wall that has roads on the other side that will lead them into towns? There might be a lot of money to be made by people willing to provide transportation to any person who could just get to Point X on the wall. Not claiming to be an expert here, but something to think about . . .

  • Hockey Fan Miles City, MT
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:22 p.m.

    @CHS 85: I'm going to assume, whether correctly or incorrectly, that your sweeping generalization also included me. If that is the case, I unequivocally disagree with your assumption. I absolutely believe in the budgeting process as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. Alas, the system is broken; otherwise, the Legislative and Executive Branches would have put a budget in place by the beginning of FY 2019. This is certainly not the first time that unresolved budget impasses have occurred, and they have occurred during the administrations of both Democratic and Republican Chief Executives. The budget for FY 2019 should have been enacted several months ago, but it wasn't, so now we have the debacle we are currently witnessing. This may be the worst budget impasse we have witnessed, but it's certainly not the first one. I would love to see our Legislative and Executive Branches work for the good of "the people" and not for their own self-aggrandizement.

  • IMO2020 Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:26 p.m.

    I will admit I have been anti-wall due to the political storm raging around it, but I have never been armed with any facts. But your article has definitely persuaded me.

  • Autumn Meadow South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:16 p.m.

    @ Anti Government: "Drug/child trafficking decreases where there is a wall. Fact."

    Sure. Of course it decreases at the location where the wall is built. But do the numbers actually go down? Or do the traffickers just find a new way in?

    Hundreds of Asian women and children are trafficked into the U.S. every year, and it's not through the Southern border. As long as there is a demand for child prostitution, the traffickers will continue to find a way to traffic children. The wall will not solve the problem.

  • Bigger Bubba Herriman, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:11 p.m.

    SuzViews,

    A wall is not needed on the northern border because Canada has a good standard of living and there is not rampant corruption in their governments, so Canadians are not rushing the border and trying to cross illegally.

  • t702 Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:10 p.m.

    The article address one angle and it makes perfect sense. Add to that the drugs and criminals that freely move in and out of the country that a border wall can help minimize.

    The opposition party has voted for a border wall before - either they are lying now or they were lying before, which one is it? The critics has yet to produce a single solution to the problem except continue with their failed policy

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 3:09 p.m.

    "(approximately 70 percent of the border is wall-less)"

    The majority of which is Texas with the Rio Grande river.

  • SuzViews Mesa, AZ
    Feb. 4, 2019 2:58 p.m.

    What about a wall on our northern border too then (where the terrorists actually have come here in the past)?

    The idea that a wall can cross the entire length of our southern border has been refuted many times due to canyons, rivers etc. Also, imminent domain would be required to force Americans to sell their borderland property against their will.

    I’m for modern technology used to secure our border rather than ancient ideas that have been used to also prevent people from leaving their countries in the past.

    I’m definitely against human trafficking as well as drugs coming across our border, but I agree with respondents above that we need to take a serious look at our nation as the world’s biggest consumers.

    As Father Martin of Northern Ireland so aptly stated: “Physical walls become walls of the heart.”

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 2:39 p.m.

    So I see you are all against the constitutional process for budgeting for the federal government and believe that emotional outbursts by the POTUS should dictate the budget process, not the actual written, codified process in the Constitution you all claim to admire so much. There is a process for getting this done. The current GOP President doesn't seem to think he needs to adhere to that process, and all of you that support this process don't either.

  • the REAL DEAL Sandy, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 2:33 p.m.

    The thing that sticks out the most to me in this article is the disgusting individuals in the USA (and everywhere else in the world) that prey on, provide and exploit children for sexual purposes. Absolutely DISGUSTING! Sexual predators should be exiled to Mars.

  • n8ive american Shelley, Idaho
    Feb. 4, 2019 2:11 p.m.

    Liberals are always using children to push their leftist agenda. Look at gun control. *If it could save even one life, it's worth it.*. Is the same not true for a wall?
    A wall does not say *You are not welcome.* It says *You are welcome, but please use the front door.* Just like the door and lock on your homes.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 2:01 p.m.

    Sex trafficking happens in the US every day.
    This headline and story is misleading, it assumes that if there was a wall then suddenly sex trafficking would stop. Nothing would stop, it would continue like always.
    This is just another bad argument for trump's monument to himself.

  • Count Rushmore Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 2:01 p.m.

    "I'm sure there could be a few children saved from trafficking by a wall. But what about the ones who are already in the U.S. who get trafficked? A wall won't stop that."

    How about if arrest the perps and deport them, too? Would that help?

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:58 p.m.

    Nice op-ed. And most other border experts are quietly (because its not PC) saying similar things.

