We’re seeing plenty of examples of how the media has already skipped over the nuisance of holding an election and determined that Hillary Clinton is effectively the next President of the United States. If that does happen (and it’s still an “if” at this point, no matter what you’re hearing on cable news), Secretary Clinton’s supporters are expecting some rapid movement on a “comprehensive immigration reform” package. I’ve already written about how this might be far from a done deal, but you can expect the media to jump on this bandwagon in a big way.

One example of this is an early broadside being fired by Eduardo Porter of the New York Times editorial board. Mr. Porter begins his pitch for such a sweeping change by trotting out the often repeated but highly dubious claim that Trump’s plans for a great wall on the southern border is a fake solution because, “the wall is already there.” And, of course, the wall has failed in his opinion. The solution? Less walls and more doors!

Maybe the answer, instead, lies in another direction. Rather than building a bigger wall, it consists of opening a door in the wall we have. The best way to stop illegal immigration may be for Mexico and the United States to create a legal path for low-skill Mexicans seeking work in the United States.

“When I hear ‘Secure the border,’ I think that’s great, but it’s not the solution,” said Carlos Gutierrez, who was commerce secretary under President George W. Bush. “We need laws that enable us to get the immigrant workers we need for the economy to work and do it in a legal way that doesn’t require employers to resort to a black market.”

This might sound like a giveaway to employers seeking to undercut American workers with cheap foreign labor. Neither major party presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton or Mr. Trump, is very likely to embrace the approach in the homestretch of the presidential campaign. And yet it deserves a hearing. In more than half a century, it is the only strategy that has worked.

Regardless of what Clinton may say in the final stretch of the campaign, rest assured that this is pretty much the blueprint she will be following if elected. Unfortunately for her, this entire premise is built on a foundation of misdirection and outright lies. You can see the appeal of such a sales pitch, however. The thinking (for lack of a better word) runs along the lines of many Democratic solutions to problems of crime. By allowing more Mexican workers to come into the country quickly and legally you will have less people crossing the border illegally. It’s a brilliant piece of marketing if you don’t examine it too closely. This is pretty much akin to saying that you could reduce the violent crime rate in New York by legalizing assault.

Also, the idea that a better wall won’t work because the one we have now has failed is an idea as watertight as a colander. The border is far from secure and the many coyotes who ferry illegals north every day would laugh at the idea if you could pin them down for an interview. There are plenty of gaps and those who are willing to exploit them know where they are. A more formidable barrier probably won’t stop the flow of illegals entirely, but it could assuredly cut down on it massively. And if you can largely stop the revolving door of those we do somehow manage to deport turning around and coming back the following year, month or week, the overall problem would diminish over time.

What’s being suggested here isn’t “immigration reform.” It’s surrender. And as much as liberals may hate to be reminded of the fact, a nation without borders isn’t a nation at all. This is what you’re going to be battling if Hillary Clinton is elected president, so you may as well get used to the idea now. Eduardo Porter is laying out the Democratic playbook for 2017 and I doubt the bullet points originated in the offices of the New York Times.

borderfence