Canada, Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration: A Potent Combination

On Friday, Canadian police and federal agents carried out a sting operation on 17 terrorist suspects, many of whom were Canadian citizens, or “homegrown Jihadists.” The terrorist clan purchased three tons of ammonium nitrate, a key bomb-making ingredient, under the unwanted supervision of Canadian officials.

Canada's undercover operation was executed beautifully and for that they deserve praise. Nevertheless, an active terrorist cell in Canada has far-reaching implications. In fact, it goes to demonstrate that Jihadists do not discriminate between Western nations and it gives the United States added incentive to tighten border security.
While this appears to be an open-and-shut case, the defense may argue that the defendants had the benevolent intention of increasing vegetation throughout the Western hemisphere -- yes, I realize it's a long shot.

Indiscriminate Hatred

Jihadists (and Jihadist sympathizers) have long claimed that "Western imperialism" fuels their terrorist activities. They have carried out attacks on the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, Australia and Spain while always resorting to the same line of reasoning: the imperialists must be punished. However, the planned attack on Canadian soil clearly illustrates that hatred, not imperialism, is the true motivating factor.

Unlike any other industrialized country in the world, Canada's domestic and foreign policies are informed by a conscientious, humanitarian agenda, as opposed to the power-driven motives of its industrialized counterparts.

Canada is neither involved in the Iraq War, nor does the country pose a threat to Islamist regimes in the Middle East. In terms of their armed forces, Canada does not engage in aggressive actions and military buildup has not been their aim.

Targeting Canada is a clear demonstration of the Jihadists' antipathy for all things Western and non-Muslim. In fact, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he encouraged terrorist attacks against five nations that he viewed as "Christian"; Canada was one of them. In naming Canada, bin Laden proved that fundamentalists do not envision a world where different religions can coexist peacefully. Instead, Islamic fundamentalists harbor the view that an infidel is an infidel is an infidel, and they all must be killed.

America's Borders

The planned attacks on Canadian soil should serve as a wake up call for all Americans. The lax patrol of our borders, both north and south, poses a significant threat to American security. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has done little to secure our borders since the vicious attacks of 9/11. Some might even argue that his negligence in this regard borders on criminal (forgive me the pun).

Illegal immigration has become the leading issue of our day, though it is not being called by its rightful name: the issue is Border Security. Still, every debate that I encounter starts with Mexico, Mexicans, or illegal immigrants. While I don't deny that the fate of illegal immigrants in the United States must be addressed, it should be treated as a secondary concern.

Consider this:

If terrorists are being bred in Canada — of all places — and crossing the US-Mexico border is easier than crossing a busy intersection at rush hour, then we have a real problem — and it ain't the Mexicans.

America remains a glaring target for terrorist attacks, yet the security of our borders amounts to a red carpet for the terrorists. We might as well execute attacks on ourselves. Border security is one of the very few "no duh" issues that Americans will encounter during the course of their lives. Thus, the debate is wasted.

It's bad enough that we have to worry about our own "homegrown Jihadists." We should not have to worry about someone else's as well.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 7, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #155024

Dr. Politico must be an insomniac like me. I read this article on a conservative site. Don’t worry, Bush has a plan to eliminate our Mexican and Canadian borders. Then we won’t have to worry about illegals anymore, except at our ports, and airports and the rather dinky mexican southern border. We can build a 100 ft tall wall there, using cheap labor.


Posted by: gergle at June 7, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #155026
While I don’t deny that the fate of illegal immigrants in the United States must be addressed, it should be treated as a secondary concern.

Sure. I’ve said all along that if the immigration debate was really about security, instead of pure racism, we’d be screaming to seal the Canadian border.

Thanks for bringing this up, DP, and a pat on the back for Canada’s security forces who are busy protecting America while Americans are busy fighting about gay marriage and whether Mexicans can assimilate.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 7, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #155028


Thanks for bringing this up, DP, and a pat on the back for Canada’s security forces who are busy protecting America while Americans are busy fighting about gay marriage and whether Mexicans can assimilate.

