Open Door Policy for Terrorists

Arizona’s recent passage of SB1070 reignited a long simmering debate in America about immigration and border security. One imagines that this debate will continue to be an issue through this year’s November elections.

Those on the right claim that illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans, sap government funds, increase gang violence and commit sundry crimes against people legally in America. Moreover, the righties believe that illegal is illegal and if you are caught doing something illegal you should pay the price (presumably deportation).

Those on the left contend that almost all “undocumented workers” are hard working people just hoping to find a piece of the American dream. The lefties contend that the jobs being worked by “undocumented workers” are jobs that Americans wouldn’t take anyway and that “undocumented workers” are no more prone to commit crimes than those legally in the United States.

All of which misses one big point – the federal government’s open door policy to our borders is an open door policy for terrorists.

We have enacted the Patriot Act, presumably to stop terrorism. We are fighting two wars, presumably to stop terrorism. Everything from re-entering the United States with a valid US passport to opening a bank account is much more difficult than it used to be, presumably to stop terrorism.

Yet, the lefties just can’t handle the fact that our open borders are among the biggest risks we have to another wave of terrorist attacks. The following video sums up the matter rather well. And remember, it only takes one terrorist attack to ruin your whole day.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


31 responses to “Open Door Policy for Terrorists”

  1. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Gee, it's exciting to see a post like this pegged to an Atlanta TV station and conersvative Arizona Republican congressman J.D. Hayworth. It's something a low budget TV station could probably put together in haf a day at most. Talk about your penetrating investigative reporting, all designed to support Arizona's racist immigration law.
    A few little points:

    Has one known terrorist from the Muslim World who actually was caught in a deadly act come up via the Arizona desert? Please name one, if you can?
    Did any of the 9/11 terrorists enter the U.S. by hiking across the sand or coming in an overloaded van from Mexico? I know that some did take flight training in Arizona among other states like Florida but I don't believe any came via Mexico.
    While you are at it, why not somehow look at the Canadian border? It is even MORE open than the one with Mexico and is more convenient — no sweltering heat — no Border Guards on ATVs or militias.
    Did you know that during World War II, Nazi spies actually infilitrated the U.S. via Canada? One exfiltrated froma U.S. mission through a small seaport on the St. Lawrence River.
    So, Groveton, why not seal off the Canadian borders? Don't want to? Could be because that would involve WHITE people?

    Not that I am calliing you a racist, you understand. But geez, if you are going to dazzle us with imbedded video, can't you do better than an Atlanta tv station and a right wing congressman?

    Peter Galuszka

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, you seem to be guilty of a failure of imagination — the same kind of failure that led to 9/11. By your logic, if terrorists have not infiltrated into the U.S. through the open sieve of the Mexican border, then it's simply not a problem to worry about. We worry about it only AFTER terrorists have gotten in.

    Now, it is probably true that one or more terrorists have entered the U.S. via Canada. But there is no reason to "seal the borders." The difference between Canada and Mexico is not that Canada is full of "white people," but… wrap your brain around this… the Canadians make a good faith and mostly effective effort to halt the illegal movement of people across the border, while the Mexicans are totally ineffectual.

    If the Canadian border were as porous as the Mexican border, you betcha conservatives would be screaming to do something about it.

  3. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Wrap your brain around this. Dangerous terrorists of the type who brought on 9/11 are highly intelligent. They are more likely to take advantage of Canada's open border than Mexico's more problematic "porous" border. The 9/11 terrorists planned for the attacks for several years. Did they got hrough Mexico? Did they, Jim?

    Would they, you ask. Why bother. Given the laxes in routine airline security on flights to places like Detroit, it is likely that the more dangerous terrorists might simply gain access to the U.S. and any one of many international airports under false credentials.
    So, if you can tear yourself away from your right-wing harrumphing about those brown-skinned Mexicans for a few minutes, why not think like the writer of a spy novel. You are Haikim the Terrorist. Your mission is to blow up the Cato Institute. Would you do so by sweating with dozens of illgeal Mexicans in the back of a step van at Tuscon? Or would you come in on a business class flight, latte in hand, as it landed in Chicago or Toronto with a connecting flight to Philadelphia.

    This is why Groveton's post is irrelevant if not racist.

