One of the ongoing talking points of the Left is that those of us who seek to have our borders secured and our immigration laws respected are simply hate-mongers who hold Hispanics (especially Mexicans) in contempt. That we may have a reasonable basis for our positions is simply unfathomable to them. Perhaps they need to consider some of the information in this New York Times article and ask themselves whose position, theirs or ours, makes more sense.

Juárez and El Paso are divided only by the narrow Rio Grande and a couple of border checkpoints that have done little over the years to stop the steady back and forth of trade and family visits.

The two cities are so close that the mayor of El Paso can look out his office window to view downtown Juárez.

But in other ways the two cities are worlds apart these days.

El Paso still enjoys its status as one of the safest cities in the United States, while Juárez, a city of 1.5 million that has always been rough, has become a battleground for drug cartels. More than 1,550 people were killed there in drug wars last year.

Worse, other violent crimes — carjacking, extortion, armed robbery — have surged as the beleaguered authorities struggle to respond to daily gun battles.

“It’s strange to be the third-safest city in the United States right next to a war zone,” said Mayor John Cook of El Paso, as he gazed at the ramshackle neighborhoods of Juárez.

The reality is that Mexico is a troubled country today. It is completely dysfunctional. Failure to appropriately secure our border can only result in those problems crossing that border and infiltrating our own cities. We have seen some of this with gangs like the Central American MS-13 gang – do we need the ongoing epidemic of abductions and murders to take root in the United States before the supporters of open borders admit that there may be bona fide reasons of public safety at the heart of the positions taken by those of us?