Posted on 10/12/2004 8:42:25 PM PDT by knak
up on drudge:
WASH TIMES: U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico... Members of the group, said to be wearing backpacks, secretly traveled to northern Mexico and crossed into a mountainous part of Arizona, Gertz to report in Pgae One Splash, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE...
Such a statement must logically presume that not one single terorist infiltrate from Mexico...which is not a credable statment.
As to it giving you the highest chance of getting caught...I can't say statistically, but I do not believe that such a statement is supported by the stats. Even if it were...the statistical chance is what is important given the numbers coming across.
I grant that coming ashore and coming through Canada are vulberabilities as well. We need to do the best we can do on all fronts and we can do more in each area. That's all. We are all on the same side here.
LOL! Except by their own Islamic law, it is just fine tell infidels bald faced lies.
False analogy. With the economic situation in East Germany vs. West Germany during the Cold War, the walls and concertina wire on the East German side were there to keep people in, not out. And the folks on the West German side weren't shooting at people on the East German side trying to get out; in fact they actively tried to help people cross.
Oh borders can be sealed, or at least controlled. It just takes the desire to do so.
I keep hearing that. Just like I keep hearing that we should "defeat evil". Both laudable goals, both pretty much unobtainable at our present level of technology.
Such a statement must logically presume that not one single terorist infiltrate from Mexico...which is not a credable statment.
No, Jeff. It means that not one single terrorist needs to use Mexico as an infiltration path, and that closing that path will not actually stop a terrorist from using other infiltration paths, which they will undoubtedly do, especially if you actually do manage to secure the US-Mexican border.
As to it giving you the highest chance of getting caught...I can't say statistically, but I do not believe that such a statement is supported by the stats. Even if it were...the statistical chance is what is important given the numbers coming across.
The number of Border Patrol officers is much higher per mile of US-Mexican border than anywhere else. Number of officers per mile is a sound metric for determining probability of capture. Thank you for your input.
ROTFLMAO........Last time I checked it was the US border patrol posting apprehension totals (in the THOUSANDS) from the Tucson Sector alone. (they also admit to only catching 1 in 5.)
Ya think the administration has been 'beefing up' the agents in AZ for the last year due solely to a *myth* created by Drudge, etc. ???
Then you are one of the few. Its good to hear a voice of sanity in this discussion.
But a wall along the Mexican border will serve mainly to stop illegal immigration
It would do no such thing, for it could never be built. You think the Great Wall of China was an engineering feat? It has taken decades and billions of dollars to build even a few miles of freeway in Boston (the Big Dig), and those are built on surfaces of known geological quality. This apocryphal 2100 mile long wall would be built along hardpan, desert sands, and even water in some places. And if you build it "properly", it will extend underground for enough feet to discourage tunneling under it, which makes it x number of feet taller than it appears to be on the surface.
In short, it would cost trillions of dollars and take decades to build. All for a structure, unguarded in long stretches by necessity, that could be breached by one man with a grappling hook and a rope.
Of course other types of 'walls' have to be put in place too, such as putting restrictions on immigration in general.
I agree on this one, especially for immigration from Mexico. And yes, my ancestors came through Ellis Island and they had to have the same qualifications as you mentioned.
If we continue to leave our borders as open as in the days before 9/11 then we are guilty of gross stupidity.
No argument here on this one. But a physical wall is just not the way to go.
Your theory seems to be a defeatist one, it's like saying that since the police can't stop crime in our cities and towns, then why have them at all?
Its not "defeatist" to recognize that an American Maginot Line is a non-starter and a money pit from the get go.
These are not ordinary times and the problems we face require some extraordinary measures.
As for the economic refugees in Mexico, they might not be so willing to risk desert heat, snakes, and a long trek from their homes if their economic situation in their own country were a little bit better. Kind of like George W. Bush is doing along with Vicente Fox right now.
Hopefully those avenues will get progressively more difficult too.
But, there will be a period of time, as our measure take effect (whenever we inplement them, and whatevere they are) when terrorists trying to infiltrate will run up against those measures and either be stopped, apprehended...or hopefully...extinguished.
During that period, however long it is (three months, six months, whatever) certainly tougher measures will prevent some terrorists from entering. That's why I said that such a statement that not one single terrorist would be prevented from entering is not credable...and I stand by tat statement.
Now, thank you for your input as well.
That's very true. Which is why you would have to build the brick structure so it moves and somehow magically lengthens and shortens to account for the movements of the two bodies. Which would surely be a lot easier engineering task than this new American Maginot Line.
Show me where it has ever been done in the history of the world.
We could do it easily.
No, we couldn't.
How dare anyone shower so early in the A.M.?
Palmer Stacy of Senator East's staff always quoted the old saw that "all countries are formed through immigration and all civilizations fall through immigration." The Roman Empire is a prime example as it grew weak when so many free inhabitants of Rome did not consider themselves Roman.
So what lower immigration numbers do you think are possible?
You're distorting what I said and evidently you didn't read all of my posts. I think Drudge wrote something like "four million people a year are walking across the border into Arizona." That's what I'm referring to. Now if you actually read a lot of my posts on FR you would realize that I know what I'm talking about. I'm going to do some research on how many people enter this country by walking in or by legal entry with a visa. Maybe you can try not to be so quick to hit people with the "ROTFLMAO." But I know, people get overagressive and disrepectful in anonymous internet forums, so we all get jumped on by a few people who have some agression to release. Now run along son and maybe I'll see you later.
