No. Have not come across any propositions of the sort specifically authored or iterated by any "prominent US politicians". It is quite impossible for a wall to keep U.S. citizens from venturing over, under or through any barrier.
A static barrier affixed to the ground cannot stop an individual who owns and operates a private jet from traveling anywhere they please. Thus, it would not be a rational argument to make. Unless the premise is that only certain classes or demographics of U.S. residents (for example, U.S. residents who do not own and operate a private jet) could be kept in the U.S. against their will by a physical barrier affixed to the ground.
As an example, consider a barrier being constructed even around your own residence or city. Add the condition that your family has a gravely ill child within that enclosure. The motivation of the individual, family, or community at large to provide urgent health care for their family member will overcome any physical barrier. The average U.S. resident has immediate, if not very proximal access to the materials or tools needed to breach any barrier in instances of necessity or sheer will or hunger or for their freedom and liberty or to escape the monopoly on or scarcity of resources within such an enclosure.
On a large scale, one could simply take the example of county jails, prisons, and penitentiaries. Each of which is a secure environment, surrounded by walls, barbed wire, and armed guards. It could be presumed that illicit drugs and other contraband would not be able to get in to the facility. However, that is simply not the case. The prison guards would argue that contraband is smuggled in via family members or lawyers - exclusively.
The reality is at a X+% mark-up on ordinary goods, the economics of the situation is an incentive for the prison guards/military/etc. to smuggle contraband in to the facilities. Examples
A comprehensive list at this answer would be far too lengthy as to such activity.
The military is not exempt either.
And what smugglers themselves state, as included as an example within the context of a broader scale and scope at this answer
U.S. citizens, or residents that are not citizens, are far too accustomed to their freedom to accept being locked in to their home, city or nation. However, consideration of a dual-use for a barrier is a reasonable concern (save for individuals and institutions who do not own and operate their own private jets) for institutions that examine the impacts of government projects and policies on the populace (psychological impact, or "national consciousness"); even where the social and economic realities of such a situation is impractical , if only due to bribery of corrupt official (sources: List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes; List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes); and the ingenuity and access to resources of and by the vast majority of the U.S. population to compromise static physical barriers.