I was wondering when we would start seeing eye to eye. Let me just reiterate, “a pat on the back for Canada’s security forces,” they have made us all very proud.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 7, 2006 2:54 AM
Comment #155031

I just want to post saying I agree with some points in the article like how there is a possible threat of terrorism from Canada, but where do you you draw the line. Billions of dollars in trade is passed between our 2 borders that shouldnt be jeapordized. The border has been tightened considerably since 9/11 and I think Canada and the US are doing a good job balancing trade and security. Another point is that Canada has 2300 troops currently serving under operation eduring freedom in southern Afghanistan. Our troops are fighting alongside the Americans and Brits. not NATO out of Kabul.

Dan in Afghanistan.

Posted by: dan at June 7, 2006 3:12 AM
Comment #155033

Great points. It certainly does seem that securing the borders should have been a first priority. Instead, it is only now that we move to secure the Mexican border. We need to look at securing all of our borders. It would be impractical to wall in the entire country, but allowing our borders to remain as porous as they have been is completely insane. What’s unfortunate is that yet again, politics has overriden common sense. I think Bush is right that we need a comprehensive plan for immigration reform, but he should have seperated it from securing the border. Instead, we have a Senate and House bill that focus on securing the border, but they won’t get passed and nothing will be done while the Republicans dither over the immigration issue. I still probably won’t vote Democrat, but I don’t know why the Republicans deserve my vote either. I prefer to vote for someone not as a lesser of two evils, but because they stand for something. Instead, I watch our government and an reminded of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 7, 2006 3:27 AM
Comment #155035

We must build a Wall on the Canadian Border as well.

Posted by: Aldous at June 7, 2006 4:04 AM
Comment #155057

Before we go all Pink Floyd on our neighbors, let’s consider the following:

1)This will be thousands of miles of walls, which will nonetheless have a great many holes open for commercial and civilian traffic. If they have the documentation to get through, the wall is just a thousand mile boondoggle.

2)The northern wall runs into any number of lakes, including the Great Lakes, and is bordered on both sides by ocean. The southern has the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific.

3)Both walls have air over them. Jets fly in this air. The wall can’t stop them.

So what’s the point of these two walls again?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #155063

Dr. P,

Like many of this administrations policies, he screwed this one up as well.
If the president came out to the American people about border security(Which we’ve all been asking for since 9/11) he would have had the backing of all Americans. Instead he comes out with immigration(A divisive issue)that blew up in his face.
President Bush, if you’re monitoring this, take down this simple formula.(Order of Operations)
1)Border security(Priority 1)(Uniter issue for the decider to tackle)
2)Immigration(The natural next step)
If you are monitoring this I’m sorry for calling you names and would rather not do time in Gitmo for my past indiscretions. Thanks for listening, not that you are or that it’s unconstitutional or anything…..bye Mr. President….and you too Mr./Mrs./Ms. NSA technician.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 7, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #155067


You’re right! No worries, if we don’t secure our borders maybe they won’t HATE US TO DEATH!!! What, pray tell, would we do to stop the flow? High tech? Low tech, meaning more boots on the ground? Nothing? Why waste the time & money, right? Can’t we all just get along? Investment in our security is anything but a “boondoggle”. Doing something, can stop something - doing nothing because of cost or effort or perceived failure can stop nothing. With an enemy waiting for an opportunity, should we really just throw up our hands and say “can’t be done!” Ounce of prevention / pound of cure, remember? The old ‘70’s Coca Cola commercial sing song feel good attitude ain’t gonna cut it anymore. If your concern is the track proposed, give us ideas - if it’s just open borders for all and whatever happens happens - be prepared for the resulting slaughter.

Posted by: JR at June 7, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #155072


As jumbled and disjointed as our border/immigration policy has been it’s anything but simple. Politically, Bush has a problem on our southern border with Mexico’s upcoming elections. Foxy may be an object of scorn to us but the Leftist/Socialist/Communist candidates down there are very worrisome indeed - do we need another Castro or Chavez on our border? Politics makes strange bedfellows, sadly. This is the same reason Bush can’t publically accuse Russia of meddling in Iraq prior to our invasion, we need their help in Iran and with international terrorism. Not so pretty, not so simple.

