That's not the point. The point is, it is necessary.
There are not words to illustrate the vast indifference in my heart toward those concerns. You want "ecological concerns"? Then build a wall to keep out millions of people from a country with such an excessive littering problem that discarded plastic shopping bags are humorously referred to as the national flower. Who ravage our national parks and destroy our wildneress. Who choke our rivers with their refuse, both in the country, and with the rivers that flow in from Mexico.
This is anecdotal evidence, which is a fallacy and an illegitimate argument, because it cannot be analyzed or discussed without a common base of shared knowledge. Does your cousin's method, at any point, involve passing through empty space over an abstract line between the two countries? Because a wall would remove his ability to do that, by occupying said empty space.
Well, no one is coming up with any reasonable solutions that involve putting an absolute stop on all border crossing not strictly under our control. One problem is large numbers of people simply passing through the large empty areas. No one has suggested building a wall and stopping there. Tightening up other kinds of security is more easy if the wall is taking care of other areas and forcing people to go through tunnels, cross a death strip or subject themselves to searches at checkpoints. I absolutely do not support building a wall and calling it quits. My main skepticism towards Trump on immigration is a lack of faith in his commitment to real solutions to the problem. If there is a more effective way to establish a border, fine. But a wall is an absolute statement and a definitive commitment to the only solution - stopping the flow. The Soviets built a wall through Berlin for a reason, and the Wall was hated for the same reason - they work. They work better than just about anything else at keeping things from moving from one place to another.
Well, now it's starting to sound like those eco-warrior millionaires who want solar and wind power...somewhere they won't have to look at the turbines or panels. If the wall makes the area unpleasant, move. But you don't have the right to let the rest of the country turn into Mexico del Norte because of your distaste for a wall. I might not live near the border, but it's still my country that's being hurt. If it wasn't, I'd be the first to say "Your community, your problem." Anyone who has a problem living north of the wall is welcome to live south of it.

And speaking of walls to the north, the reason why no one is clamoring for a wall on the Canadian border is, quite frankly, proof of our intentions: we are interested in solving a real problem, which is not coming from Canada. Canadians, however unsightly or distasteful, are not third world peasants and do not come swarming down in the tens of millions to drop their spawn and live off the public dole for generations, while importing a violent and lawless culture. They day they start (or letting undesirables from their European butt-buddy countries do so) is they day I start calling for a wall on the 49th Parallel.

Which become more and more difficult with the innundation of foreigners vehemently opposed to that sort of thing. The way to get to that place is to stop the immigration, NOW. We'll never lose the incentives to wetback it as long as we keep bringing in third world peasants legally from all sorts of hellholes who haven't the faintest clue what civic responsibility means in the Anglosphere, or embracing all sorts of amnesty scames.

I would find it very, very , difficult to fault a man who was trying to kill me, because he mistakenly believed I possessed a threat to his own life or safety. That doesn't mean I would have any qualms about killing him if that was what it took to make it stop. Empathy is a luxury for those who are secure and safe. To indulge one's empathy at the expense of others in your situation is criminal selfishness. You can empathize with people freezing or drowning in the ocean after a shipwreck, but if you are one of 10 people in a 10 man lifeboat, you don't have the right to let them aboard. You can take homeless people into your home, but you have no right to take them into a home you share with other people. It is one thing to take risks for your principles, it is something else entirely to require other people to share those risks.

I would start by shooting every Mexican bastard who is coming to sponge off our economy while our manufacturing jobs slip through the same borderless world. The reason why the US offers so many better opportunities than Mexico does, is because of the superior ratio of Americans to Mexicans. The more they come in, the lower that ratio drops. Eventually, that will be two countries that need more opportunities. And why should Mexicans get to live off our prosperity because of an accident of geography? They have it much better than many other countries whose people don't have their options, and would KILL to live in the conditions that Mexicans find intolerable, and think justify breaking another country's laws. You could try saying that our prosperity is merely an accident of birth as well, but that is bullshit. It is our inheritance from our forebears, both biological and national. The founders of the country sought to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and for their posterity, not for Mexicans. If Mexicans want to become Americans, the way a bunch of Irish, Italian, Swiss and Germans did before getting together to produce my family tree, fine. But they are not going to do that if their migration is not controlled. The best thing Mexicans can do for their children is stop being Mexican or change what being Mexican means. Calling a Mexican "American" does not magically change his children's destiny if he keeps speaking Mexican, acting Mexican, thinking Mexican and voting Mexican in a different place.