Here’s a question you’ll never hear a Democrat asked by most national news media: "Why don’t you want to make it harder for illegals to cross into the country on the southern border?"

You will, however, get endless excuses from the media on behalf of Democrats. Everyone wants " border security!" "A wall won’t stop illegal immigration!" There is no " crisis!"

Assume every one of those assertions is true (none of them are) and still, the question of why Democrats resist doing everything possible to limit the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the border just hangs there, ignored.

If you ask a Democrat about “border security,” you never get concrete proposals. You get answers like the one Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, D-N.M, gave on CNN two weeks ago.

“So, we have to prioritize, of course — medical equipment, as well as personnel, appropriate facilities for these families that are being detained,” she said, “because that’s important to save children’s lives, to make sure that detainees are safe and healthy.”

There is nothing in that mess of a response as it relates to actual security — to stopping migrants overwhelming our southern border. Torres Small believes the U.S. should instead adapt to the influx by investing more taxpayer resources into the welfare of foreigners who want in.

A week before, Democrat Luis Gutierrez, then representing Illinois, said on CNN that every person who comes to the U.S. seeking asylum should be welcomed in for a hearing. Mind you, 30 to 40 percent of migrants claiming asylum don’t even show up for their court hearings. They disappear into the country and, well — hey, what’s that over your shoulder?!

Directly ask about building a wall on the southern border, and Democrats insist, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., did in December, that it won’t work. She told reporters that month that a wall would be “ineffective.”

If the media come ever around to asking Democrats why they’re so opposed to making illegal immigration more difficult, there's a good follow-up: What do you mean a wall would be “ineffective”? The walls are working in the areas along the border where they have been built. MSNBC liberal Heidi Przybyla on Wednesday inadvertently acknowledged that a border wall would do precisely what it’s meant to do: “So what would happen is you’d get border wall in New Mexico, California, Arizona, and you’d create an absolute disaster of a choke point in through Texas,” she said. She was referring to the large swaths of private land along the Texas border which would delay the construction of a physical barrier opposite Mexico.

And she was right! When migrants are faced with miles of border wall in one area, they tend to concentrate in areas without walls. This makes them easier, not harder, to apprehend. Where does the “ineffective” part come in?

NBC’s Jacob Soboroff excitedly published an “exclusive” report Thursday showing that one version of a wall made of steel could be — gasp! — sawed through!

“A photo exclusively obtained by NBC News shows the results of the test after experts from the Marine Corps were instructed to attempt to destroy the barriers with common tools,” read the ominous report, which showed a close-up of two adjacent steel bars with a gap of indeterminable height and width.

Missing from the report, however, is any sense of how long that breach took to create or what size people or items could pass through the space. Did it take an hour? Three hours? Was the saw manual or electric?

If you’re trying to cross into the U.S., is it more or less difficult to do it by bringing a saw with you and hacking your way in before agents get to the scene and arrest you?

We’ll never get Democrats to answer these questions. The media refuse to ask them. But the answers, fortunately, are obvious, and people know them.