Unfortunate but true, Bush has to take this into consideration when dealing with Mexico, appearing at times to be coddling. You don’t have to worry about gitmo unless, you’re not an enemy combatant are you? Don’t look now but how do you think Canada caught those wanna be martyrs? If that NSA personnel is monitoring this blog, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AT KEEPING MY COUNTRY, MY FAMILY AND ME SAFE!

Posted by: JR at June 7, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #155078


Don’t worry about the NSA. Innocence is its own shield.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 7, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #155082

We’ve got the national guard protecting against the Mexicans entering the US while we leave open Canadian borders for North American grown terrorists. Think about this when you leave the grocery store (after paying $5 for a head of lettuce) on the way to our “safe” neighborhoods.

Posted by: Rick at June 7, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #155088

So has Vincente Fox and his anti terrorist unit stopped any terrorist in Mexico since 9/11? It appears the Canadians are doing a good job on the northern border.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #155102


$5 for a head of lettuce? Wow, such an important thing to consider. Reminds me of Patrick Henry, “Give me $5 lettuce or give me death! If you want open borders and no control of mexican illegals, say so, don’t couch it in such silly terms. So lets what? Chuck it all?First things first - 10,000+ illegals a month from the south. Lettuce prices be damned.

Posted by: JR at June 7, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #155125


Open borders is not the solution but trying to use a “human fence” isn’t either. If more Americans were willing to do the grunt work the illegals do today, we wouldn’t have near the problem, right? I’m an engineer by day, and build custom houses on the side, and it is impossible to find Americans willing to do ANY construction work at any price! You either do it yourself or hire an illegal!

10,000 illegals is all media hype, there is not near that many illegals entering the US on a monthly basis.

Posted by: Rick at June 7, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #155138

Media hype? ICE and Border Patrol say differently. Is it that there are no American workers, or none that will work for what you can pay an illegal? Two things, one with unemployment so low in the US it’s no longer a great market for business to hire, I could find someone willing to pay more because they have to fill a slot. Second, welfare programs have “programed” many folks into a collectacheck mentality. It may cost more to hire an American, but at least we know who they are, we can do background checks and be relatively certain we aren’t employing murderers, rapist or folks carrying some communicable disease into our cities and towns. Hype is what I would call the “Americans won’t do it” slogan. If that’s true, why isn’t unemployment at 10%? Illegals drive down payroll for American workers, that’s why they “won’t do it”.

Posted by: JR at June 7, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #155142

The answers to this problem are pretty straight forward. We should have stricter security at the borders, north and south, for security reasons. We need to address the issue of all of the illegals that are currently in the states, and mass deportation is not a reasonable option. Then, we need to implement and enforce strict fines for companies that hire illegal workers. If there are no jobs, they won’t come here. Not illegally, anyway.

Posted by: David S at June 7, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #155145

I love this, from Garrison Keillor:

You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz. So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war and getting nowhere, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the Republicans can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 7, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #155149

Dr P

Great article.

It is important to continue to remind people that the hatred is not just against americans. Is is, as you said, against everything not muslim.

Also, it is vital for people to understand that immigration and border security are completely seperate issues.

Posted by: jwl at June 7, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #155162

Another fact the dems have to face up to is the republican war chest. It will be loaded this fall. The tax breaks will generate a tremendous amount of cash for the rep’s and the N.R.A. as well as the 700 club will be major collection agency’s for the republicans.

Posted by: cntouzi at June 7, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #155179

“it is impossible to find Americans willing to do ANY construction work at any price! You either do it yourself or hire an illegal!”

Why should they? Our govt gives them “free” money to live off of.

Posted by: kctim at June 7, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #155187

“it is impossible to find Americans willing to do ANY construction work at any price! You either do it yourself or hire an illegal!”

This is a total myth. There are plenty red blooded americans making a good living in construction and landscaping. Certain areas of the country may have a disproportionate share of immigrant workers, but that does not represent reality for the whole copuntry.

Posted by: jwl at June 7, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #155190

Canada has done an exemplary job in border security and enforcement and in cooperation with the U.S., unlike that of Mexico. Mexico wants and encourages unrestricted entry to this country. Securing the border is a very important national issue. For controlling enormous illegal immigration, heavy narcotic traffic, criminals, terrorists, diseases, and so on. All these reasons are why we need to secure our borders, and combating terrorism is more reason why we need to. The enormous illegal immigration problem is a serious issue in itself that needs to be addressed, which it has long been neglected. To combat terrorism, we should try to secure both borders. Any wide-open gap is the loophole for terrorists to enter.