    Peter Galuszka

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the facts on the ground are that the vast, vast majority of those arrested for planning or actual acts of terrorism did NOT come in through Mexico.

    This is yet another right wing canard used to rev up the immigration issue.

    take a look at the so-called Congressional Report that the so-called news report references.

    Look at the author:

    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Chairman"

    read the report and find out how many undocumented have been intercepted and arrested as terrorists and now are held in prison or Gitmo.

    None. Zip. Nada.

    Now look at how many terrorists have been arrested that came in through Canada or actual Visa to the US – which is not in this report.

    The US has over 9000 miles of coastline with millions of boats coming in and out every day – and more than sufficient to bring in drug contraband … not offloaded by robots but offloaded by people who can and do step off the boat and get in a car and disappear and among the cargo of drugs could easily be a suitcase bomb or stinger missile.

    The "secure border" idea as a bulk work against terrorists sneaking in the country is as simplistic as it is moronic.

    How about we build several thousand coast guard cutters sufficient for them to be connected by cables so we can REALLY …SECURE our borders against terrorists?

    Or how about we explain to Canada that we don't want no stinkin Canadians coming into this country as illegals and secure that border?

    Terrorism is:

    1. – not going to go away

    2. – easily capable of attacking US interests around the world including embassies around the world

    3. – not going to be stopped by such mindless fantasies as a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

    What this is – is little more than more demagoguery by conflating "illegal" immigration with the terrorism bogeyman…

    If we could have stopped the importation of illegal drugs, we could have stopped, in fact, the people brining them in also.

    and even if we actually did accomplish this – what would you do about the Timmothy McVeighs and other U.S. citizens flying airplanes into IRS buildings?

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    If Bush and Obama had done their constitutional jobs, instead of trying to cater to special interests, Arizona would not need to have acted. Yet, one more time, a severe problem can be traced to the sewer of America — Washington, D.C.

    If federal law requires any resident alien to carry a green card, is that racist? Would it be racist for the feds to check for compliance with this requirement?
    What makes it racist for a state to ask for the same identification that the feds can demand?

    Keep in mind that the Arizona statute, which Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have not bothered to read, permit the police to request identification (which can be even a valid drivers license),only on an otherwise lawful stop. Why is it OK for the police to ask for similar identification in Virginia on ordinary traffic stops, but not in Arizona?

    Why is it wrong for Arizona to have a much more lax law than Mexico's immigration law? Etc., etc., etc.

    If the federal government simply did its job of enforcing laws on the books, we would not have this problem. Again, if you want to change the law to permit guest workers, who can get a permit to come to the U.S. for work and also be protected by U.S. labor laws, I'm ready to support the concept. But then again, maybe many wouldn't want that law enforced either.


  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I think the debate about immigration is a fair debate.

    When we focus on on particular aspect (people, border, jobs) of immigration and then claim it is ALSO about terrorism, then we undercut the legitimacy of that debate.

    If we are serious about illegal employment, then let's deal with that issue.

    if we are serious about borders, then lets' put forth a full effort for all our borders.

    if we are serious about terrorism, then let's deal with ALL the ways that any/all "terrorists" can get into this country instead of targeting the effort to one border – as a proxy against not terrorism but immigration – which on it's face is disingenuous in intent.


    At that point, just about any other issue could be approached in the same way – not on it's merits but on our prejudices.

  7. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    "Harumphing about those brown-skinned Mexicans"…

    Race is your trump card, isn't it? Define any issue as a matter of race and, bingo, the debate is over. Doesn't matter what the other guy's arguments are — he's a racist!

    Maybe I should play the "socialist" trump card (although calling someone a socialist is far milder in our society than calling him a racist). Peter, you're a socialist. Socialism is bad. Therefore I don't have to engage your ideas.

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    as long as I feel it IS about racism then I'd refuse to engage the rest of their "ideas" – yes.

    Just as racists now rush to the defense of Rand Paul for his "principled" stand on the govt involving itself in the affairs of private businesses to deal with Jim Crow practices.

    If you want my support – then you need to get the racism out of the argument – yes.

    I'm not going to stand beside racists to deal with this problem.

  9. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Yo Bacon,
    You want a trump card. Larry G. is right. You guys trot out scare tactics about terrorism to mask your feelings about non-white immigrants.

    But this is nothing new consider this I got from a paper:

    "Early in 1919, Congress began pressuring the Justice Department to take action against radicals. It had a receptive audience in Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. A self-styled enemy of foreign subversion who hoped to become president, Palmer was given to making public statements like "fully 90% of the communist and anarchist agitation is traceable to aliens." Then, on June 2, 1919, a bomb exploded outside Palmer's Washington, D.C., home. Found among the remains of the dead bomber was a pamphlet signed by "the anarchist fighters," warning of more violence to come. The attack set in motion changes that would leave a lasting mark on federal law enforcement: Palmer created the Radical Division of the Justice Department, and assigned a promising young bureaucrat named J. Edgar Hoover to head it. Within a few months, Hoover had compiled thousands of names of suspected radicals and their organizations; later, as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he would compile more.

    Spurred by public expectations, the Justice Department acted in November 1919 and January 1920 by launching massive raids. More than ten thousand people were arrested — some for membership in Communist or left-wing groups, others on no greater pretext than that they looked or sounded foreign — and then jailed and interrogated with little regard for their right to due process. Hundreds were subsequently deported, some aboard a U.S. Navy troop transport. But the raids backfired: Congress was scandalized by the disregard shown for constitutional rights. Along with the newly formed American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and

    the American Bar Association, lawmakers denounced the attorney general. The raids had two unforeseen consequences for Palmer: first, they ended his presidential aspirations, and second, they dashed his hopes of seeing new federal legislation that would allow for the arrest of subversive citizens, much as the 1918 Immigration Act permitted deportation of subversive aliens. Hoover, who had overseen the execution of the raids and some deportations, escaped reproach."

    I look forward to your response, Jim.

    Peter Galuszka

  10. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    By the way, Groveton,
    You mention the Patriot Act which I find a total pain in the ___
    Example: Last fall when my 17-year-old daughter entered college, we got a checking account for her so she could use an ATM card to get cash. I cosigned and was named on the account.
    It all worke dout fine. SHe turned 18 in November and serveral months later we got emrgency calls from the bank saying they would cut off our account.
    Why? The Patriot Act. Once she tunred 18, the law apparently said that she had to produce documentation of her citizenship. Not a problem since she was born in N. Carolina and has a passport and is obviously a U.S. citizen. But I had to gather all her documents and fax them.
    I wonder how this hassle stops terrorists.


  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, I'm missing a step in your logic. Back in 1919, some Americans (nativists, know-nothings, Congressmen) associated immigrants with radical immigrants, a belief that led to abuses… So what? That was almost a century ago. Are you trying to draw a historical analogy?

    What's the analogy you're trying to make? Spell it out for me.

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    Undocumented aliens are less likely to commiot crimes because they know they will be shipped back.

    Give them temporary work papers and charge them double social security.

    Solve two problems at once.


  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Anybody know how many illegal latinos are enlisted in the US military? It is one way they can earn amnesty.


  14. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    then why the effort to characterize illegal immigration in general as having violent bad guys and terrorists in their ranks?

    We have always had people running drugs to this country whether from Columbia or Asia but did we ever characterize those people as "undocumented" "terrorists" and on THAT basis seek to shut them down?


    It was/is – the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" now a conflated proxy for the "war on illegal immigration".

    okay so here's we don't hear on these issues.

    We don't hear how drugs through Mexico compare to our drugs coming in through other channels.

    We also don't see a list of terrorists in terms of they got into the country – including through Mexico.


    What we here is that terrorists and drug runners are coming in through Mexico – as if both problems were greatest along that border.

    so why should I believe these people who say that they are "concerned" about drug cartels and terrorism when the only kinds they seem to be most concerned about are only one kind?

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, what is so offensive about a nation controlling its borders and preventing illegal immigration? I don't get it. Deciding who enters and who stays in a country is a fundamental power of every sovereign nation.

    And it's not like the U.S. has not admitted a large number of Mexicans as U.S. citizens. According to DHS reports, in 2009 111,630 Mexicans were naturalized as U.S. citizens. That 15.0% of the total and Mexico represents the largest source of new U.S. citizens. Figures for 2008 were 231,815 22.2%. For 2007, 122,258 18.5%. We seem to be welcoming many former Mexican citizens as U.S. citizens when they follow the law. And many of them do. But for some, it's easier to cry racism than to address the facts.

