If they agree to vote Democrat, people like Hillary or Obama will welcome them with open arms, then blame Bush for not sealing the border after they bomb a school...or blame the 2nd amendment.
Judicial Watch is a small little group of loud trouble makers. This claim of theirs, has no corroboration.
Here's what I believe: If there really is an ISIS camp across the border and they come here and start some crap then Mexico along with us are going to seal the border and the ISIS thugs will be stuck here. So ISIS will lose its camp and the fighters it sent here without getting much press. There is nothing in Deming of note that will get them attention and only a few buildings in El Paso that might be worthwhile targets, but there is a AAA baseball team that draws a few thousand fans per game. If anything, ISIS would come across the border and head off to California, New York or Chicago where the targets have world wide name recognition. I seriously doubt ISIS came all this way to take out a taco shop in El Paso.
Actually, the story originated from the watchdog group that has been instrumental in uncovering many of the Obama Administration's secrets. That is Judicial Watch. So, of course you loony left puppets are skeptical.
You bring up good points, they'd probably sneak across the border and then happen to appear in the major cities. Still, though, other than remaining on high alert which we should do anyway, I don't see anything here to write home about.
there are no connections between Islamberg and Al Qaeda. nor is there any hard evidence that this ISIS camp near the USA actually exists.
With or without Amnesty, those who would attempt to cross into America to do us harm will do so. That's why there must always be a strong defense at our borders. A century ago, there was a thesis written on the necessity of the Western Border since we share the Pacific with the ever intelligent and diligent Japanese(our proud allies). 100 years ago, protecting our borders was a proud position. Today, protecting our borders is a "Right-wing" position, well, consider me a proud right winger in that case. I don't want there to be a 9/11 ever again in our country, and I want to take all of the necessary precautions to assure that. And if that means we screen visitors and immigrants(both legal and illegal), then damn it that's not at all a price to pay. Liberals want to see the Worker ID program and persecution of Big Business? That's what you'll get from me. I don't care what your financial position, you don't get to sabotage America or Americans. We'll create the conditions to make high, livable wages affordable and reasonable for any business to meet. That's the job of Parliament, both at the Federal and State levels. I'm anti-Amnesty, pro-speeding up the legal immigration process, pro-prosecution of businesses and maybe a legalization process for those here, depending on their skillset, their knowledge of English and of our political process. 11 million is OUT of the question demographically, for the influx of immigrants will add "competition" and will artifically deflate the unemployment rate, but if you separate between immigrants/natives, Native Unemployment would increase dramatically. 4-6 million is as far as I'm willing to go. Of course, none of this would happen if Democrats followed the promise of 1986.
Very well said. Regardless if this threat is credible or not, we must secure and protect our borders at all cost. This won't guarantee somebody won't slip through the cracks and get in, but we'll make sure illegals don't come across the borders at record rates.
Wait, didn't I destroy this thread yesterday? Oh, that's right I did. I'll use the same argument. ISIS and the Mexican Drug Cartels (MDC) aren't working together because the MDC are predominantly Roman Catholic, and ISIS is a jacked up version of Islam. Furthermore, the MDC aren't going to want to work with someone who's goal is to destroy the customer base and income of the MDC which is the US population. Believe it or not drug dealers like making money from their customers, and if someone screws with drug dealers money, they don't take that (*)(*)(*)(*) very well at all. Furthermore, ISIS is just as likely to target the MDC for being Roman Catholic and not the same twisted version of Islam as ISIS is. Do you guys get why this is a completely BS story? Does it make any sense to any of you thick skulled right wingers? We know you are lying, and just trying to terrorize the US population into conforming to your will. But some of us actually think about this just a little bit and your plot falls apart.
We've accomplished much harder feats in human history. http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/364287-we-could-stop-illegal-immigration-if-we-wanted.html If illegals weren't providing cheap labor and Democrat votes, this issue would have been solved a long time ago.
The security and the safety of the American people should not be determined by the price tag. We need to do it in the most cost effective way, possible, but we have to secure the borders at any cost. So, to answer your question directly, yes I would be okay with that, because again our national security and the security and safety of the American people should not be determined by the price tag. - - - Updated - - - Exactly. It's not as hard as the liberals make it sound. We just have to do it.
Besides the fact that this is a rehashing of a rehashing of a story that was debunked 2 years ago! http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/isismexico.asp
Do you even know what a blog is ? Obvious not. Judicial Watch is a watch dog organization made up of lawyers not journalist or bloggers who are just wanabe journalist or columnist. Nobody is denying that the lawyers at JW aren't conservative, someone has to keep an eye on the corrupt Democrat party and the community oranizer who lied his way into the White House If it weren't for JW there would be more uninformed Americans who would believe the community organizer that our borders are already secured, that as "the deporter in chief" he has already deported all illegal aliens from America and that he knows exactly where all those guns are that he sold to the Mexican drug cartels. The closest thing the Democrats have to watch dog organization is the hate group SPLC and some of George Soros websites. But I digress, enough responding to someone who instead of attacking the message decided to attack the messenger. ISIS on the border. With Valerie Jarrett being responsible for our national security, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. I'm sure the Obama administration already have refuge visas already waiting for these Muslims, Hillary going to need ever vote she can scrounge up in 2017.
