Immigration Enforcement and Secure Borders Are What Will Keep America Safe From Terrorists

Texas State Representative Lamar Smith agrees, Immigration Enforcement and Secure Borders Are What Will Keep America Safe From Terrorists.

Written by Lamar Smith.

For years, we’ve known that strong border security is a fundamental component of national security. If we don’t know who is coming into the country, then we don’t know what harm they might do us.

The Times Square bomber was able to gain U.S. citizenship because a background check failed to identify him as a threat. Shahzad attempted to blow up a car left in Times Square. Fortunately, his attempt failed due to alert citizens and a poorly constructed bomb. He recently pled guilty to terrorism charges and is awaiting sentencing.

Similarly, Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, had previously been given a visa to enter the U.S. But even after his own father called to alert authorities that Abdulmutallab might have been radicalized, his visa was not revoked and he was allowed to board a plane to the United States. As the plane approached its destination—Detroit—Abdulmutallab tried to detonate a bomb under his clothing, in an attempted suicide attack. His plot also was thwarted by alert passengers and a poorly made bomb.

Our national security policy should consist of more than relying on dumb bombers and smart citizens. Sooner or later, a terrorist is going to build a bomb that works.

In both of these terror attempts, our immigration system failed to keep these terrorists either from entering the U.S. or becoming citizens. Strong immigration enforcement and border security are the first line of defense against terrorists. If we can prevent terrorists from entering the U.S., we can prevent attacks on U.S. soil.

To keep terrorists—who may already be in the U.S. illegally—from getting valid forms of ID, Congress passed the REAL ID Act. The law prohibits illegal immigrants -- including terrorists -- from obtaining forms of identification that can be used for federal identification purposes such as boarding planes and entering federal buildings. Regrettably, the Obama administration supports repealing the law.

To address visa security, Congress created the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Visa Security Program. The goal was simple: increase the security of the visa process at U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. At visa-issuing posts where the program exists today, 100% of applicants receive additional screening. Unfortunately, such screening only exists at 14 locations out of a list of the 29 designated “highest-risk” posts worldwide. At other posts, less than two percent out of 5.8 million applications receive additional screening.

It makes no sense to deny the link between immigration enforcement and national security. If we want to prevent attacks, we need to keep terrorists from getting visas and stop them from coming to the U.S. and obtaining citizenship. That means enforcing our immigration laws, not ignoring them!

Terrorists will use any means possible to enter the U.S. The only way to guarantee that we will not have another terror attack on U.S. is to strengthen border security and enforce our immigration laws. Until we do that, Americans will remain vulnerable to attacks.

Republican Congressman Lamar Smith represents Texas’ 21st district in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

Read the full story here: www.foxnews.com...

Here's one fellow who knows the truth and cares enough to go against the grain to speak his mind.

Some might say its about winning elections not that I know if this guy will run for anything in the future. I say if he supports We The People and whats best for this country then I support him. Some might say that its a republican and democratic or conservative and liberal thing. I say if it keeps this country and it's people safe you can call it anything you like as long as whats right for this country gets done.

I searched and didn't find anything on this.. if it's a duplicate I apologize.

Bingo. Add REAL airport and port security and we have a winner. Give this man a medal.

You know.. I think these things Lamar Smith says makes sense and should be common place for everyone. If you disagree, I invite you to tell me why you disagree and give your best reasons. i wish to find if there is any really good reasons why we should not do these things.. if any.

When Bush was around , i remember this being called , fear mongering or something like that.

"You are either with us or the terrorist"

I love how things have changed since a democrat president was elected.

reply to post by WXBackdoor


What are you talking about? During that administration they hypocritically scared people to death about terrorists on the one hand and handed out platitudes about fighting them there so we couldn't fight them here while at the same time as they left a welcome sign at the border to all the illegal immigrants, did nothing about port security, and paid lip service to airport security. There were plenty of people who brought this very thing up then as they are now. The question is, will people finally put two and two together?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


1. "Terrorists" are a joke. I don't need a multi-billion dollar police state or digital national ID to protect me from so-called "terrists".

I have a gun.

If I was actually allowed to carry it with me everywhere, I could protect myself without a single dime being spent out of our tax coffers.

Also, the "terrists" that are attacking us in Afghanistan and Iraq have absolutely ZERO means of attacking us here. If we got out of their crappy countries, they wouldn't even have a reason to attack us in the first place.

2. Afghanistan is the worlds largest producer of heroine. It's a hundred billion dollar a year industry coming out of that country.

Considering we have the entire country on military lock down and it's still the world's number one producer of heroine, I find it ridiculous to think that ANY level of border security could stop a real "terrist" from getting into this country.


ID's, border security, stronger airport security, blah blah blah - it's a joke.

It's a sham.

It's absolutely ridiculous.



You want protection from terrists? Get rid of the gun laws and end the wars.

You want protection from drug cartels? Get rid of the drug laws and legalize them.

I might also add the entire might of the US military is not enough to prevent terrist attacks in Afghanistan. So how is it reasonable to expect any level of security from stopping a determined bomber here?



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

1. "Terrorists" are a joke. I don't need a multi-billion dollar police state or digital national ID to protect me from so-called "terrists".

I have a gun.

If I was actually allowed to carry it with me everywhere, I could protect myself without a single dime being spent out of our tax coffers.

Also, the "terrists" that are attacking us in Afghanistan and Iraq have absolutely ZERO means of attacking us here. If we got out of their crappy countries, they wouldn't even have a reason to attack us in the first place.

2. Afghanistan is the worlds largest producer of heroine. It's a hundred billion dollar a year industry coming out of that country.

Considering we have the entire country on military lock down and it's still the world's number one producer of heroine, I find it ridiculous to think that ANY level of border security could stop a real "terrist" from getting into this country.


