By David Kamioner | January 9, 2020

In a victory for the Trump administration and a loss for those who would leave the U.S. southern border completely unsecured, a federal appeals court Wednesday overturned a lower court and let the administration use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to continue the building of the southern border wall.

The 5th Circuit ruled on a party-line vote with the GOP appointees ruling for border security while the sole Dem appointee ruled against the United States and for El Salvadoran murder gang MS-13, in a manner of speaking.

The president hailed the ruling in a tweet.

Telegenic White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham added to the fun, calling the lower court’s ruling, the court whose decision was overturned by the 5th, “illegitimate.” “This is a victory for the rule of law,” she added, “We are committed to keeping our borders secure, and we will finish the wall.”

Related: Why 2020 Will Be a Vital Year for the Supreme Court

In opposition to that common sense, Kristy Parker of Protect Democracy, a group that seems to have an odd understanding of democracy, said Wednesday that “a court has already determined that the government can’t lawfully use military construction funds to build Trump’s border wall…But we’re confident that we’ll prevail again in this next stage of litigation.” 

Miss Parker was also confident the Bengals would make the playoffs.

Groups who decry the very establishment of a border, including some libertarians, make an unsuccessful case against the rudimentary concept of a nation-state.

If anyone at all is allowed entrance into the United States unimpeded it not only puts national security at grave risk in an uncertain geopolitical environment but makes the nation-state an unviable polity. This is so because said state must at least establish secure borders to secure national sovereignty, guard against foreign encroachment, and determine geographical boundaries.

Related: So One Person Got Over the Border Wall, but Here’s What Happened Next

The people, who for over two centuries escaped oppression, looked for better lives for their families by playing by the rules and would basically be told by pro-open border advocates, “Sucker, why didn’t you just walk in?”

The 5th Circuit court upheld the ideal of fair play and national sovereignty. The case is not over and might proceed all the way to the Supreme Court.

However, the high court as of late has not looked kindly upon open border devotees. The nation should hope for their consistency on this matter and thus a fairer and better border situation for all concerned.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Strategic Consequence of Soleimani Airstrike Could Mean Possible Split for Russia and Syria
Sen. Hawley Calls Pelosi’s Bluff with Plans to Introduce Measure to Dismiss Impeachment
Iranian Butcher Qaseem Soleimani Again Brings Death to His Own People

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Stacy Washington.