    But, the wall and immigration have pretty much become “political” issues, and not real problems to be solved (too bad for actual victims of US Border Policy—and their stories are real and heartbreaking and tragic). These issues are now tools to get political leverage. The House takeover by Democrats guaranteed it. It’s what Americans collectively voted for. There will be no changes to current practices and policies until after 2020.

    I still don’t get why Trump, Ryan and McConnell didn’t tackle this well before November 2018.

  • SorryNotSorry Draper, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:49 p.m.

    Great op-ed by Mr. Ballard who is doing more humanitarian work in his 15+ years of service than the rest of us would do in 10 lifetimes.

    I 100% trust his opinion on the matter.

    If Pelosi wants to take down the walls/fences around her house and have open borders then she might have a little bit more credibility. She wouldn't want to be a racist, now, would she.

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:41 p.m.

    The author makes a lot of sense. As much as I abhor our current president and consider him totally unfit to lead our country, I must admit that I have no answer in the face of this argument. A "wall" will not solve the problem, but it just might help.

  • blackattack Orem, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:37 p.m.

    Very logical argument. It really helped me see the importance of building a wall.

    Mr Ballard could lay off back patting a little. Bet his back is sore.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:24 p.m.

    re: Autumn Meadow

    "..could be a few children saved from trafficking by a wall. But what about the ones who are already in the U.S. who get trafficked? A wall won't stop that. Or the ones who are kidnapped in Central America and then trafficked in Mexico? A wall won't stop that, either. To claim that a wall is going to significantly cut down on trafficking is naive."

    What is this? It sure isn't logic.

    A wall would decrease trafficking. Drug/child trafficking decreases where there is a wall. Fact.

    The trafficked kids already in the U.S.? Who said a wall would fix that? But a wall would decrease more from coming in. Law enforcement already works on kids inside the U.S..

    Who said a wall on our border would stop all trafficking in other countries? What?? Although if you stem the flow into the US we know there would be less demand to fill. Isn't that better than doing nothing?

    I guess we shouldn't have police? Shouldn't have laws? After all there are still crimes happening. Right?

    Good grief.

    The point is you put any and all measures in place that will help deter or prevent. We live in a world with evil. There are not "absolute" solutions.

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:19 p.m.

    The critics, and we all know who they are, used to be for building more walls along the border and increasing funding for border security while Barrack Obama was president. They used to want immigration reform, though they did nothing when they controlled Congress and the presidency. They are against anything that would solve this problem right now. Why would that be?

    The reason is obvious. They do not want a republican president to get the credit for reforming a broken system and solving the problem. They especially do not want Donald Trump get credit for anything good. It doesn't matter what is better for America of for defenseless young girls and boys being smuggled in. They don't want a wall or barrier because Donald Trump wants it. They do not want a DACA agreement worked out while Trump is in office, because they don't want him to get the credit. It's that simple.

    I did not vote for Trump (or Hillary), but if this issue can be solved I don't care who gets the credit! America needs to make it easier to come here legally and much harder to come here illegally. Nothing racist about that. Just common sense.

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:13 p.m.

    The problem Mr. Ballard is fighting against is real, the victims are real, and the perpetrators are many. Will a wall solve the entire problem? Of course not. No one is suggesting that it will.

    But it will save many victims. Captors south of the border will find other ways to bring their victims north, if they have the funds to do so. Many don't. Some will try to go through ports of entry, and many will be caught.

    True, this won't stop sex trafficking that doesn't cross into the US. Nothing we do will stop that. This, like illegal immigration and drug trafficking, is a complex problem, requiring a complex set of solutions. A physical barrier CAN be, and where it currently exists, IS a successful PART of that solution.

    Speed limit signs don't stop all speeding, but we don't consider not putting them up. Locked front doors don't stop all break-ins, but we lock our doors anyway. In most other personal and public safety efforts, we use every means at our disposal. Why is this one tool so offensive to so many?

    One word. Trump. Take him out of the equation and all arguments against a wall fall apart. Think about it.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 1:01 p.m.

    While it hasn't been reported in this newspaper, there is news on this topic: The Democrat party has responded to this issue of sex traffickers! They have proposed that we "secure the border" by.... releasing every single sex trafficker that has been caught and is currently in jail--releasing them into America, free as a bird. The amendment was introduced by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein-- to allow any adult with a child to immediately be set free into America, no questions asked. Including, and most especially, "is this actually your child?"

    That's the Democrat solution! Enable more Sex Trafficking!

  • The Final Word Alpine, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 12:44 p.m.

    re:explorer686

    Nice attempt at deflection but actually it's really transparent.

    It's the sex traffickers who are "using the children" not a wall. This intellectually vacant argument that a wall is racist is more of the same emotion-only based attack in an attempt to deflect from logic & reason. Dems support and voted for walls. Trump says it, be against it. Brilliant.

