“Border Security” Is NOT “Border Security” Without A Long, Strong, High, Double-Sided Fence

Today I read Bill Kristol’s assessment and realize that the House GOP leadership has no idea what they are doing on the topic of border security, which absolutely requires a long, strong, high, double-sided fence with a road running between the two fences. This “fence project” is a necessary though not sufficient condition to border security, emphasis on “necessary.” Other things, like visa reform, are also key, but the double-sided fence is what voters want to see built.

Consultants and pollsters have told the House GOP leadership that they must be for “border security,” but that they cannot be for the only thing on which genuine border security depends –a fence. This creates the dilemma of having to pretend to be for border security when in fact you are doing nothing to advance it because without the fence project, nothing will work.

Because the elected lack the courage to make the common-sense argument that a law forbidding unpermitted entry is in fact a “legal fence” that assumes physical fences where necessary, the electeds lose the argument with their base and with the undecided public that knows the score. Bill Kristol is right.

Kill the fake border security bill and go home until the House leadership gets serious about passing a real border security bill. The president is already losing the election single-handedly by allowing the world to slide towards chaos. It would make sense for the House GOP to pass a bill based on good policy –a fence– but it makes no sense to throw the president a rope via a self-inflicted political wound over a pretend border security bill that everyone knows is a fake bill.

I never said that the fence should not be built. I support it completely not only to stop illegal aliens coming here to live and work but also as a matter of national security.

The two main threats to our national security posed by immigration relate to terrorism and drugs. First, tens of thousands of persons from countries that support international terrorism have come across our southern border undetected since 9/11. Testifying before Congress in March 2006, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that his agency busted a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the U.S. “This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States,” Mueller told a House Appropriations subcommittee during a hearing on the FBI's budget. Hezbollah was responsible for the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 243 U.S. troops. A total of 20 foreign-born terrorists were involved in 9/11, 19 of whom took part in the attack that resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths. The terrorists had entered the country on tourist or student visas. Four of them, however, had overstayed their visas and become illegal aliens and the others should not have been granted visas for various immigration control reasons.

Second, Michael Hayden, the outgoing head of the CIA stated in January 2009 that the threat of a narco state in Mexico is one of the gravest dangers to American security, on a par with a nuclear-armed Iran. An assessment by the United States Joint Forces Command, published in February 2009, concluded that the two countries most at risk of becoming failed states were Pakistan and Mexico. The descent of Mexico into a failed narco state, marked by increased violence and brutality, which has already spilled over into the U.S., has enormous implications for immigration, legal and illegal. With over 13 million Mexican-born residents in the U.S. plus their U.S.-born relatives, there are strong familial ties to Mexico, which would attract Mexicans fleeing a disintegrating state seeking asylum and safety in the U.S. And the pressure on our porous, unsecured southern border would increase dramatically. Currently, the Border Patrol apprehends more than half a million people annually trying to enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico and hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens are successful in gaining entry. There is no way the U.S. could stop a tidal wave of Mexicans seeking asylum in this country and it would be even more difficult to remove them.

There has been a confluence of interests between drugs, illegal immigration, and terrorism. The systems for moving terrorists illegally across the border have become increasingly sophisticated, with Mexican drug kingpins now playing a major facilitating role using the same routes and methods to bring in illegal aliens and drugs. In view of the carnage that the 19 terrorists created on 9/11, the virtual certainty that our government has allowed substantial numbers of terrorists and their supporters to enter our country illegally is an outrage.

The fence stops the most illiterate and parasitical types. If you flew into the USA on a work or student visa, at least you have SOMETHING to offer, maybe.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers came here as students learning to fly. We cannot diminish the threat just because someone came here legally as a tourist, student, or on business. They must be tracked like they are in almost every other country. My daughter studied in Germany. She had to check in periodically with the authorities. And if she violated the terms of her visa, she would never be allowed back into Germany.

I fail to see what a pregnant 17 year old gal from Guatemala offers us. Or a 17 year old gang banger from El Salvador.

I don't want to make such distinctions. There is only one class of illegal alien. It has nothing to do with what they can offer us. Anyone who flaunts our laws doesn't deserve to be here. We bring in 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants a year, more than the rest of the world combined. In fact, it is way too many given our job needs. 21 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed.

So yes, build the fence.

The 2006 Secure Fence Act, which was passed overwhelmingly in Congress inclduing with the votes of Hillary Clinton and Obama was never fully implemented. Why? Kay Bailey Hutchinson initiated an amendment that effectively neutered it. Faced with major criticism by cities on the Texas border who complained that it made it more difficult to go back and forth for business, shopping, etc, the decision as to where and how build the fence was transferred to DHS. So no more fences in certain areas or no more double fences.

Personally, I believe there is so much money from the drug cartels, that many of our officials have been corrupted. The fence is an impediment to some of the corruption. I also firmly believe that this whole flood of "children" (80% of whom are 14 or older) has been orchestrated by the Administration and the countries of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. They are working together to put pressure on Congress for amnesty. And all of these countries benefit immensely from remittances, which are a significant part of their economies. Mexico alone gets over $22 billion annually. Each year $123 billion a year goes from the US to countries around the globe from people sending money back home. That is money that is not being spent in the US.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.