Liberals have to come up with some reason for not securing our borders. Even as they welcome illegal aliens, they still can't quite go the final step and say, "We want a country without any borders," knowing what a contradiction in terms that is. So instead they have to come up with other reasons why the border can't be secured. In a classic piece of agitprop from the Washington Post, have a look at the reasons why a border fence or wall can't be constructed:

Overall, more than $7 billion has been spent to build what is now almost 653 miles of Southwest border fencing -- costing nearly $5 million per mile in some spots -- nearly half in Arizona. The costs could rise substantially if extensive new fencing was built, since it would be in increasingly remote regions without roads and in mountainous terrain, said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute.

You never see liberals worrying about the cost of any other domestic program – not of Obamacare, not the stimulus, not high-speed rail, or any other project that costs tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. But suddenly, when $7 billion is spent, liberals are suddenly concerned about cost! Maybe you could even say that when it comes to spending on border security, liberals are "fiscal conservatives"!

The hurdles include environmental and engineering problems ...

Environmental problems? How many tons of mercury does a fence release into the air every day? Zero. How many gallons of dioxin does a fence release into the ground? Zero. It's a fence, not a smokestack. The only way to hide behind so-called "environmental problems" is to look at the poor coyote; instead of being able to prowl thousands of square miles on both sides of the border, he can now prowl thousands of square miles on only one side of the border. And the federal government can pass a law waiving these phony environmental regulations any time it wants to.

As for engineering problems...it's a fence. A long fence, but a fence. Even a liberal engineer could build one. I think.

... fights with ranchers and others who don’t want to give up their land ...

What a great laugh line! Liberals concerned with the private property rights of ranchers and "others"! When the government takes huge areas of land for national monuments or high-speed rail, or puts restrictions on land development for many different reasons, the liberal masterminds don't worry about private owner objections there, do they?

... and the huge topographical challenges of the border, which runs through remote desert in Arizona to rugged mountains in New Mexico and, for two-thirds of its length, along rivers.

Another laugh line! Huge topographical challenges? I'm pleased that the WaPo reporters know such big words. If you have a vertical cliff or mountain on a border, guess what: you don't need a fence! It's called a natural barrier. As for a river, if there is a river on parts of the border, you can actually build the fence behind the river. Hey, do you think the WaPo would ever have thought of that on their own?

“It’s a huge effort to construct anything at the border,” said one DHS official ...

DHS officials wouldn't want to make huge efforts...unless, of course, the "huge effort" is a mass amnesty of millions of illegal aliens.

No one should go into this with the idea that if you just build the right kind of wall, no one will get through ...

Well, you see, that's the standard. If it doesn't stop everyone, we shouldn't do it. That's the government's motto: if a program isn't 100% successful, they shut it down. Except, the real rule of the U.S. government is to never shut down any program. In fact, the government isn't even interested in success rates.

Except for border fences.

That's why border security is the only issue that turns big-spending liberals into small-government conservatives.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.