    Walls r everywhere in our society. They serve a myriad of purposes or people would not keep using them.

    Of course a wall is not a perfect solution. Neither are all the high tech sensors/surveillance. Its a combination of everything we can use to slow/deter the flow of sex trafficking & drugs into our country. We are a sovereign nation who has a right to know what illegality is flowing in.

    We all know that open borders is the democratic plan to change demographics and win elections. Anyone conscious knows this. Its just astounding how many existing American citizen/and minority victims of crime they are willing to sacrifice to get their power.

    Its the fact these endless, fake-emotion, logic-less arguments get repeated like they have merit is what people ought to lose sleep over.

  • John Brown 1000 Laketown, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 12:44 p.m.

    It's clear a couple of posters here failed to read the last paragraph of the article. Here it is.

    "We plead with those critics of the wall to consider their real, lived experiences. We ask them to honestly consider whether or not they have ever run rescue operations along the border and truly understand how the complexities of border operations function in the real world. We ask them to consider whether or not they have ever utilized the wall and accompanying ports of entry to rescue children. We ask them to consider why every agency and organization who has carried out child rescue operations at the border — the experts — support the building and construction of a wall or barrier. And finally, we ask them why — though they may be great advocates for anti-trafficking efforts in areas that don’t include border interdiction — why they would gamble with the lives of children by assuming knowledge and experience they don’t have and then actively work to deny law enforcement a powerful tool that demonstrably liberates captive children."

  • Rita B Herriman, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 12:33 p.m.

    As long as there are men willing to pay money for sex with children, there will continue to be child sex trafficking, one way or another. A wall might shift around the sources of the children, but it won't actually address the problem.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 12:20 p.m.

    Is America fighting over a wall that Mexico is paying for?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 12:07 p.m.

    If there is that kind of market for child sex trafficking then this nation has bigger problems than a wall.

    I am curious why these victims are granted citizenship after these horrific acts but we can’t streamline immigration so they can flee their country to get away in the first place.

    Hopefully a grand deal can be made that takes care of this mess.

  • Bigger Bubba Herriman, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:56 a.m.

    Build the wall, Mr. President! It is not racist. It is not discriminatory. It is sound security policy. Nancy and Chucky need to stop playing politics on this issue.

  • Hockey Fan Miles City, MT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:51 a.m.

    If child sex trafficking were significantly curtailed or eliminated, I think Mr. Ballard would indeed be able to sleep better at night. My understanding of his op-ed is that in his professional opinion, a meaningful barrier of some sort would channel people to ports of entry where trained professionals would be in a better position to identify and apprehend people who are trying to smuggle children and other illegal contraband. I do not see how a barrier could possibly be racist, bigoted, or discriminatory. Those who obey the law will have no objection to going through a port of entry because they have nothing to hide. Law breakers, who do have something to hide, are going to seek other means of illegal entry. I have no problem with discriminating against those people. That's called law enforcement.

  • 👌Antidote To Chaos ,
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:42 a.m.

    All those bleeding heart open-border activists are just enabling human smuggling and drug smuggling.

  • Autumn Meadow South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:28 a.m.

    I'm sure there could be a few children saved from trafficking by a wall. But what about the ones who are already in the U.S. who get trafficked? A wall won't stop that. Or the ones who are kidnapped in Central America and then trafficked in Mexico? A wall won't stop that, either. To claim that a wall is going to significantly cut down on trafficking is naive.

  • Flipphone , 00
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:27 a.m.

    Amazing liberals putting politics ahead of national security and protecting women from abuse.

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:23 a.m.

    Bravo Mr. Ballard! You are doing incredible work and I agree with your article 100%
    God bless you in all you do!

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:16 a.m.

    No matter how you feel about a wall, fence, etc, or ANY other type of spending by the US Gov't, there is a process to follow. The House, Senate, and President all have say in the matter. The time to have that say is BEFORE October 1. The fiscal year starts on October 1. That's when a budget should be passed and adhered to. The branches are so dysfunctional now that there hasn't been an actual budget for a fiscal year is several years now.

    The President (no matter the party affiliation) doesn't get to just change the budget process mid-year to satisfy his wants. The time to do that was last fall. The time to submit his requests was last fall. The time to govern is now. The time for throwing tantrums is never.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 11:05 a.m.

    I buy this argument. But consider what the background is. We have an American capitalist system which is eager to buy sex. And we have a desperate Latin America which has been savaged by American capitalist interests forcing their populations to flee and sell sex. America needs to examine itself very closely.

  • explorer686 davis, UT
    Feb. 4, 2019 10:55 a.m.

    Using children as a way to push a racist,bigoted, discriminatory wall is a all new low. How do you sleep at night?