Terrorism and the illegal alien crisis

[+OverSword]

Question, does the porous American southern border prove that the governments concern with terrorists is a big fat lie? I think if the feds were really concerned about terrorism then job one would be securing our borders and ensuring no undocumented persons were in the states, yet at times it seems that the federal government embraces this foreign invasion of the USA. This leads me to the conclusion that the truth about the war on terror and building a strong military police force like HLS is more about controlling citizens than protecting them. Agree? Disagree? Other thoughts or takes on the subject?

[Likely Guy]

No, in my opinion it just says that the perceived threat of terrorism from that entry point is low.

When was the last time that an act of terrorism on US soil was enacted by an illegal alien that crossed the Mexican border?

Edit: Wait a second, that might have been Pancho Villa.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Likely Guy

[+OverSword]

So you don't think that a major strategy in fighting terrorism on US soil would be securing the border?

[Likely Guy]

So you don't think that a major strategy in fighting terrorism on US soil would be securing the border?

If no threats have come that direction and no future threats are perceived, no. It is, and has always remained a porous border. There's no way to secure that much real estate.

Secure the southern border, then all the mythical foreign terrorists will come through Canada. Do you remenber the initial reports after 9/11? I reiterate, but there is really no way to secure that much real estate.

Edit: Trivia question: Who was the last native born American that terrorized Mexico?

Edited July 16, 2014 by Likely Guy

[aquatus1]

So you don't think that a major strategy in fighting terrorism on US soil would be securing the border?

A major strategy in any sort of combat is to determine the most likely point of attack and take steps to defend it. Troops and resources are limited; you need to use what you have wisely.

[+and-then]

It's a very good question. Either the threat is real or not. I was under the assumption after 9-11 that it was imminent. Can it be that our politicians have become such vote whores that they're willing to risk the security of the country just to change the demographics in their favor? Sadly I think the answer is yes. If a chemical, biological or nuclear attack comes by way of the southern border there will be so much cya going on that it will make people dizzy to watch but bottom line is it won't matter who's to blame at that point. My guess is that trucking a small nuke into the country and setting it off in a major city is probably already within the abilities of AQ. All they need is the device or the germ...

[Babe Ruth]

Agree very much, but I have to wonder if you actually think that any border can be 100% secured in times of peace?

In times of war it is obviously necessary to have it secured against invading armies, but in times of peace things are different.

[Babe Ruth]

So you don't think that a major strategy in fighting terrorism on US soil would be securing the border?

Considering that more people die in automobile and truck accidents in a week than die from terrorism in a year, is it possible that the threat is vastly overrated?

[toast]

Considering that more people die in automobile and truck accidents in a week than die from terrorism in a year, is it

possible that the threat is vastly overrated?

No. Car accidents happen by chance, terrorist attacks by strategy. Thats a big difference.

[Babe Ruth]

No. Car accidents happen by chance, terrorist attacks by strategy. Thats a big difference.

Well, actually strategy and tactics, eh?

But I was speaking about the exposure the average citizen faces. He is exposed to both car accidents and terrorism, yet his chances of being involved in the latter are about the same as being struck by lightning.

He is much more likely to be involved in a car accident, yet not much is being done about it. Truck drivers can legally drive for days without rest, while we pilots can only be on duty part of a day according to federal rules.

In the name of the war on terror, our leaders have nullified several important parts of our founding document, even though the chances of actually becoming a victim of terror are miniscule.

See the difference?

Do you think that the talking heads, politicians and media men, exaggerate the threat from terrorism, given the numbers?

[Rafterman]

No. Car accidents happen by chance, terrorist attacks by strategy. Thats a big difference.

N.Y. state trooper killed after Florida man intentionally hit him along highway: police

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/n-y-state-trooper-killed-fla-man-intentionally-hit-police-article-1.1810747#ixzz37ddVirCK

[rashore]

I don't think the gov's concern about terrorists is a big fat lie. But there is more than just a porous southern border. There is also a porous northern border, and porous borders as far as air travel is concerned. There are also terrorists that are already inside the country and didn't come over any border.

And really, when it comes to the southern border... Terrorism might be a concern, but it's likely somewhat less of a concern than the large amount of regular folks and drug stuff coming through.