    Bush did not enforce the law, and Obama is following in his footsteps. The law should be enforced. If it were, there would be no need for state enforcement. If we had an honest discussion of the facts, we also see that many Mexicans are immigrating lawfully to the U.S. and many are becoming citizens, just as it was intended to be.


  16. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – none of the Presidents did anything about it – in large part because amnesty is considered a deal breaker – when it's clear that some form of it will have to be in any resolution.

    I think mutual toads have to be swallowed and as long as we tolerate the involvement of those with racist motives in the dialog.. we won't get far.

    and we know.. when we are moving in the wrong direction – when those who are opposed – further demagogue rather than purge the racism and offer conciliatory proposals rather than lines in the sand.

  17. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – how many times have we heard that we CAN control the importation of drugs into this country – the "war on drugs"?

    It's a fantasy.

    no physical wall is going to stop drugs from coming into this country as long as there is a demand for the drugs.

    but NOW… it's the drugs and terrorists that have become the NEW REASON for the wall – when we know that walls don't stop drugs or terrorists.

    Don't you find the " a wall will stop the drugs and terrorists" argument just a tad bit dishonest?

    If you are a person who truly believes that we do need to do something to deal with the illegal immigration – would you latch onto the "wall" argument?

  18. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim Bacon,

    FYI, in 1999 one Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian terrorist, was arrested at Port Angeles, Wash. He entered the U.S. through Canada and was found with a trunkful of explosives intended for Los Angeles International Airport.The U.S. Border Guard said she searched Ressam not because he was dark-skinned, but because he was sweating profusely and it was December.
    Good call.
    As for the Palmer Act, I am alluding to a regular part of U.S. history that naturally is xenophobic. The fact was that conservatives ran amok with threats of foreign "terrorists" but in fact it was because The White Bread establishment didn't like people with funny last names or dark skin. The point here is to note another period in U.S. history where being "foreign' is defined by White Protestants of Northern or Central European ancestry.
    Re: Mexico. We've heard all of this before, including the so-called "tunnel" so wide that terrorists could actually jog their way into the U.S.
    What I find so cruelly ironic with Arizona's racist law is that it is set up by White European-Americans who are actually newcomers to the state. The brown-skinned HIspanics have ben there for centuries. Ditto Native Americans. Yet these White American-Europeans, many off them golf-playing retirees who arrived in the 1960-80s from other parts of the U.S., are setting themselves up as the real "Americans" who get to make the rules to protect what they consider to be their way of life.
    Are elements of this racist?
    As Sarah Palin might say: "You betcha!"

    Peter Galuszka

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter, the period of history you are addressing occurred under T. Woodrow Wilson, who except for his absolute commitment to racism, was as liberal as Obama. With all due respect, I think you are using the word "racism" to avoid discussion of the failure of both Republicans & Democrats to enforce the federal immigration laws.

    If the U.S. and its citizens were as racist as you suggest, we would not be naturalizing more people from Mexico than from any other country. It would not happen. Most people are open to legal immigration. What part of illegal don't liberals understand. Please explain how the U.S. can naturalize many Mexicans year after year and be racist against Mexicans? Your argument fails on the facts.


  20. Groveton Avatar

    Well …. I'm baaaack! I wondered if my little article about immigration would spark any controversy. We have multiple comments from Jim Bacon, I am somehow a racist and EMR found mere comments insufficient preferring to write an entire article about throwing rocks in empty pidgeon holes (whatever the hell that means). Peter relies on the always trusty approach of taking disconnected episodes in history as counter-arguments for today.

    My, oh my.

    In my mind today's immigration debate is a perfect example of what's wrong with America. Zealots on both sides of the argument use emotional and illogical rhetoric to make their case. The same zealots could care less about the Unites States as they pursue their own selfish interests.

