Will/should the House approve the immigration bill?

Name one terrorist who entered the United States via Mexico.

I really wanted to see that question answered!

I am open to the possibility of a terrorist attack or plot via Mexico; but I am really at a loss for finding an example. Since half of the arguments for fencing, increased patrols, and militarization are predicated on this terrorist threat…it would be nice to know an answer.

Obviously, common criminals have entered the border illegally - but any groups that have terrorist (political or “religious” objectives)?

I took Janet Napolitano at her word:


From what I understand, that’s Hezbollah’s favored method of entry, not Al Qaeda.

I predict the House won’t pass the bill and the GOP will continue to lose the presidency in 2016 by large margins


That article is full of innuendo and anecdotal information, but precious little evidence of a significant terrorist threat from Mexico. The most direct action is a representative from a political party in Lebanon. Now Hezbollah is violent group with a terrorist wing and has very hateful views concerning Israel and Jews. It is also a partner in the recognized governing coalition of Lebanon, so containing Hezbollah activity is far more complicated than tracking Al-Qaeda or most other terrorists. To put it bluntly, it is perhaps as “legitimate” as a terrorist group can be. Plenty of Lebanese people, including its active business community, are, in effect, Hezbollah supporters by virtue of being taxpayers and residents of particular sections of that country. I don’t see how adding 100,000 border patrol agents can keep Hezbollah fundraisers out of the United States.
I know there are real security concerns along the border - I am about 200 yards away from it now. I would definitely not stroll around the Border Fence at 2:00AM. But most of these threats involve actions that local law enforcement should tackle, not a paramilitary force, and - to be blunt - the last terrorist attack (by any reasonable definition) I can not think of on U.S. soil from Mexico took place in 1916. Perhaps, the assault on U.S. citizens in Falcon Lake (an international boundary reservoir) by possible Zeta operatives can count.

The problem with using local law enforcement is that while they can collar illegal crossers who actually commit a crime, they cannot do anything about them until they do. We have to rely on paramilitary because that’s the only thing allowed. So let police evict people back over the border in the border towns, or we go with the border patrol.

It is not safe along the border, as you admit. Kidnappings in that area are out of control, and our government for political reasons doesn’t want to do anything about it.

Whether Hezollah is legitimate or not, it is a terrorist group which has carried out attacks in places like Argentina, and they will hit us here as soon as they get instructions to do so.

The purpose of that border, at least on the South Korean end, is military. South Korea welcomes North Korean refugees. Most of them come through China, even though the Chinese do try hard to secure their own border with North Korea.

Even a 100 percent secure border would, at most, stop half the undocumented immigrants. The other half came here on legal visas they overstayed. In reality, no border is 100 percent, so a Korean-style border would stop less than half.

If you want to see immigration law obeyed, push to sentence employers of undocumented workers to a couple of weekends in jail, at their own expense, with no television, cell phone, or iPad. Deficit hawks should love this because it would be both more effective than a militarized border, and cheaper. But, as DigitalC mentioned in #36, jail seems to be a non-starter.

Now, I’m against the employer jail idea before amnesty. That sequence would cause a humanitarian disaster for millions of people forced to, as Mitt Romney’s might term it, self-deport. Amnesty for undocumented workers, and for employers who looked the other way, should be granted simultaneously.

It’s true that the border can never be 100% secure, but there’s no excuse for having a humanitarian crisis due to millions of illegal immigrants.

For example, an employee verification system that 100% of employers have to use should in theory result in zero illegal unemployment, except for those employers intentionally breaking the law, and employees willing to commit identity theft. Neither the employers nor employees deserve any mercy once that system is implemented.

Then there’s the entry/exit system. This should not be hard to implement. The government keeps track of visas issued and their expiration. All visas that expire where the foreigner has not left should result in the same thing that happens if you don’t pay your taxes: you get letter after letter telling you to fulfill your responsibilities, leading to legal action to seize your assets if you don’t comply. Those who overstay should be getting those letters, and if they fail to leave, should be removed. And there is no reason this can’t be done as efficiently as the IRS seizes property and bank accounts.

BTW, one underdiscussed aspect of the bill is how it massively increases legal immigration. That seems worthy to me. I don’t like the idea of people who want to come here who are good people being kept out.

Problem is, the public is very much against increasing legal immigration, albeit more supportive than in the past:

Tourist visas to the US are typically for six months. And educational visas are for the appropriate longer time. So if someone overstays their visa by more than a couple days, the highly likely reason is to work here, or to stay here as a family member of someone working here. This is why handling the problem at the employer level would, if done right, be sufficient.

Read on to see that it is.

I’d get that letter because IRS computers hold my address. Now, tourists are asked, on admission, for an email address, and the Senate immigration bill calls for experimentally sending visa overstayers an email. But if the overstayer is working here at a job paying more than they can make in their nation of citizenship, this will fail.

When the only assets that can be located are in Central America, as likely here, I doubt the IRS is all that efficient. Even Britain probably won’t cooperate with asset seizure for a visa overstay, especially without proof the target individual is alive.

The only problem I have is that you can’t limit efforts to the employer side. Since illegals can receive benefits for their children born here, they can plausibly remain here just living off taxpayers. It makes no sense to bar such people from employment.

Immigration enforcement, like all other enforcement, has to be full spectrum. When you find illegals, you deport them. Now obviously we can’t deport 11 million people, but once immigration reform passes and we start with a clean slate, the goal should be 100% deportation.