One of the reasons given for invading Iraq was that the regime in question was aiding terrorist organizations either directly, or indirectly by looking the other way regarding terrorist camps. Isn’t that exactly what the Bush administration is doing when it refuses to enforce immigration laws and looks the other way instead of dealing with the issue of illegal immigration?
There are 1.5 million illegal aliens entering the United States each year. That’s over 4 thousand illegal aliens entering the U.S. every day. Since we invaded Iraq over 150 thousand illegal aliens entered the country. If one in a thousand were terrorists that would be 150 new terrorists entering the country in the last 40 days. If one in ten thousand illegal aliens were terrorists then 15 terrorists have entered the country since the start of the war with Iraq. Is one in ten thousand illegal aliens an unrealistic number to tag as potential terrorists? There were only nineteen terrorists in the 9-11 attacks.
What if the 15 terrorists used chemical biological or nuclear weapons in an act of mass murder? Are you or your family safe from such an attack? Is it possible that 15 well-trained immigrant terrorists could take out a major city with a nuclear device?
Then of course there is the more complex issue of tracking down and deporting the 13-20 million illegal aliens in America. How many of them are terrorists?
The 9-11 attacks demonstrated clearly that in the 21st century the preferred delivery system for weapons of mass destruction is an immigrant.
The Bush administration doesn’t have a right to look the other way regarding illegal immigration. The executive branch of government is supposed to enforce the law not pick and choose which ones it agrees with. Rather than creating a military presence on our streets a military presence should exist on our borders.
How can this administration condemn Syria for aiding Iraq by not controlling its borders yet maintains no control over its own borders? Isn’t allowing potential terrorists into the United States a worse threat to national security than Syria’s support for anti-Israeli terrorists? Shouldn’t an administration willing to go to war to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction be concerned about those weapons crossing its own borders?
Recently Tom Ridge released a joint statement with his Mexican counter part which “outlined specific actions that would be taken to create a smart border for the 21st century, one that embraces technology and enhanced bilateral cooperation to ensure the secure flow of people and goods and the development of a secure and sufficient infrastructure necessary to facilitate the growing trade between Mexico and the United States, to promote legitimate travel across the border, and to protect against
crime and terrorism.”
This is bizarre. Volunteers from American Border Patrol have caught the Mexican military on video smuggling hundreds of illegal aliens into the United States.
As if the threat of terrorism created by no borders isn’t enough, now the threat of deadly epidemics should open eyes. Bio-terrorism can’t be ruled out but SARS appears to be a natural phenomenon. This SARS epidemic may spread like a wild fire if international travel is not immediately restricted. Instead of restricting international travel the federal government will most likely wait until it becomes an epidemic and restrict travel in localities within the United States, or worse, mandate tracking devices on individuals to ensure that they follow quarantine guidelines.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to restrict international travel than to restrict the movements of U.S. citizens?
Even if international travel is restricted immediately the SARS epidemic will still spread because of illegal immigration. There is no way to track the 4 thousand plus illegal aliens that enter the U.S. each and every day.
The ideology of ‘open’ or ‘no borders’ has proven itself to be an ideology of death. It was proven so on 9-11. SARS is further proof. That the president and much of congress from both parties continue to cling to the fallen belief system of a borderless world is in itself a testament to the transparency of the war on terrorism.
How many Americans must die to serve the fanatical religion of ‘open borders’? How many liberties must be sacrificed to appease the God of this borderless world?
Terrorism is the child of a borderless world. SARS is in the U.S. because of an allegiance to open borders. These policies that directly caused the 9-11 attacks will cause further destruction in America. They will continue to create terrorism and the spread of deadly infectious diseases that will increase domestic instability resulting in the strengthening of a police state.
Some people may define patriotism as an unquestioning support for the president, congress, and the policies they continue to carry out, in other words worship of the state. Realizing that the state exists because we allow it to exist, not the other way around, I therefore must choose to question the motives and actions of the president and much of congress when they continue to carry out policies that threaten the very existence, let alone the freedom of our people.
Most Americans would prefer to live in an isolated and free country instead of a police state. Patriotism must be defined as the love of country not the love of the state.
You can’t have it both ways. If you support immigration you are supporting terrorism.
See ‘First US Soldier Killed in Iraq Not American':