Often times, I see a huge outcry from certain groups whenever you mention trying to seal the Mexican border. These groups are usually either Mexican or Latino sympathizers, or liberals saying that they should be allowed to come here.
Two points with that and then we will get to the real need for security. First, I think that most people that are pushing for border security are not doing so out of animosity towards a specific race or group of people. Secondly, the idea that people can freely violate the law to come here, and be allowed to stay, and if the Democrats have their way, be offered legal status, is repugnant to those of us that are law abiding citizens and to the millions that have followed the rules and are often left waiting for years to be approved.
The current push for some form of amnesty has to be stopped. We have done them before, and if we continue to do them, then the tide will never stop. We will always have to guard the border aggressively and hundreds of immigrants will continue to die each year, while trying to make the illegal crossing.
But, though these deaths are regrettable, my main concern is centered elsewhere at the moment.
My concern in regards to the lax security at the Mexican border is in relation to the OTMs (Other
Than Mexicans) that are being apprehended, or not being apprehended, at the border.
According to the Judicial Watch, in the article at this link from March, 2011, the Border Patrol apprehended 59,017 OTMs in FY2010. The total number of apprehended illegal immigrants was 454,447 (the 463,382 detentions, minus the 8905 smugglers in that number.) This means that 12.9% of the detainees were OTM. Of the OTMs, 807 were from countries that either were on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list or countries with known or suspected ties to terrorist groups. In addition, there were another 663 from special interest countries, specifically those that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism. So this is a total of 1,470 individuals from countries that either are known to, or suspected of, sponsoring terrorism. This number is less than 1% of the total illegal entrants that were apprehended, but this is still a worry.
I think, by now, most of us have heard of Abdullah al-Nasifi, as reported by the Washington Post here, that was videotaped advocating that one terrorist, sneaking across the Mexican border with a four pound case of Anthrax could kill 300,000 Americans in an instant.
Now, in 2010, 1,470 individuals from countries that are thought to sponsor terrorism crossed our border, so lets take that to the extreme and and say that those people made it into the country without being apprehended - what happens if they each brought a four pound case of anthrax? That would be enough anthrax to kill 441,000,000 people, or the entire population of the United States.
The scary part? The Border Patrol themselves, in the report that Judicial Watch obtained, estimate that three-fourths of all illegal crossers are NOT apprehended. That means that, if the ratios were to remain the same, 4,310 potentially state sponsored terrorist entered the United States in FY2010. The number of apprehensions in 2012 were significantly down, as reported by the border patrol as 356,873 for the Southwest Border in this report along with an estimate by the Washington Post that the apprehension rate has improved to about 50%. This means that at least 350,000 immigrants probably still made it across the border without being apprehended.
Using the same formulas as before, of the 350,000 about 1% would be potential terrorists, or 350, times the 300,000 estimated deaths from anthrax if they each brought four pounds, and we are still looking at the possibility of over 105,000,000 deaths. Better than the 441 million a few years ago, but still nearly a third of the country at risk of these terrorists.
So when people say that securing the border is purely based on hatred of Mexicans or people from Central or South America, take at look at the make up of who is crossing the border and realize that we need to stop this flow of terrorists into the country. If we don't, 9/11 make look like small cakes some day.
Amendment Guy
Twitter @amendment_guy
AGREED! My issues are also on ALL people who have come to the USA via the USA/Mexican Border, Why? They are the ones who are renting from unscrupulous landlords, they are the ones not being paid a decent wage, and obviously, can't turn in their landlord/employer for ANY Violations. I picture them without water, heat/air, bugs in their homes, some of which can carry diseases... There is probably not an employer out there, that makes them wear any OSHA required gear/safety measures, etc... I worry for the pregnant women, who are risking their own life, as well as the life of their child, by crossing illegally.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this issue is about their welfare when they finally do get here. We have ALLOWED this border area to not only allow illegals, but as you put forth, the world-wide known entry to this country, for the purpose of doing this nation
When there is a debate of the "pundits" on television, they almost never bring up security, or the conditions illegals live in, when they get here. And if someone dare say back, they are not following our immigration LAWS, the person that states this fact is labeled a racist! I truly wish that they could see this as if, we started to go to their country and pull this crap. I feel bad for the kids, who have no memories of their own country's lifestyle, traditions and the way things work there. It's sad. By the same token, I do not feel that we have ANY responsibility for the DREAMERs as they are labeled. No child should be punished for their parents doing/wrong doing, but WHERE is it written, that this automatically becomes a "problem/issue" FOR America? We have unsustainable debt, we do NOT have jobs here, when Americans and LEGAL immigrants can't find work?! Wouldn't ANY country be pissed that people by the millions have come, set up their lives and then, without assimilation, without regret for breaking our laws, hold marches and rally's DEMANDING Amnesty? I bet if WE did that to ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, we'd be lynched, not rewarded. It's that simple. Racism is called "out" but in reality, it's our frustration, anger that this continues to go unchecked and that our own president has executive ordered NOT to remove any illegals? His JOB as president - the oath that he has taken twice - in part is "To Uphold the Laws of The Constitution" I feel he is more worried about all of "them" no matter where they came from, than he s US! That is profound, astonishing and in my opinion, an impeachable event. Hey, that's just my 2 copper.
Hi Lovely Critter.
ReplyDeletei think that we both agree that the US should not be responsible for providing them the opportunity, unless they choose to come here through legal means. I also agree that if millions of Americans were to "invade" another country like this, we would be the bane of the world and rounded up and shipped home.
I will have to disagree with you on the employer part though, as I do know some employers do actually have them wear safety equipment when necessary - these employers are usually small employers for the most part, and they can't afford not to protect these workers as they are a source of less expensive labor for them. As for the landlords, well, I can't say for sure, but I have heard and seen stories of the squaller some of these immigrants live in, unfortunately, there are many US citizens that live the same way.
As for the administration allowing this to happen, yes I agree that this is wrong, and that the president has abused the intent of his Executive Order authority in many areas. Though maybe not directly impeachable for that, as he would have some amount of Executive Privilege, Congress needs to step up and stand up to him and his heavy handed use of EOs to legislate, as that is their purview, and until Congress steps in and says NO, he will continue to do what he is doing.