Skip to comments.
Boston terror threat probed
Boston Herald ^
| January 19, 2005
| Tom Farmer and Michele McPhee
Posted on 01/19/2005 1:44:33 PM PST by RWR8189
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-308 last
To: presidio9
That is your opinion that there would be no net effect with respect to the terrorist threat. It is not however the opinion of those who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as it is their duty to defend our borders and stem the tide of criminal aliens entering our nation. When one follows the law of the land there are few opinions that matter and yours is not one of them.
To: Final Authority
It is not however the opinion of those who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as it is their duty to defend our borders and stem the tide of criminal aliens entering our nation. Let me ask you something? Do you think the border guards stand to gain if we make their job perceptually more important be indicating that they are protecting us from terrorism instead of rounding up shoeless peasants? The rest of what you said has nothing to do with terrorism and is irrelevant to this conversation. What is it about you border fanatics that you are unable to stay on topic. Oh that's right: No concrete evidence supporting your opinion.
302
posted on
01/26/2005 10:56:44 AM PST
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does)
To: presidio9
The may be shoeless but they are criminals as soon as they enter without proper documentation and an invitation from our government, that is, the governed, ie., we the people. If shoeless Mexicans can enter then terrorists can and will enter and I believe, have entered.
I am not a border fanatic, I am a fan of the US Constitution, and this nation, and without borders we have no nation. Call me a Constitutional fanatic if you need to call me something, or would you rather call me a racist?
The only thing I need to reference when advocating the rule of law is the US Constitution. Any questions?
To: Final Authority
304
posted on
01/26/2005 12:35:19 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does)
To: presidio9
But you will admit it is easy to criminally enter by crossing the border, as easy for terrorists as it is for Mexicans, will you. And, I assume you will admit that Mexicans "sneaking" across the border are breaking the law as soon as they enter, and lawbreakers by definition are criminals. It matters not whether they can afford something or not, there is no utility argument that can excuse criminal behavior because of someones ability to afford something when a law is broken, or when many laws are broken.
You are correct, terrorists do not need to sneak across the border, it is just easier, cheaper, and less difficult to smuggle stuff in to do us harm by crossing the Mexican/USA border.
Am I wrong in that the most recent explanation for the bogus tip in this case is that a Mexican national who makes a living smuggling criminals across the border was stiffed and essentially turned the Chinese folks in to the US feds? This is exactly why we must and will shut down the borders.
To: Final Authority
You are correct, terrorists do not need to sneak across the border, it is just easier, cheaper, and less difficult to smuggle stuff in to do us harm by crossing the Mexican/USA border.As we have seen on this thread, it is pretty much impossible to smuggle nuclear material across the Mexican border (the only weapon terrorists would be unable to obtain in the US). On the other hand shipping the material in a container (2% of which are checked) would be realitively straightforward.
306
posted on
01/26/2005 3:13:59 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does)
To: Final Authority
But you will admit it is easy to criminally enter by crossing the border, as easy for terrorists as it is for Mexicans, will you. And, I assume you will admit that Mexicans "sneaking" across the border are breaking the law as soon as they enter, and lawbreakers by definition are criminals. It matters not whether they can afford something or not, there is no utility argument that can excuse criminal behavior because of someones ability to afford something when a law is broken, or when many laws are broken. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Stop fear-mongering to advance your political cause.
307
posted on
01/26/2005 3:14:56 PM PST
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does)
To: presidio9
I did not say nuclear material. Do not attribute words or ideas to me that I did not convey.
Open borders are precisely a national security or homeland security issue. Open borders are an invitation for those who wish us harm to enter undetected. The borders will be closed or we will have no nation. If you do not understand the seriousness of this then you are not worth any more of my time.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-308 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson