Of all of the flatulent [diction? this word will irritate or alienate those who disagree with you. Should you care?] memes that have been running low on gas since the late 1960s [memes in the 60s? Are they not an internet thing?], the most aggravating -- against stiff competition -- are probably all variations on "Build bridges, not walls." The bridge I must cross most often in an average year is Westminster Bridge. Since a jihadist [name of this person? link?] plowed a car along the pavements of one side of the Westminster Bridge [is this local knowledge? will your readers in other countries get this or are you specifically addressing Londoners?] (killing and wounding dozens of locals and tourists) a couple of years ago [specify date?], it has been covered in walls. Specifically, it has been covered in metal crash barriers erected to stop replays of that incident. So as I find myself reminded on a weekly basis at least, when it comes to bridges and walls, the world does not have necessarily an either/or choice. Who could have guessed? [tone?]
Well, a lot of [can you be more specific? how many?] the president's opponents by the sound of it [what's "it"? ]. There are satisfactory arguments on both sides [sounds very objective, but your examples of arguments against are straw dogs {kind of pissy on my part}] about the utility of building a wall along the southern border of the U.S. My personal view is that since the president was partly elected on the promise of building this wall, he should probably get a chance to build it and give at least some voters what they asked for.
But it is not the practical but the moral objections to the president's initiative that are so unutterably tired. For instance, one objection just made by Nancy Pelosi [source] is that building a wall is "an immorality" and "not who we are as a nation." Walls are also, according to Pelosi, an "old way of thinking."
In fact, in Europe -- among many other places -- walls are not an old way of thinking at all. In fact [is this repetition intentional?], they are a much newer way of thinking than anything Nancy Pelosi is offering [false comparison]. Since the European migrant crisis was at its height in 2015, countries across central and eastern Europe have begun erecting walls. I have gone to see a number of them, and very smart, modern fence-like things they are, with movement-detectors, drones to fly overhead, and more. When the Hungarian government [is this the best example? It's a dog whistle of sorts] erected their first wall (having had hundreds of thousands [provide actual number and source of the data] of people pour across their previously un-walled borders in a few months), they received some criticism from their neighbors. [Demographic data proving the wall succeeded in keeping people out?]
Only weeks later, these critics -- including the government of Austria -- started to hurriedly build walls of their own. One of my favorite memories of the period is a representative of the Austrian government being asked what made the wall that the Austrians were building so different from the one that they had criticized the Hungarians for building. The answer came after a pause: The Austrian wall was different because it was not a wall but rather "a door with sides." To the extent that there was any short-term fix to that problem, the swift building of walls was about the best one, and it was provably effective [what's the proof? ]. So while Pelosi's views have been going stale [cliche?], walls have gotten a new lease of life.
But other politicians have a similar view to her. Representative Eric Swalwell, for instance, claims that walls themselves -- bricks, mortar, the lot -- are "medieval." They are also, he says, "a symbol of 'us and not us.' And that is not U.S."
It is hard to know where to start with guff [tone?] like this. Clearly all walls are not medieval (see above). But the main problem with Swalwell's "us and not us" riff is that lots of things are "us and not us." The fact that Swalwell owns an American passport is a sign of "us and not us." It allows him to go into a different queue from me and most of the rest of the world when we visit the U.S. Is this not the biggest "us and not us" signal imaginable? One might take it further [is that necessary? what do you get by shaming him with an accusation of hypocrisy?]. How dare Swalwell have the right to live in America and almost all of the rest of the world not? What is this but sheer, bare, shameless, naked "us and not us" behavior? Swalwell should be ashamed of himself and resign his passport immediately because of its "othering" effect on most of the rest of the world.
As I say, there are plenty of decent arguments that could be made against building a wall along the Mexican border [really? like what? why didn't you deal with any of them?]. But it is striking that the president's opponents aren't focusing on them and instead keep running on memes which ran out of their utility long before walls ran out of theirs.
What is an editorial? An opinion piece (aka op ed -- opinion piece, editorial), often written for maximum impact, applause from the faithful, outrage from the outsiders. Bad new travels fast and eyeballs on screens generate revenue. Most opinion pieces are preaching to the choir but many op ed writers seem to think they are being persuasive. They are not if persuasion is about changing people's minds. You can't change a person's mind by offending them. Even presenting the cold hard facts won't change a person's mind. You need to listen to them, understand them, see them for who they want to be and then help them see the problems with their argument.
Your goal is to offer advice that might lead the writer to tone down or rethink their position. You are not trying to refute them openly nor are you poking them with the stick of your greater wisdom.
When I read your writing I will read it against the grain, so you can think of this assignment as offering insight into my side of the screen and perhaps you can answer my questions before I can ask them. Do that, and you nailed the assignment.
Keep the kind of publication in mind. It's not fair to ask for citations in a non-academic paper. So if you think a statement needs backing, ask them how they know ow r what evidence they can offer.
Don't ask questions that Google can readily answer.
Don't get trolled. Maintain your compusure. Don't just yell at the writer. Help them re-think.
Links to many news and opinion sources.
"All Sides" is a website dedicated to offering what it calls balanced reporting and my brief exposure to it makes me think it's worth spending time with. There is a tool offering an assessment of the level of bias for a given publication and a way for users to contribute their opinion.