As for our illegal immigration problem, I like to point out 2 myths. One myth is that illegal aliens take the jobs Americans will not do. This is also mostly non-sense. Americans will do the jobs if they pay is right or commensurate with the job. City garbage collectors have good pays and many American are willing to fill the jobs. Also, the same jobs such as sewage maintenance, hazardous waste disposal, and even hard, strenuous, and dangerous job of Alaskan crab fishing. Americans do it because the pay is commensurate with the job. An abundant and cheap labor pool from illegal aliens drives wages down, which makes it hard for Americans to compete. The greedy employers who hire illegal aliens are only ones that benefited overall. The taxpayers are the ones who cover for the costs and the job displacements. A net loss of $70 billions (1997 figure) to the taxpayers and this does not include crimes, prisons, job displacement, and money sent to Mexico. Revenues migrants sent back to Mexico is greater than tourism and second only to its oil industry. Keep in mind, less than 2% of illegal aliens are doing agricultural jobs. The vast majorities are doing construction jobs, food services, office work, manufacturing, hotel jobs, and many others. Good paying jobs such as in constructions are now being eroded. Countries like Canada, Japan, Norway, or even Peru can do without large population of illegal aliens because people there will fill the jobs.

The other myth is we often think that illegal aliens that left Mexico for the U.S. to escape dire economic conditions and to find work which they cannot find at home. This is a total myth. Recent research by the Pew Hispanic Center have found that the vast majority of illegal aliens from Mexico were gainfully employed before they left for the United States.

They just simply want to make more money and have a better life, and send more money home to their families in Mexico. It is a common tradition there to go to the U.S. even though they are doing well in Mexico. A goal many in Mexico want to aspire to. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the illegal aliens are low skilled and uneducated, not the type that creates a net contribution to our socio-economic system. Actually, there is a net loss in cost to the taxpayers. Sure, there are probably a billion people from around the world who want to come here, but the country can only take so many. That is why we have process call legal immigration.

Posted by: Daniel at June 7, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #155191

If I run a business, and I have a choice between hiring an illegal for $5/hour who will work for ten hours with no breaks, or hire a unionized construction worker who gets $18/hr, plus OT for anything over 8/day, plus takes a mandated “safety break” every two hours, who do you think I’m going to hire? Until business owners are punished for hiring illegals, the problem will persist.

I was at a Republican friend’s house the other day for a cook-out, and she was going on and on about how illegal immigration must be stopped, the whole time her all-illegal employees were serving everyone. Too stupid.

Posted by: David S at June 7, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #155205


This is the total myth. Americans own the constrction and landscape companies and hire illegals to do all the work!

Now you are right on one point, there is a disproportiante share of immigrant workers, depending on where you are. In the southwestern part of the US, my discussion here is very accurate.

Dave S.,

I was at a Republican friend’s house the other day for a cook-out, and she was going on and on about how illegal immigration must be stopped, the whole time her all-illegal employees were serving everyone. Too stupid

This is reality and you hit the bulls eye with this one! These are the same people that complain (in this form) about immigration and then see how they live?

Posted by: Rick at June 7, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #155239

You write: “… The planned attack on Canadian soil clearly illustrates that hatred, not imperialism, is the true motivating factor…
Canada is neither involved in the Iraq War, nor does the country pose a threat to Islamist regimes in the Middle East.”

Canada is, in fact, deeply involved in the occupation of Afghanistan. It is, in fact, imperialism & occupation which angers people; they do not “hate us for our freedom.” Neither the London subway bombers nor the Canadian group were linked to Al Qaida. In both cases, the home grown groups resented government policy.

You cannot advocate killing tens of thousands of people in other countries, and then think it is merely religious-inspired hatred which breeds paybacks.

You can advocate invasion and occupation if you wish, but please, lose the xenophobia, and stop
promoting irrational fear and hatred.

Withdrawing from Iraq, now, would do more to quell terrorism than anything else we could do.