    Let's start with the lib leaders. Not the masses of hypnotized lib followers who buy the brain dead pap of Rachael Maddow or Joe Biden but the leaders, the architects of modern liberalism. These leaders hold a single, common belief – they are brilliant and everybody else is stupid. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed geniuses are plagued by this democracy thing-y. It seems that too few people see the obvious value in following intellectual giants like Joe Biden or Tim Kaine without question. So, these mental lions are forced to waste valuable brain waves dreaming up ways to subvert democracy. Illegal immigration is one of those plans. The lib leaders know their drivel plays best with the poor. However, there just aren't enough poor people to give the lib leaders the mandate which is, in their opinion at least, their God given right. So, what do they do? Import poor people who can be swindled into becoming lib followers. Ignore federal law, fail to make any serious effort to seal the borders, let the poor pour into America and then grant amnesty. Presto, millions and millions of new lib followers. So what if the importation of millions of uneducated poor people merely serves to keep America's poor from making economic progress? All that lib crapola about loving the poor is just propoganda anyway. Who cares if a few terrorists walk through the open door of our borders and kill a few thousand Americans? That's a drop in the bucket compared to the utopia of a lib centric world.

    The con(servative) men are no better. They don't want to rule the world, they want to own it. But that pesky democracy thing-y annoys them too. First, the stinkin' people think that the con men should pay taxes. Every dollar paid in taxes is another doallr they no longer own. And you can't own the world until you own all the dollars. Next come the darn poor people. Always wanting raises and health benefits and upward mobility. Minimum wage? What a crock. Where can good con men find lots of people willing to work for low wages and no benefits without adding to the lib follwers? Hmmm… Wait a minute! They import them. Lots and lots of cheap labor that keeps the profits pouring into conservative pockets.

    That's how I see it. Two equally disgusting sets of con artists willing to sell out everybody in the furtherance of their own agendas. Followed by an army of hypnotized zombies spewing forth whatever drivel their libtard or con men masters tell them to spew.

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    for those who say the U.S. is not doing it's job with respect to illegal immigration – do you feel this way about ALL immigration?

    do you know that the U.S. is not doing it's job properly with respect to immigration no matter whether it is Hispanic, Russian and Pakistani?

    If you do..then why do you restrict your concern just to Hispanics?

    this is the kind of thing I am talking about.

    I don't think I've heard any of those who say they only want the US to do what it is supposed to do.. refer to immigration as a general subject of failure – across the board or just their favorite kind they don't like.

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, I like immigration. My ancestors were immigrants. My kids are immigrants. I belong to an organization that is adding four immigrants to its board of directors.

    I don't think that immigration should be wide open. We need time for immigrants to become assimilated to American society, as they add to its richness. The immigration valve can and should be loosened and tightened over time.

    I think we should refocus our priorities on immigrants who can add to economic growth and not import poverty. I don't think we have an obligation to serve as Mexico's and Central America's safety valve. Those nations need to reform themselves.

    I believe the immigration laws need to be enforced without regard to immigrants' nationality. Legal is legal; and illegal is illegal. But there are not vast numbers of Estonians or Nigerians scooting across our borders illegally as their are vast numbers of Hispanics scooting across our southern border. To recognize this reality is not racist or arbitrary.

    Does this mean we should ignore the Port of Baltimore or Dulles International Airport? No. But the major problem for illegal immigration is the U.S.-Mexico border. It needs to be protected. The government also needs to crack down harder on employers of illegal workers.


  23. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – we agree for the most part but I continue to point out that drug runners and terrorists are not "illegal" immigrants and the things we say we need to do to address illegal immigration is not the same as the things we nee to do to address drug running and terrorism and mixing the two together just takes us further away from solving the issue.

    The point being made is that muslim terrorists can somehow make their way to Central American/Venezuela and then work their way up through Mexico.

    Could not the same thing be done by Guatemalans, El Salvadorans and the like?

    are we worried about them?

    does anyone REALLY think out of all the different methods that a terrorist would have available to them to infiltrate that they'd pick the Mexican border over the other options?

    Someone said that they're learning Spanish so they can Assimilate… ha ha ha

    so..they have to learn Spanish AND English so they can infiltrate?

    TMT – don't you think this kind of talk is really a distraction to the real issue?