"Securing the borders" is an unobtainable pipe dream, never before accomplished on this scale in the history of the world.
We need to do other things too. The Maginot line forced the Germans to go around it.
For a little while. Then they simply overwhelmed the Line and it became a very expensive tourist attraction.
You make my point for me - the Germans simply went around it.
That's what land mines and fortifications are supposed to do -- to channel the invaders. But the French failed to follow up and provide for a proper army to defend against that.
They couldn't - they were getting shot at via Belgium and every other point of entry the Germans found.
It is much better and cheaper to stop them at the border that to try to round them up after they are here.
But you can't. (Stop them at the border, that is). Border too big, resources too few.
The value of securing the borders is in keeping out massive numbers of illegal voters. The threat is showing itself now. We are seeing local politicians in California and other southern states that are sympathetic to illegals and doing everything they can to make illegals a privileged criminal class who are above the law.
Yes, and the goal of "defeating evil in all its forms" is a laudable one as well.
If border security is a "false sense of security" then please tell me what you think a "true" sense of security would be? Would you do nothing?
Nobody can "defeat evil in all its forms" - we simply don't have the ability to do that. All we can do is be vigilant, fight it when we see it, and support those who are trying to do so. As the Poles found out during WW II, horse-mounted cavalry cannot defeat heavy armor. And we cannot defeat terrorism simply by undertaking a multi billion dollar public works project that has never worked for any society that tried it before.
You don't know basic tradecraft techniques, so it's pointless trying to educate you here. This is a circular argument, so adios.
Neither Bush nor Kerry are serious about the border. Kerry is worse, so, therefore, Bush is better. However, this threat is real and Bush will be held accountable if something happens. What will it feel like if such an attack happens. How will you respond when Tom Ridge gets on TV and tells us in his syrupy wat that the best way to fight the terrorists is to "go on with our lives?" That is, we should keep buying things so that our economic numbers will look good for Jeb's 2008 bid. .
This is a real threat. We need to stop drinking the kool aid and demand that the borders be sealed to the best of our ability, that the war be prosecuted vigorously in Iraq. Ask many of those deployed my friend and they will tell you the same thing.
Why can't we act before something terrible happens? Don't get me wrong, Bush is a thousand times better than that idiot Kerry, but Bush has a LONG way to go yet and, I am afraid, will not do anything about the border until it is too late. On another note, don't put it past Hitlery to call for this in 2008. She will win with this issue and the American public will swallow Gay Marriage, National Health Care, higher taxes on the "rich" in exchange for closing the border. Do you think the Clintons will not see this? They are not stupid. .
Bob Dole wonders what Bob Dole has to say about this. Bob Dole would say that your figures have already been rebutted and/or proven wrong in many posts in this thread already. And, only Bob Dole can talk about Bob Dole in the first person and get away with it.
The Roman Empire fell of its own corrupt weight, for a host of reasons other than the immigration status of its own citizens. Nothing built by the hand of man lasts forever.
So what lower immigration numbers do you think are possible?
In the case of Mexican immigrants, they could be a lot lower if they had a decent economy on their side of the border. Kind of like Bush and Fox are trying to do right now.
Unless your fixed emplacement is circular AND unbroken AND impervious to attack, no line can work. The geography is just not there to successfully build and defend an American Maginot Line.
We CAN make the border more difficult to cross.
We can, and we should. But we will never do that by constructing 19th Century solutions to 21st Century problems.
This notion that we have to just get on with our lives, go shopping, do all of the other things one does AND just live with this threat is ridiculous.
Then go get some weapons training, make yourself physically fit, and go enlist in the Armed Forces. But don't expect everybody to do the same thing - we are not Sparta and some people are civilians and will always be civilians.
This is the same logic that liberals tell us about abortion and other crimes: "Well, we can't stop it completely, so why bother?" We can make it more difficult, but many in the business wing of the GOP want the cheap labor.
Then go after them, with my blessing. I have no objection to making the penalties for knowingly hiring illegals a lot stronger than they are now.
Neither Bush nor Kerry are serious about the border. Kerry is worse, so, therefore, Bush is better. However, this threat is real and Bush will be held accountable if something happens.
You probably blamed Bush for all those hurricanes that ravaged Florida too. The man IS trying, and we can agree to disagree on his effectiveness.
This is a real threat. We need to stop drinking the kool aid and demand that the borders be sealed to the best of our ability, that the war be prosecuted vigorously in Iraq. Ask many of those deployed my friend and they will tell you the same thing.
And again I say, defeating evil in all its forms is also a laudable goal. It is also a pipe dream, no less than the goal of completely "sealing the borders" is.
Why can't we act before something terrible happens?
We HAVE acted and are continuing to act. Again, arguably, better in some ways than in others.
On another note, don't put it past Hitlery to call for this in 2008. She will win with this issue
She will lose for the simple reason that SOMEBODY will ask her for specifics about exactly how she would "seal the borders", and she will inevitably fail to tender a logical plan to actually do it. Because it is impossible, whether for a Republican president or a Democrat demagogue.
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.