From the very onset of Donald Trump’s political career, he has been relentlessly, ruthlessly attempting to build a “big, beautiful wall” on the southern border of the United States.

The idea here is not to exclude anyone from entering the melting pot that is the United States.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.

As migrants make their way to America, they find themselves torn.  Do they trek to the nearest legal point of entry and begin their naturalization journey, or do they pay dangerous “coyote” smugglers to take them through the brutal desert?  If the latter is chosen, how do they protect themselves from the elements, or from the more nefarious “coyotes” out there, who constantly prey on women and children who are making the journey?

What a border wall does is remove this dangerous option, instead rerouting any and all would-be Americans to the legal, judicial process of citizenship.

Still, the left opposes the concept of a “wall”, likely for no other reason than to virtue signal their “resistance” to Trump.

And, as it turns out, they have had some help in the judicial system.

A federal judge on Friday prohibited President Donald Trump from tapping $2.5 billion in military funding to build high-priority segments of his prized border wall in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in Oakland acted in two lawsuits filed by California and by activists who contended that the money transfer was unlawful and that building the wall would pose environmental threats.

“All President Trump has succeeded in building is a constitutional crisis, threatening immediate harm to our state,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a 20-state coalition of attorneys general in one lawsuit.

President Trump has tried on numerous occasions, and through numerous avenues, to find funding for his border wall, but to no avail.