[Sundew]

Supposedly they have found Muslim prayer rugs and Korans abandoned along the border. This may not mean terrorists have crossed, but let's face it, they can read the news and pretty quickly realize that this is an easy way into the U.S., unless by some miracle Mexico and other Central American countries prohibit travel from areas with state sponsored terrorism, but I seriously doubt that. Then it's just a bus ride from the airport to a border town, after picking up a few bits of local clothing.

Just because we have an open border does not mean we will be hit with an attack every other day; it takes time to plan and carry out such things, while avoiding detection. It also means that just because we have not been hit yet doesn't mean that it can't happen either, and if and when it does, would it surprise anyone to know the culprits entered through our southern border?

I had a relative from Scandinavia who was denied entry through some mix-up and he was married to a U.S. citizen. Took him two years to get back in and I only half-joked that, "You could have gotten here a lot sooner if you had flown to Mexico and walked across the border." And likely he could have! And he, at least, is harmless.

[Gromdor]

The easiest way to get in the US is still just to get a tourist or student visa and fly in. Flying to Mexico and crossing the border has two chances of being caught. Once by the Mexican authorities and once by the US border patrol. And they would also have to deal with the Coyotes/drug dealers who might not want terrorists ruining their business.

If a terrorist device is smuggled into the US, it is my belief that it will come by sea. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/u-s-backs-off-all-cargo-scanning-goal-with-inspections-at-4-.html

[+OverSword]

I agree with all of the assessments but the question is doesn't the porous border indicate that the war on terror is a hoax? If they're not worried about terrorists coming across the easiest border to cross then why the large number of officers employed by HLS? As mentioned by Aquatus1 above, you have limited assets which you must position where you anticipate they will be most effective. So where are the homeland security forces deployed? The answer to that can tell us who the government considers to be the largest threat to the American people right?

[Gromdor]

The largest threat terrorist-wise to the US is internal. Is it a hoax? Well, terrorism is real but you are more likely to die by lightning strikes. I don't think the war on terror has anything to do with protecting American lives. It is more to prevent the financial disruption caused by the attacks. It's the nightlight that protects the American populace from the evil terrorist boogeyman. We spent $764 billion on Homeland Security since 9-11, paying 240,000 people to fondle grandma in front of you at airports just to make you feel safe.

[questionmark]

The largest threat terrorist-wise to the US is internal. Is it a hoax? Well, terrorism is real but you are more likely to die by lightning strikes. I don't think the war on terror has anything to do with protecting American lives. It is more to prevent the financial disruption caused by the attacks. It's the nightlight that protects the American populace from the evil terrorist boogeyman. We spent $764 billion on Homeland Security since 9-11, paying 240,000 people to fondle grandma in front of you at airports just to make you feel safe.

I think that the internal risk of terrorism is just as big as the external risk. That includes pro-lifers blowing up a clinic not caring about how many life they take.

[+OverSword]

I think that the internal risk of terrorism is just as big as the external risk. That includes pro-lifers blowing up a clinic not caring about how many life they take.

Yeah, protecting us from that isn't worth billions. The war on terror and the war on drugs are a lie. A very profitable lie for some powerful corporations and bureaucrats.

[toast]

But I was speaking about the exposure the average citizen faces. He is exposed to both car accidents and terrorism,

yet his chances of being involved in the latter are about the same as being struck by lightning.

And I`m still trying to understand why the issue car accidents was taken into the discussion by you in a thread that is about the

question if a porose border might be a threat to the US as such border can be a gateway for terrorist and materials to be used

for assaults.

In the name of the war on terror, our leaders have nullified several important parts of our founding document, even though the

chances of actually becoming a victim of terror are miniscule.

Even if the chance is miniscule by a math based on 318M citizen your math includes harm to that number of individuals that

are the percentage in between zero and miniscule.

See the difference?

Of course but this difference is just related to general probability calculation and not to the thread.

[Babe Ruth]

Toast

My only point was that in actuarial terms, what really happens in our lives, terrorism is a very low probability event. Being the victim of a terrorist attack is an extremely low probability event.

To me, that relates to the thread topic of terrorism and illegal immigrants.

How many illegal immigrants do you know that have committed a terrorist act? I just read an article the other day from California, a statistical analysis, showing that illegal immigrants are very UNDER-represented in criminal acts.

I think OS is suggesting that since all these people can literally walk across our borders, why can't terrorists too? Or since our borders are "unsecured", the terrorists are waiting in line to come across.

I see that as a very low probability event, considering there is not one documented case of it that I'm aware of.

