Borders: The unsung questions

Published 14 years ago -  - 14y ago 51

prison-370112_1280Correct me if I’m wrong, but the immigration question seems to have come to the forefront because the American people found that our ports were being managed by a British company and that company was being bought-out by an Arab company from Dubai. Suddenly, it became a serious security issue.

If not killed, the port issue was at least put in abeyance and Congress was forced to consider other security issues like the thousands pouring across our southern borders. Then, when the House passed a bill making it a felony to enter our country illegally the Latinos rose in mass to object. Even the organizers, Spanish language broadcasters and newspapers, were surprised to find hundreds of thousands of Latinos taking to the streets to swing at the great piñata of gifts they demand from the country whose laws they broke by sneaking across our borders.

Is this not why immigration has become such a hot issue at this time?

Where are our heads? After September 11, 2001, this should have been a major priority. Why are we just now getting around to dealing with it, almost five years later?

What kind of President, what kind of administration, and what kind of Congress would put border security on the back burner for so many years? That’s the real question.

Common sense tells us that after nineteen suicidal terrorists entered our country legally, spent at least two years learning to fly but not land large aircraft, were given driver’s licenses, credit cards, and rented apartments, then brought us the horrors of 9/11 – the first thing to do was tighten our borders, check everyone coming in legally, finger print them and maybe implant RIFD chips under their skin, and not let anyone cross our borders illegally. We did none of this. In fact, we seem to have opened our borders even wider by allowing thousands to daily enter our country illegally.

More Major Questions

Our esteemed leader, George W. Bush, must have felt very secure in the idea that another attack would not occur. Otherwise, he would have taken much more serious common sense steps to secure our borders. Maybe he even believed that Osama been Forgotten’s band of terrorists was relatively small at the time and had shot its wad in the 9/11 attack – something you certainly couldn’t say after we invaded Iraq and his membership grew by leaps and bounds.

How else do you explain doing so little or almost nothing to stop what had already worked so well for the enemy in our so-called everlasting “war on terror?” And wouldn’t such a possibility fly in the face of the alibi that the president had been given misleading information about the “weapons of mass destruction” that led to the initial invasion of a hapless republic that had done us no harm?

More serious, and possibly more realistic, is the idea that perhaps Bush and his “neocons” were complicit in the Trade Center destruction. Maybe Osama was some sort of not so silent partner. A dastardly coalition which would also explain why we haven’t found and eliminated this individual but instead diverted attention to Iraq’s killing fields and the permanent expansion of our Empire as well as the enemy’s Al-Qaeda forces.

This is the stuff conspiracy theories are made of, but it can’t be written off as impossibility, particularly when you recognize the way 9/11 mobilized our nation behind acts of aggression, abandonment of treaties, and the expansion of the New World Odor game plan.

In modern times, what else could have worked as well as the fear generated by the story that we could be attacked again at any moment and our enemies are religious extremists out to punish us for our values and “way of life?” An unquestioned story that seems almost as effective as the communist and Russian “evil empire” that fed our military machine and wartime economy for the many years of the Cold War.

It all presents a host of questions that range from why we were attacked in the first place, who has the greatest arsenal of weapons of mass murder, onward to things such as the use of torture as a means to get at “the truth.” If the latter works so well, why haven’t we used it on those suspected of dissing a spook?

And why shouldn’t hordes of people flow across our borders when they’ve learned that we do nothing to follow through on our own laws, deport them only if they’re caught in the most glaring crimes, and continuously hear that we’re a nation divided by the situation in Iraq? Even that a substantial number of the citizens on one side of this argument are upset only because we are not winning this invasion and occupation? That we can’t distinguish between freedom and license.

Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

51 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *