I hear what you're saying, but I think most have already decided on a wall or no wall. Most that don't want a wall see it as a humanitarian issue. This may change a few minds, but the wall isn't the issue really here.
Maybe you're right about minds already being made up; maybe I shouldn't have emphasized the "undecideds." But suffice it to say that I happen to think a border incident could swing a
huge number of the "concerned humanitarians" into favoring a wall after all. A lot of Americans will finally see that the humanitarian issue is a
bogus humanitarian issue--i.e., a bogus basis for their previous, too-quick decision to oppose a wall. A lot of formerly non-thoughtful folks will finally say "Yeah, it would be lovely if we could take in all the tired and poor, but we
can't take all of the tired and poor.
Besides, the folks in the Caravan(s) don't all seem to be especially nice folks. Hmmm..."
In short, I think a tense confrontation between the military and the Caravan would shock some sense into those who had previously decided against building the wall,
The only regret I would have concerning a proposed wall is the fact that I would hate to have a fence cutting through the south end of one of my favorite spots on Earth, the Big Bend National Park, fencing us off from the Rio Grande (down which I have rafted, floating through spectacular canyons). But my love of the environment amounts to a good example of a bogus reason to reject a wall.
We have a Republic to protect. If we become a Global Socialist nation, we probably won't be in a position to enjoy the scenic beauty of the Rio Grande country anyway.