And for anyone worried about Iraqi terrorists taking advantage of the withdrawal, it is too late already. Portions of Anbar Province are already beyond our control. Mogadishu, in Somalia, just fell to an Islamic faction.

We need an entirely different method of relating with the Islamic world. The current model does not work, not at all.

Posted by: phx8 at June 7, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #155256

Border security is important, but it’s always going to be a problem, given how much trade and travel goes back and forth. Unless you want to strangle that, any wall is going to have holes in it, and folks will tend to keep traffic going through brisk. It defeats the purpose of a wall to be so holier than thou, if you will.

Additionally, in this day and age, the main terrorist threat come both by and through air travel. Our terrorists flew into this country, for the most part. Erect a wall, and the wrong people still will get in.

If you think I’m for doing nothing, you haven’t really been reading what I’ve written. Democrats in general have no problem with doing something to improve security.

That security cannot compromise our rights as Americans. If the price we pay for our liberty is death, so be it, but we will not be the cowards who trade freedom for security. There’s a limit to attempts at absolute security anyways, and it’s called human fallibility. Give up your rights, and that fallibility will begin to harm innocent people, in addition to giving the guilty their opportunity to strike.

I thank the NSA for the legal work they do to intercept the enemies communications and break into their computer systems. Their signals intelligence and cryptography are an essential part of our defense in a modern world.

But we are a nation that proceeds from the notion that the government is not to intrude on people’s lives unless there is probable cause to do so. Not reasonable suspicion, probable cause. Why? Because it means most of us can live our lives without arbitrary interference, and the government can concentrate more resources and manpower on provably fruitful investigations, instead of harrassing folks who are just minding their own business.

It takes more than intention to get things done. It takes means and technique, and some will be better than others. I’m not saying “neglect security”. I’m saying we should take care of it with better means than a wall that wouldn’t have saved us from 9/11, much less illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #155267

Politico- I am relieved to see that even you can recognize the difference between security and attempted genocide.
The hardliners attempts at linking the plight of impoverished immigrants to some kind of terrorist threat is rightfully being viewed as the nonsense that it is. As I have said in many other threads,no rational citizen should be opposed to better security at our nations borders.
When we try to group hungry,desperate people,with terrorists who are trying to destroy us,no thinking person can or should remain silent.
In the short term,a tightening of our border security and a lessening of our basic freedoms seems to be the price the Republicans wish us to pay for security.
However, in the longer term,only a genuine acceptance of the right of self-determination in the Middle East will lessen the danger to our people.
Imperialistic demands based on self interest just don’t work against people who have a sense of self. We have to educate both ourselves and the generation coming up around the world as to the realities and benefits of peaceful coexsistence.

Posted by: jblym at June 7, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #155276

David S

My greatest hope, reading some of these postings, is that the individuals who KNOW a friend of theirs is using illegals has done the right thing and turned them & the illegal in!

My guess, just another anecdotal friend of a friend who heard from his sister bunk. Always seems to be Repubs who employ them in these stories, huh?

Have ya heard the one about the Dem who sold his soul for a new “civil rights” voting block by advocating a free pass for illegals as long as they promise to vote democrat. I heard it from my friend who knows a guy who dated a girl who was related to an illegal. What? You don’t believe me?

Posted by: JR at June 7, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #155286

No,you misunderstood. What George Bush was saying in spanish to the immigrants coming here was that he wanted them to vote for a English as our legal language amendment.
But I think it was actually Jeb Bush who wanted the cameras set up at the borders. You know the Bush boys,counting gets to be so confusing.

Posted by: jblym at June 7, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #155293


no comprendo. no tengo la minor idea. Just practicing for my new job as english interpreter for Americans visiting Mexicos’ new Arizona territory over the coming winter months. Dad blamed gringo snowbirds!!!

Posted by: JR at June 7, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #155294

If we are so concerned with securing the borders, why do this? Is it terrorists and drugs we really want to keep out, or just Mexicans?

Posted by: David S at June 7, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #155296


I don’t think you’re qualified. Maybe you should apply at the country club.

Posted by: David S at June 7, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #155305

The Canadians caught the bad guys by monitoring Internet communications. Did they have a warrant for each one?

