An immigration compromise that just might work

The Democratic opposition to additional walling is more situational than principled. The erection of barriers along major crossing points in California, Arizona and Texas was part of the Clinton administration’s border-enforcement efforts in the 1990s. In 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which authorized funding for 700 miles of additional fencing. The vote in the Senate was 80-19, with plenty of support from Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Mr. Schumer and his caucus should spare us the theatrics. Besides, isn’t helping the nearly two million so-called Dreamers, who entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday, more important than denying the president his signature campaign promise out of spite?

Compromising on the wall also makes sense as a practical matter for Democrats, who will have a hard time winning support for more-expansive immigration policies if they can’t convince the public that border security is a priority for them. The hard-left likes of Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may want the border between Mexico and the U.S. effectively erased, but most voters in both parties would rather it be fixed. Calls for more sanctuary cities and the abolition of immigration-enforcement agencies send exactly the wrong message. Border enforcement matters. Just ask Germany.