  24. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    America's long history of xenophobia and anti-intellectualism is not some sort of disconnect that limp-minds like me turn to when we want to make an argument about today.
    On the contrary. We are showing the continuum.
    Your argument that the long-standing problems with America's southwestern border could be a conduit for terrorist and subversists is hardly new.
    There could be some truth to it. The KGB and its predecessors maintained an extra large station in Mexico City just because of the border. But then, if you study spy history, you learn that some of the KGB's most successful operations against the U.S.domestically came through Canada, notably the one to steal atomic secrets during WWII.
    And, there hasn't been much evidence that Islamic terrorists have come either through Mexico or Canada. Most came through routine U.S. airports.
    Jim Bacon may react viscerally when someone says "racist." But I react in the same when when I hear some conservative sound the clarion call for freedom in such a selective fashion that really doesn't adress facts, history or reality.

    Welcome back and when are you leaving again?

    Peter Galuszka

  25. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "…. a security expert who has seen the memo tells"


    Faux – News….

    similar to flesh-eating disease except it attacks the mind….

  26. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    So much for Peter's calumny that Republicans aren't concerned about security along the U.S. Canadian border. This comes from The Washington Times:

    Border patrol has bear of time stopping terrorists from north

    As if fighting terrorism weren't complicated enough, the United States has a new national security threat to worry about: grizzly bears.

    Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee say that environmental laws protecting grizzlies and other wild animals along rural portions of the U.S.-Canada border have handcuffed U.S. Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security agents, potentially making it easier for would-be terrorists to slip into the country.

    Trucks and off-road vehicles are prohibited along much of the border in order to protect bears moving between the two countries. But such laws make it difficult for agents to patrol these areas, the lawmakers say.

    Border agents can request access permission from the Interior Department and other federal land agencies that control much of the border. But agents often must act quickly to deal with security threats, making the permission process unfeasible, the Republicans say.

    "Unfortunately, restrictive policies created and enforced by the Interior Department and federal land managers are preventing the U.S. Border Patrol from providing the maximum amount of security on some of our most vulnerable border areas," said Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, the top Republican on the House's national parks, forests and public lands subcommittee.

    "Until these policies are reversed, the safety and security of this country remain in jeopardy."

    Mr. Bishop has sponsored legislation to exempt border agents from certain environmental restrictions and "to ensure that [federal] agencies do not impede or restrict Border Patrol from effectively doing their job to secure both the southern and northern border on public lands."

    The bill also pertains to the U.S. border with Mexico, where private landowners complain that people crossing illegally into the U.S. have caused environmental damage by leaving trash and trampling on wildlife habitats.

    But with national concerns over illegal border crossings focused mostly on the southern border, House Republicans say, more attention is needed for the U.S.-Canada border, the world's longest between two countries.

    "The national security threat from the North is real," said a statement released by the Republicans last month.

  27. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, I guess you'll have to change your slur from "Republicans don't like brown skin" to "Republicans don't like brown-skin or brown fur!"

  28. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    and if grizzlies weren't such a complicating factor, consider this:

    " Eight years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and despite repeated mandates from Congress, the United States still has no reliable system for verifying that foreign visitors have left the country."

    Last year alone, 2.9 million foreign visitors on temporary visas like Mr. Smadi’s checked in to the country but never officially checked out, immigration officials said. While officials say they have no way to confirm it, they suspect that several hundred thousand of them overstayed their visas."

    so even after we shut down both the Mexican and Canadian borders, we still have thousands of people who are not only unaccounted for, but many would-be terrorists who find it easy to fly-direct to the US than to fly to Canada/Mexico to sneak in.

    If the Republicans and those who say they are serious about illegal immigration – really were – why would they not also address the 40% who don't come in from Mexico?

  29. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I guess Peter would say this guy is a racist, too:

    Larry, you are absolutely right, a large percentage of illegal immigrants come into the country totally legally, then overstay their visas illegally. Republicans *are* serious about stopping these people. The Bush administration initiated the building of a massive database to help keep track of people who enter legally but stay illegally. Based on a conversation I had with a young man who works for the project, it's coming pretty far along.

  30. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Omigosh, now the racists have infiltrated the U.S. military's Southern Command. From the Washington Examiner:

    "Smuggling of potential terrorists across the border is evolving into a billion dollar industry for Mexican drug cartels while posing a significant threat to the United States, according to federal law enforcement officials.

    "That was echoed in a recent assessment by the U.S. military's Southern Command that found drug cartels are taking advantage of a "largely unregulated" border to create security risk for the United States."

    Read more at the Washington Examiner.

Leave a Reply