Posted by: Jack at June 7, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #155329

How does one “peacefully coexist” with someone who wants to behead them? or the recently released rapist who is ready to kill as in the Clemson coed? or child molesters? or the Iranian nut job? And many more. Tell me how to coexist with the above examples.

The border should be secured for the following reasons with no 1-2-3 preference.

Slow down drug trafficing,

Very sharply reduce illegal body trafficing,

and to reduce the terrorist threat.

These should all be done together for the simple reason that if not, then there is a hole in the dike. Holes in dikes allow flooding.

I would really like to be security czar in this country with carte blance to get the job done.
I could even round up the illegal aliens and return them home for good. That would be a fun and exciting job to have

Posted by: tomh at June 7, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #155331

I have no comprehension why people hate us. We have such shining stars as Ann Coulter creating warmth wordwide in order to promote a book.

Thank God she is going after those mean and nasty 911 widows, I mean didn’t they enjoy watching their husbands burn to death?

Perhaps she can now attack Hillary for the Bill’s supposed rape, the murder of Vince Foster and the suicide of Willey’s husband.

Then she can go after those little purple liberals that keep leaving doggy doo on her lawn and projecting bad thoughts through her tinfoil hat.

It’s a good thing there are no reasons to hate Americans. No hate speech here.

Posted by: gergle at June 7, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #155339


That is no reason to hate Americans. Even Bill O Reily castigated her. Do you also think we should hate all -fill in blanks- becuase of what one or some of them have done?

Posted by: Jack at June 7, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #155340

Advocating for border security is not a very bold move it almost goes without saying in this day and age. Only thing is, some Republicans have a bad habit of bringing up issues like this as if everybody else has their head up their ass about the subject. It’s time for the right to get past this mental blindness and acknowledge that other people have solutions in mind, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #155376

Stephen Daugherty
If it is not a bold move, then why does the congress have such a problem securing the border?
It is not the American people that have a problem with it is the so called leadership in congress that does not understand the issue. That includes all shades of politics.

Posted by: tomh at June 7, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #155395

Fighting crime is a given for people. Does that make it easy? keeping budgets in the black is pretty popular. Easy? Not always. Winning wars? Sure thing. Sign me up. Easy? Not really. The thing I think the right wing has to learn, if it wants to regain its footing in America is this: It’s easy to intend things. That takes will alone. What makes things tough is actually getting things done. Even wisely chosen objectives can be difficult to work out right, and the unwisely chosen goals can be either impossible or create adverse consequences that make a failure out of one’s success.

Democracies cannot unite properly by one side browbeating the other. Agreement and consensus, though seen as weak moves by some, are the primary means by which anything moves smoothly with Republics like ours.

The key is keeping the most people happy with your solutions. Now some think of that just in terms of forming composite solutions, but sometimes the composite solution is no more wieldy than a Frankenstein’s creature for it’s patchwork existence.

No, we need thinking and policy that is by turns intuitive, creative, and technically sound, which pleases the most people by doing what all but a few partisans have little objection to: working.

Republicans, Democrats- often folks are willing to accept policy from the other side, so long as they sense it gets somewhere. People were willing to go with Conservative economic policy while it seemed such was working. The failures early in this decade and late in the last one where part of what started the decline we’re seeing now. It’s also part of what made Bush a one term president.

As far as border security goes, I think our best strategy is observation and detection. More importantly, though, we should recognize that at some point, somebody’s going to slip through, and make allowances for that. Improve security at heavy risk industrial plants and infrastructure, and make it institutionally permanent Deal harshly with those who traffic in and draw great benefits from illegal immigration. This is not a problem that can be solved in one fell swoop. It’s complicated, and a complicated approach is made necessary by that.

The most important thing, though, in all this, is to not be so proud as to not admit what doesn’t work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #155426

This lecture by Minister Eric Muhammad speaks powerfully to the issue of illegal immigration and reveals what it truly means to both Blacks and whites in this country.

It has been removed by THE WHITE MAN due to, we assume, the number of people downloading it and complaints concerning it. We do not know how long it will take for them to delete it again. Get it while you can.






Posted by: NOITEMPLE15 at June 8, 2006 2:32 AM
Post a comment