Does that help?

[praetorian-legio XIII]

I think that the internal risk of terrorism is just as big as the external risk. That includes pro-lifers blowing up a clinic not caring about how many life they take.

Pro-lifers taking life. Absolutely bizarre. Save the unborn, kill the doctors! Wow.

Excuse the digression from topic.

On topic. According to harry reid the southern border is secure. Again, simply, wow.

[toast]

My only point was that in actuarial terms, what really happens in our lives, terrorism is a very low probability event.

Being the victim of a terrorist attack is an extremely low probability event.To me, that relates to the thread topic of

terrorism and illegal immigrants.

Just the simple fact that there is always a probability to get a victim by an asymmetric event is influencing the life

so I would not underestimate the situation.

How many illegal immigrants do you know that

have committed a terrorist act? I just read an article the other day from California, a statistical analysis, showing that

illegal immigrants are very UNDER-represented in criminal acts.

I never said that illegal immigrants are a threat in relation to terroristic acts and I would say that the most of them are

just poor souls who want to work to be able to feed their families. I talked about a porose border that may be a paper

door for extremists and as per my knowledge Mexico is the main gateway for drug imports into the US and thats an

ongoing problem.

I think OS is suggesting that since all these people

can literally walk across our borders, why can't terrorists too?

Yes, thats the point.

I see that as a very low probability event, considering there is not one documented case of it that I'm aware of.

Sorry but thats a lousy argument. There was even no documented case on 10SEP2001 about a terroristic attack performed

by the use of highjacked commercial A/C.

BTW, whats your problem in general to keep that border more close?

[Babe Ruth]

Well actually, since you've mentioned it, there actually WAS information prior to September 10 that terrorists might use commercial airliners as weapons against high rise office buildings. Truth is stranger than fiction you know, and the truth is that such a scenario was a part of the training exercise being conducted in those several days by the Pentagon and NORAD. But we digress.

The word is "porous"

I don't have a problem with tight border control. I clear Customs frequently coming in from the Bahamas.

My point is that it is an historical fact that borders have long been somewhat porous. They can be violated, and it's nothing new under the sun. Actually very much a reality.

The question is, "is it possible, in times of peace, to really secure the border to some undefined level in the public's imagination?"

I say, NO, it is not possible, or at least feasible. And during this last decade or so, after the big fence was built and the Border Patrol's budget has tripled or more, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that I am right about that little point.

[Jeremiah65]

Fear.

We are being corralled by our fear.

This may seem like a somewhat "digression from topic" but not entirely.

Human beings have (as far as I know) the lone burden of being aware of our own mortality. We fear pain and death and by doing so, we are willing to put chains on ourselves to try to remove that fear...to barricade the threat away...thus came the saying

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

No one lives forever. We have actually caged ourselves in our arrogance to believe we can eliminate all the boogeymen and bad things...it doesn't work that way.

The war on drugs and the war on terror are "feel good" things that Nanny GOV has brought to you because so many people asked for it...now they are beginning to question it and there appears to be no going back.

As far as the southern border...well...it's a real quandary now isn't it?

I am totally for "legal" immigration...I just don't care for the line jumpers and cheaters. Both sides of my family came here literally centuries ago so....

In another thread, we are discussing the "forbidden conversation"...well here is an ugly but true statement. To the typical USA citizen...they could not tell a South American Hispanic from a middle eastern Arab or Persian purely on looks. So...is it possible that very determined Jihadists could dress differently and penetrate our southern border under the guise of a Central American refugee?...absolutely!

The bottom line is...the border needs to be secure. Immigration needs to follow the proper legal channels.

Will that make us perfectly safe from those that would do harm to the USA? Nope...

[scorpiosonic]

Terrorism is a real threat, but the US Govt. has exaggerated its importance, etc. to their advantage, in their typical war-mongering fashion.

The threat of terrorists entering our wide-open S Border IS REAL.....I believe it was in 1995, 4 Hezbola members entered the US from Mex, not sure what they were carrying, but the got caught, and are still in jail, (in Detroit, I think).

This ex. may not be terrorism, but check the link out....Obama and Co, would probably call this, 'a minor domestic disturbance'.

He's been here a total of 3 weeks!

From F3SS: Report: U.S. Authorities Release Illegal Alien With 'Notice to Appear' Form — Weeks Later, He's Charged With Horrific Crime

http://www.theblaze....horrific-crime/