Posted on 02/19/2008 6:18:26 AM PST by kellynla
Three Afghanis were arrested Wednesday at an international airport in India’s Kerala state for flying with forged Mexican passports. They had just arrived there from Kuwait, where officials examined the passports identifying them as “Antonio Lopez Juan,” “Javier Sanchez Alberto,” and “Atonio Lopez Ernesto,” and found that they didn’t understand any Spanish. Maybe they were also suspicious of these inept attempts to ape Spanish names.
“Antonio,” “Javier,” and “Atonio” insisted they were trying to get to France, but given their newly-minted Mexican identities, that seems about as likely as the possibility that Hillary Clinton will cede the Democratic nomination gracefully to Barack Obama. Now what could Afghan nationals who don’t speak Spanish want with Mexican passports? Maybe they were really tired of Afghan fare and were craving some enchiladas. Or maybe they were hoping to craft a new brand of Afghan/mariachi music.
From the general level of concern exhibited in official Washington after other evidence of jihadist attempts to cross into the U.S. from Mexico, one might reasonably assume that nothing more worrisome than mariachi is going on. But in the real world, this incident is yet another indication of the national security aspect of the immigration issue.
The warnings have been coming in for years. In June 2004, border patrol agents arrested 77 “Middle Eastern” men attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-Tex.) said that such attempts are “happening all over the place. It’s very, very scary.” In October of that year, intelligence officials began investigating allegations that 25 nationals from another hotbed of jihad, Chechnya, had crossed into the country across the Arizona border. And the next month, a captured Egyptian jihadist named Sharif al-Masri told interrogators about Al-Qaeda’s plans to “smuggle nuclear materials to Mexico,” where “operatives would carry material into the U.S.” A Bangladeshi Muslim, Fakhrul Islam, was arrested in December 2004 while trying to cross into Texas from Mexico. With him were members of the Central American Mara Salvatruchas gang, which some officials allege has ties to Al-Qaeda.
In June 2005, the FBI uncovered an operation dedicated to smuggling Iranians into the United States from Mexico. Five months later, Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) said: “They just arrested, down on the border, a couple of weeks ago, three al-Qaeda members who came across from Mexico into the United States.” And in December of that year, immigration crusader Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) revealed that 51 illegal immigrants were arrested on terror-related charges between October 2004 and December 2005. In November 2007, the FBI issued an advisory about a plan by jihadists in league with Mexican drug lords to cross the border via underground tunnels and attack the intelligence training center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, twenty miles from the border with Mexico. “The Afghanis and Iraqis,” one official explained, paid the Mexicans $20,000 or “the equivalent in weapons” for their help in getting into the U.S., and “shaved their beards so as not to appear to be Middle Easterners.”
If all this isn’t an argument for border security, what is? Perhaps the most curious aspect of these stories that are two and three years old is that they didn’t get national attention, and didn’t result in genuine action to secure our borders. But with the latest incident in India, McCain, Hillary, and Obama should be asked pointed questions about their immigration policies, and asked to go beyond the dismissal of immigration controls as “racism” to address the genuine national security issues involved in the continued porous state of our southern border.
There is no way to estimate how many jihadists may already have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. But the time to play politics with the border issue is long past. The shallow sloganeering and race-baiting that have dominated the national debate about border controls should be recognized as what they are: hindrances to sane and sensible national defense measures.
Why should we stand idle while those who have vowed to destroy us cross the border with relative impunity? And why isn’t such a question being asked of our presidential candidates at every stop they make on the hustings?
A fence won’t make us secure! Once you realize that fact, then we can move on with a real and honest discussion!
BTW, your home is not secure! It can be broken into!
Rick ran out of money. The virtual border is turned off!.
Ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
Any ‘shoring up’ of the Southern border security has come in the last year and a half-assed attempt at that.
El Presidente has lost his previous supporters over this issue.
It has also destroyed the Republican party.
How many freepers have written that when the Party called wanting donation they/we told them that until the border was secured ,forget it. I did.
Pres. Bush wasn’t alone in nixing border security, the repub congresspeople were/are lukewarm at best. But the president sets the tone and twists arms.
He didn’t.
IMO, the powers that be, are hoping for a major terrorist event in this country that would precipitate a further freedom grab. Perhaps to the extent where foreign/UN troops would be introduced into this country to seize arms and maintain order.(remember New Orleans) SPP/NAU/NWO
Sorry to tell you but, that line has worn thin. (thanks to it’s over use defending the Bush doctrine)
We all know the terrorists are very patient. It was 8 yrs between the two WTC attacks. This time, they may be preparing for a larger, more wide spread attack.
Regardless of how many illegals are in this country, the few that count can cause major destruction.
Focus people, focus!
He looks like Euro-trash.
Exactly, just like our border security! It's focused, just not on Joe Mexican!
“A fence won’t make us secure?”
If fences don’t work, why do they have one at the WH?
“your home is not secure?”
Tell you what, Marine.
I’ll bet you a million dollars you can’t break into my house and walk out.
Let me know when you’ve got your funds together.
The only thing I “realize” is that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about! LMAO
Actually fences work quite well. Walls work even better.
From kellnla’s earlier responses, I’ll presume he’ll quite and go home!
How many tunnels did a fence or wall stop?
Wow... what a treasure of information... may not sleep tonight after reading that...
Thank You!
I work the fence in downtown Calexico almost every day. Things would be far worse without the fence. The fact is, fences make it harder for people to cross and easier to catch when they do cross. So fences are good and walls are better. Illegal aliens aren’t ghosts, they can’t walk through solid objects. It takes more time and effort to get over a good fence than it does to simply just walk across a street.
“Do you quite and go home do you defeat the obstacle?”
Do you “quite?” what is “quite?” LMAO
“From kellnla’s earlier responses, I’ll presume he’ll quite and go home?”
Again, what is “quite?” LOL
What this Marine has done, has nothing to do with what illegals & muzzies have done and are doing...which is crossing the borders...mostly unabated, genius.
Let me know when you come up with that million...
and we’ll see if you can break into my house and walk out...
waiting...
PS You might want to invest in an English dictionary so the rest of us can understand what the hell you are talking about.
I’m not arguing the fact that fences and wall are obstacles! You know as well as I do, fences and walls won’t stop those that are determined to get in. Some folks here seem to think a fence will make the border impassable to all. I can’t count the number of times I climbed a fence, cut a fence or dug under a fence!
You’re a far better grammar officer then you are security officer!
BTW, I don’t want your money!
“BTW, I don’t want your money!”
yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...figures you’re all mouth, no balls
“You’re a far better grammar officer”
and before I leave you to your ignorance...
it’s not “grammar”, its your “spelling” that you need to work on. LOL
I was out in Hondo (”God’s country, don’t drive through it like hell”) last week, talking with some attorneys who practice between there and the border, and with one voice they complained that a fence is 1)impossible to build in that region and 2)will cut off livestock and landowners from the water in the Rio Grande. IF these are legitimate concerns, is anybody suggesting a real fix?
Colonel, USAFR
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.