President Joe Biden is opposed to nearly everything that Trump stood for. Biden’s dangerous immigration policies have been the focus of a number of my recent articles, for example,
Terror Arrest Highlights How Perilous Biden’s Immigration Plans Are and What Biden’s Immigration Policies Would Do To America.
During his run for the Presidency four years ago, Donald Trump made immigration law enforcement and border security key priorities for his campaign.
At numerous political rallies the raucous and enthusiastic attendees would frequently chant, “Build that wall!”
The need to secure that border and address the myriad other vulnerabilities was made abundantly clear by the 9/11 Commission which determined that the 9/11 terror attacks and other such attacks were only possible because of multiple failures of the immigration system.
Furthermore, large-scale human trafficking and the flood of narcotics flowing into the United States across that dangerous border added to the demand for securing it.
As I have noted many times in previous articles, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
Let me be clear, the border wall, by itself, will not end the immigration crisis. It is, however, an important element of what should be an integrated system. I have come to compare the border wall with a wing on an airplane. Without its wings and airplane will not fly, however, a wing by itself goes nowhere.
Opponents of the wall sometimes refer to it as a “Wall of Hate” allegedly designed to keep Mexicans out of the United States. This is, of course a bald-faced lie. Every day the Border Patrol encounters illegal aliens seeking to enter the U.S. by evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence in the U.S. would threaten public health, public safety, national security and the jobs and wages of Americans.
A review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens will quickly dispel the lies about the nature of our immigration laws that are utterly and totally blind as to race, religion or ethnicity.
Furthermore – and this may shock you – but the wall is not designed to keep anyone out of the United States!
The wall does not block our ports of entry. The wall is simply intended to make certain that all people and all commerce seeking entry into the U.S. are funneled through ports of entry so that they can be vetted in an orderly process and a record of entry is created. To this point I also compare the border wall with the velvet rope at the bank that guides customers to the next available teller; or to the “cattle runs” at airports that guide lines of passengers to the inspections process conducted by the TSA to keep weapons and dangerous individuals off of airplanes.
This gives rise to an interesting question: do you know anyone who would get onboard an airliner if he/she saw fellow passengers evading the TSA inspections process? Why then is it reasonable for Americans and lawful immigrants to be forced to live among millions of illegal aliens who evaded a very similar inspections process conducted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) at ports of entry for a very similar purpose?
Although the need to construct a secure border was clear to everyone, nothing of consequence was ever done to actually build a physical wall even after the terror attacks of 9/11.
Members of Congress said that we needed to find a “modern” and high-tech way of securing the border. This gave rise to various high-tech proposals such as SBInet (Secure Border Initiative Network).
Many of these supposed high-tech “solutions” came to be referred as a “Virtual Fence.”
SBINet was ultimately abandoned after an expenditure of roughly one billion dollars that was reported on Washington Technology website in the January 14, 2011 article, Boeing’s SBInet contract gets the axe that included a link to the DHS report, Report On The Assessment Of The Secure Border Initiative-Network (SBInet) Program.
Donald Trump, the builder, came along and promised that he would build a wall. A real wall! I addressed this in an article several years ago, Why Trump’s Wall Is A Must (And why a “virtual fence” will stop no one.)
Even with Republicans controlling both the Senate and House of Representatives during Trump’s first two years, the money was never appropriated to construct the vital wall. Lawsuits were filed to block the wall and President Trump decided to use money allocated to the military to secure the border and finally he succeeded.
On July 26, 2019 The Hill reported, Supreme Court rules Trump can use military funds for border wall construction.
The bigger issue is why on earth would anyone be opposed to protecting America and Americans from the influx of huge numbers of illegal aliens whose backgrounds, identities, possible affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations cannot be determined? Why would anyone act to prevent the flood of dangerous narcotics into the United States – unless, perhaps, they were profiting from these deadly criminal enterprises of human trafficking and drug smuggling?
Trump’s tactic makes perfect sense. The primary shared mission of the U.S. military is to keep America’s enemies as far from our shores as possible. However, “up close and in person” that vital mission falls to the Border Patrol and ICE (Immigration and Customs enforcement).
Arrests along the border dropped as the wall’s construction began. The wall certainly helped to deter illegal immigration, but so did the policies of the Trump administration that included the “Remain in Mexico Program” for political asylum applicants as was reported by NPR on March 11, 2020, U.S. Supreme Court Allows ‘Remain In Mexico’ Program To Continue.
What a difference a day or, an election makes! Ever since Joe Biden appeared to have won the elections we have seen massive caravans of thousands of foreign nationals forming up in Central America, heading to the United States.
Biden promised a 100 day moratorium in the deportation of illegal aliens – although that Executive Order was put on hold temporarily, on January 26, 2021. The Blaze reported, Federal judge blocks Biden’s deportation pause for two weeks, Biden’s message is clear, any aliens who enter the U.S. by any means will not face consequences and will likely be granted lawful status via Biden’s legislative initiative to create a dangerous massive amnesty program.
These issues all fly in the face of not only the 9/11 Commission but the findings and recommendations of many experts who have testified before numerous House and Senate hearings.
I wrote about one such hearing in my article:
World-Wide Threat Assessment Makes Powerful Case For Border Security
I have testified before more than 15 such hearings and have often said I wish that they had “listenings” instead of “hearings!”
On April 17, 2018 the House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, “State Sponsors Of Terrorism: An Examination Of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network.”
The prepared testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, included this excerpt that will serve as the final word for my commentary. I want you remember his warning the next time you see coverage of the caravans of foreign nationals heading to the United States or when you hear the leaders of Iran threaten action against the United States:
In recent years, Hezbollah’s Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites. Cooperation includes laundering of drug money; arranging multi-ton shipments of cocaine to the United States and Europe; and directly distributing and selling illicit substances to distant markets. Proceeds from these activities finance Hezbollah’s arms procurement; its terror activities overseas; its hold on Lebanon’s political system; and its efforts, both in Lebanon and overseas, to keep Shi’a communities loyal to its cause and complicit in its endeavors.
This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both the rising threat of global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into the United States. It is sustaining Hezbollah’s growing financial needs. It is helping Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is thus facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.
Leave a Reply