Not President Trump, but Donald Trump addressing a bunch of college students 14 years ago:

If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.

Off tape, he is reported* to have said: “If there are steel slats in front of you, saw through them”:

President Donald Trump has repeatedly advocated for a steel slat design for his border wall, which he described as “absolutely critical to border security” in his Oval Office address to the nation Tuesday. But Department of Homeland Security testing of a steel slat prototype proved it could be cut through with a saw, according to a report by DHS.

A photo exclusively obtained by NBC News shows the results of the test after military and Border Patrol personnel were instructed to attempt to destroy the barriers with common tools.

Dept. of Homeland Security testing of a steel slat prototype for border wall proved it could be cut through with a saw, according to a report by DHS.

A photo obtained by @NBCNews shows the results of the test. https://t.co/SNxn6YneG9 pic.twitter.com/UP9EgHGxDx

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 10, 2019

Physical barriers are important. “A wall” across the entire southern border cannot possibly happen but is not necessary; some physical barriers are. Calling what barriers are necessary “a wall” whips up partisans on both sides but is probably a needed simplification for inattentive voters. But a “wall” is not everything, and as the NBC News story shows, it is foolish to expect “it” to do too much. Border security is a multi-faceted problem that demands various responses, not just one.

Democrats aren’t interested in any of that. Increasingly, they appear to be in favor of a policy of purely open borders. The pittance that Trump is now demanding, $5 billion, is far less than he could have gotten if he had timed this fight for when Republicans controlled the House — and it’s not enough for “the wall,” which would cost more like $25 billion. But Democrats don’t want to give Trump even one extra dollar for border security. They take this position for two reasons: spite, and because Trump’s incredible political incompetence makes it possible. Remember?

I’ll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.

So now this is on him, which makes it easier for Democrats to dig in. And they have the added benefit that Trump, by his own rhetoric, shouldn’t need Congress to appropriate money, because remember? Mexico was going to pay for it. By the way, Trump is slowly backing away from that promise too:

Trump: "When I said Mexico would pay for the wall in front of thousands and thousands of people …. obviously I never meant Mexico would write a check."

— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) January 10, 2019

Oh, OK. Was it going to be a credit card, or what?

This is the right fight, but at the wrong time, conducted in the wrong way. And it’s not the only fight.

Again I ask: why didn’t we have this fight when Republicans controlled the House? And I submit it’s the same reason that Republicans did not repeal ObamaCare. They want the issue more than they want results.

This isn’t about the Wall, everybody knows that a Wall will work perfectly (In Israel the Wall works 99.9%). This is only about the Dems not letting Donald Trump & the Republicans have a win. They may have the 10 Senate votes, but we have the issue, Border Security. 2020!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 27, 2018

“We have the issue.” You see? Oh, you wanted results? Well, those will have to wait until we have 60 Republicans in the Senate — well, actually more like 65, since there will always be a couple of Murkowskis in the mix. You’ll get your results then.** But until then, give us money, because we have the issue.

Same as it ever was.

*Not actually.

**To be clear, “then” means “never.”

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]