I thought the argument was that a wall is an economically inefficient method to prevent illegal immigration? Let's assume it is - they still implicitly concede that it is effective (just too expensive). Isn't it far, far more inefficient to literally spend money to remove this preventative measure?

Oh, what's that you say? It was never about saving taxpayer dollars? It was just about finding some way to convince normal people that they should hate walls? Now I understand.