ID's, border security, stronger airport security, blah blah blah - it's a joke.

It's a sham.

It's absolutely ridiculous.



You want protection from terrists? Get rid of the gun laws and end the wars.

You want protection from drug cartels? Get rid of the drug laws and legalize them.

I might also add the entire might of the US military is not enough to prevent terrist attacks in Afghanistan. So how is it reasonable to expect any level of security from stopping a determined bomber here?



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

I used to think you were a pretty intelligent guy till I read the above post. You surprise me.

So.. lets say we don't secure the boarders and get tough on immigration laws.. what then.. let guys like you shoot all the bad guys?

I agree we should be allowed to carry our guns for protection and in fact you can if you have the right CCW permits.

What about when it's you against a large group like a drug cartel who is working with known terrorist groups - like is happening now in Arizona? You think civilians with guns can stop them?

What about the 80 year old lady down the street.. you gonna protect her?

I think we should do everything we can to secure the borders and get tough on immigration laws - Then if they come knocking on your door, you can shoot them.

I just do not see how arming the people who want to carry guns in lieu of taking other tougher measures will stop the problem.

The topic of closing/policing the borders is just there to get you all riled up. It appears to be working.

The problem is not as simple as throwing more # (law enforcement) at a wall (our borders) and expecting it to stick.

What was that phrase again?

The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.

~Thomas Jefferson.

Originally posted by The Sword
The topic of closing/policing the borders is just there to get you all riled up. It appears to be working.

The problem is not as simple as throwing more # (law enforcement) at a wall (our borders) and expecting it to stick.

How would you propose then to solve the problem?

Originally posted by whatukno
What was that phrase again?

The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.

~Thomas Jefferson.

What's that got to do with anything? I do not see any freedoms being taken away in lieu of security in this article..

I want to ask a question here. If Russia decided to invade the United States do you think that would go over well with the American people or government? I didnt think so. So why do you think it's okay for American troops to invade Iraq and Afghanastan? Why do you think it's ok for the United States military to be stationed in almost every country in the world? Do you think those people are happy about being occupied? I sure as hell wouldnt be and neither would you.

To the drug cartels the solution is simple. Legalize drugs and end the laws that put innocent people in jail and over crowd our prisons. To think, prison could be used for REAL criminals instead of the random college guy caught smokin' a blunt. Insane huh? You know all those guys on the corner 'packin heat' 'slangin' their drugs? They would all go away over night. The law would no longer have to justify throwing a man in prison for doing the only thing he's able to do to make money since the banks destroyed our economy. Instead, if you actually funded some of the programs out their to help these people maybe ...just maybe, they could get themselves an education and be a productive member of society. Instead they're spit on and locked in a cage like an animal.

The fact is, maybe the world wouldnt hate us so damn bad if we werent trying to build an empire and take everything over. You know whats worse than the entire world hating you for trying to build an empire? The entire world hating you for trying to build an empire when you're broke.

Solution? Bring our young men and women HOME! Legalize the drugs and fix our country and people first. People are being thrown out of their homes, cant find a job, and are living on the street to fund a war that nobody knows why were fighting it.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by AndrewJay]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Just be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Just remember, AZ now has taken away a lot of liberty from it's citizens in the guise of security. But if you want a police state, I guess that is what you will get.

since this is a national security issue, we should re-route 150 billion dollars from national defense spending into building and maning a 2000-mile long fence between mexico and the US....let's see how much the republicans would support that. if they don't, they are blowing smoke up your ass, as far as making this a "national security issue".

To be perfectly honest, this article is a load of #.

Stop bombing and invading heavily islamic nations for no other reason than to secure economic advantages, that will keep America safe from terrorism.

Not even going to bother explaining how retarded it is using the terrorism card with illegal immigration.

And by the way The "Times Square Bomber" dun dun dun!!!, attempted to detonate an explosive in times square in protest against Predator Drone strikes in Pakistan.

How many active terrorists have we caught crossing the southern border???

The way you talk...every terrorist that has ever attacked the United States has come through the southern border And as long as we take care of that...we will be 100% safe...yeah...seems logical

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


You can't stop terrorism.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Give me a number here, how many troops do you think it would require for us to stop "terrorism" in Afghanistan?

Throw me a number.

1 million?

2 million?

4 million?

100 million?

Stopping "terrorism" involves addressing the root cause of the problem, which is predominantly a crappy economy. Sure the religious jihad types exist, and will always exist, but that can not be addressed so you go after the perps when they commit the crime. You don't enslave the entire population in a police state.

Do you know what your odds of being killed in a terrist attack are?

They are less than being struck by lightning.

600 billion a year in wartime costs to supposedly prevent something that has less chance of killing you than a lightning strike.

And you think I'm dumb?

The immigration problem only exists because of our welfare state. You don't lock us in like East Germany with a wall, you cut the freaking social welfare programs.

The drug cartels only exist because of drug laws. You don't militarize the border, you legalize drugs.

This is simple.

SIMPLE.

SIMPLE SOLUTIONS THAT WORK.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

The immigration problem only exists because of our welfare state

Hmmm sort off, its more a case of what mexicans are actualy escaping from, there have been over 50 political assassinations in the run up to Mexicos presidential elections. Mexico is basicaly a 100% Narco State, i do not agree with the burden this can place on another nation, however i have a lot of sympathy for Mexicans who are effectively refugees from there home nation.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Just be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Just remember, AZ now has taken away a lot of liberty from it's citizens in the guise of security. But if you want a police state, I guess that is what you will get.

As I understand it, Arizona did nothing more than a federal law already does. No matter where you are in the USA you are required to carry legal ID and show it to a cop anytime he asks for it.

What did Arizona make into law that's any different than that?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Just out of curiosity, what law is that exactly?, the federal law i mean.