Nice bumper sticker, but in real life resources are finite. Every billion we spend on border security is a billion not spent on something else. By your logic, we should be fine with spending our entire GDP on border security. Point is, border security is clearly not an "at all costs" item. The cost of securing the border must be compared against the cost of not doing so. The cost of securing it 100% must be compared against the cost of securing it 90%. And so on. It would be deeply stupid to spend $1 trillion a year securing our borders. The cure would cost 100 times more than the disease, and crowd out other, far more beneficial spending. The CBO estimates that the effect of illegal immigrants on state and local budgets is hard to calculate, but is likely modest overall: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/12-6-immigration.pdf Most estimates show either a modest BENEFIT from illegal immigrant (say, $20 billion a year) or a modest cost (again, say, $20 billion a year). Even FAIR, the anti-immigration group, can only claim $100 billion a year -- and that's only by making a bunch of assumptions, all weighted toward exaggerating the costs and downplaying the revenue of illegal immigrants. For instance, they assume ALL illegal immigrants are low-income and their kids ALL attend low-income schools, and thus account for a large amount of spending aimed at helping low-income students succeed. They make other unwarranted assumptions about other types of spending. But most importantly, FAIR arrives at that number by counting the cost of education and health-care for the children of illegal immigrants -- 3/4 of whom are American citizens. So the actual annual cost of illegal immigration would appear to be anywhere from a profit of $20 billion and a cost of, say, $40 billion. It thus makes no sense to spend $1 trillion, or even $100 billion, trying to stop it. We should instead be spending our money to MANAGE it. Work to reduce the demand side of the equation, by punishing employers who hire illegals and making it harder for illegals to find and hold jobs. Deport people if and when we find them, but don't go nuts looking for them. Have enough of a border barrier to make it difficult to get in. The point isn't to STOP all border-crossers -- that's not feasible -- it's to reduce their numbers and channel them so that #1, they're easier to catch, and #2, it's easier to spot any would-be terrorists among them. That is feasible, effective and affordable, and would match the size of the response to the size of the problem.
Don't worry about it, the community organizer has already said that ISIS is JV and nothing to worry about.
I am a Democrat mainly in fiscal issues such as education and health care. I am quite conservative on social issues and foreign policy, including border protection. The fiscal issues normally influence how I vote.
Our government spends 18 trillion and is poorous on all accounts. We may not need to spend, but rather to reallot spending. And if we have to invest a little more for a better product, I'm willing to do that. Since our production capabilities have GREATLY underachieved post-Nafta. There's much capital to be gained and created, through better moves such as these. They're just poison for "agendas" and that's fine. You have to sacrifice for country, if you want a good and healthy country.
The entire economy of the United States is around $18 trillion. That is not the government's budget. I repeat: It is stupid to spend more preventing a problem than the problem itself costs.
I agree there needs to be cost effective measures. I fully understand not wanting to increase the national debt or things like that. I just think border patrol needs to be smart. Mind you, I said I was okay with the trillion dollar figures. I did not say it would be a smart idea. When it comes down to it, though, what is more important, the bottom line or the safety of our citizens? This world has taught us that the bottom line is more important, but in reality, safety and security is more important. I agree with you, though, we have to be smart in all areas. Leaving the borders as they are now is not smart. Spending trillions of dollars in the name of security isn't exactly smart, either. Where and how do we balance is the question.
We're already spending billions of dollars each year feeding, clothing, educating, housing, and caring for illegals or the children of illegals. That money could be better spent building up our defenses so that the problem does not get rapidly worse over time, like it has the last 40 years. It should be. You suggested "$1 trillion", for the record. It most likely would not be a huge cost year after year, as the cost savings of not having millions of illegals (and their children) to care for would cause a rapid cost savings over a short period of time. There may be a 1 time expenditure to build up infrastructure, which I would be in support of. The true cost of illegals is impossible to calculate. The devaluing of incomes alone over the past 40 years is in the trillions of dollars. Middle class jobs that Americans used to do now pay pennies on the dollar thanks in large part to the devaluing of wages thanks to illegal labor. Then you can factor in the damage that has been done to our school systems, leaving generations of children unprepared for the responsibilities in the working world. California once had the best (or near the best) schools in the nation, now they are near the bottom thanks mainly to the poor and illegal immigrants who have flooded the state. This doesn't take into account the thousands of lives lost because of illegal alien drunk drivers, gang members, and other murders. If they were more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, I'd suspect you'd be on board with stopping this problem.
