I’ve been keeping quiet on the illegal immigration debate, because I know I’m likely to get hot under the collar and write something I’ll regret later. Both of my parents are naturalized citizens, as are my uncles and aunts, and as were my grandparents. As a child of legal immigrants, I’m quite anti-illegal-alien in my outlook. That’s why I’ve been biting my tongue. However, I’m also a veteran, and national security is my number one priority. Since the Senate has crafted a disastrous “compromise” on illegal immigration today, there’s one thing I simply must put on the record now: America needs to build a wall along the entire Mexican border, and we need to do it as soon as possible.
I approach the problem as a retired Coast Guardsman. The massive influx of illegals is like seawater flooding a ship through a hole in the hull. The top priority is to stop the flooding. Pumping the water out can wait. Drying out the wet spaces belowdecks can wait. Upgrading to a thicker hull can wait. Plug the hole first. Deal with the results afterward.
This is a national security issue, not a race issue or an economic issue. This wouldn’t be a “Berlin Wall”; our wall would keep enemies out, not oppressed citizens in. Our border with Mexico is our giant back door, and it’s hanging wide open. Locking the front door and putting bars on the windows makes no sense if we leave the back door open. Islamists can slip into our Southwest as easily as anybody else can, and they aren’t looking for jobs. No “virtual wall” will do. We need a long, high physical barrier like the one Israel built. Israel’s wall drastically reduced the number of terrorist attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, and ours would make it much harder for terrorists to perpetrate a new Beslan massacre in Arizona.
I understand that making our border into a barrier will upset the Mexican government, but I care more about our national security than I care about keeping the Mexicans happy. I understand that illegal immigrants will try to find other ways into the country. Fine; we’ll plug those gaps when we find them. We might want to build another wall along some or all of our border with Canada, too, and I’m willing to start near Detroit. But our top priority must be to build a long, high wall between us and Mexico. Every other immigration issue can wait.
There, I said it.
Update: Hugh Hewitt knows what’s most important, too.
I’ve read through the National Security Strategy for 2006 released last Friday by the White House, and overall it’s a hardheaded and realistic approach to dealing with current and future enemies. However, I think they missed something: aggressively conducting cyber warfare against jihadi web sites and bulletin boards.
For years now it’s been common knowledge (even in the mainstream media) that the Islamists use web sites and online bulletin boards to coordinate their efforts and recruit new adherents to their cause. They also use encrypted e-mail to transmit commands, coordinate their finances and handle logistics. The jihadis expertly manipulate the media into broadcasting their calls to jihad, their videotaped bombings, and worst of all the beheading of hostages.
Encouraging words, but where’s the follow-up?
Continuing a theme he’s advanced since 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld noted last month:
We are fighting a battle where the survival of our free way of life is at stake. And the center of gravity of that struggle is not just on the battlefield. It is a test of wills and it will be won or lost with our public and the publics of free nations across the globe. We will need to do all we can to attract supporters to our efforts, to correct the lies being told which so damage our country, and shatter the appeal of the enemy. [emphasis added]
My first reaction to the speech was, “Great! Let’s start taking down their websites and bulletin boards and e-mail servers.” Based on Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments, I figured that there’d be something along those lines in today’s new National Security Strategy … but I don’t see it in there.
4/4/2007 Update: Is the behemoth finally waking up? Maybe.
The White House has released The National Security Strategy for 2006. Pre-emptive war is still a cornerstone, thank God. Read it for yourself; don’t let other people tell you what’s in it.
Let’s say you happen to be an intrepid Warrior of Allah™, and you’ve been thinking of putting your scuba training to good use by blowing up infidel port facilities. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but the U.S. Coast Guard is ready to cut your dogpaddling jihad short. Witness the Underwater Port Security System.
If ever you need a demonstration of how liberals destroy the Democratic Party’s credibility on national security, here it is.
Michelle Malkin asks a great question about Social Security and Homeland Security.
Remember when the INS sent visas to two of the dead 9/11 hijackers? Well, the idiots in the federal government have outdone themselves. On January 15th, 2005 the Department of Homeland Security finally got around to issuing a green card to Mr. Eugueni Kniazev. He won’t be coming in to pick up his card … because he died in the 9/11 attacks.
Michelle Malkin has all the details. Unbelievable.
Paul Krugman, target of frequent fiskings, takes fire for his latest complaints about Social Security privatization from JustOneMinute:
Oh, it was privatizers on the right that invented the Social Security crisis? Then when Bill CLinton insisted in his State of the Union that we “Save Social Security first”, what was that about? And why did Al Gore keep going on (and on,and on) about his “lockbox”?
We all know the answer – Back in the era of budget surpluses Social Security was in a crisis discovered by Bill Clinton so that no one could cut taxes until Social Security was “saved”. Well, Republicans (with some Democratic votes) cut taxes without saving Social Security, but the public perception of crisis lingers.
Bill Clinton started this fire, but it was George Bush who brought the hotdogs and marshmallows. My Metaphor-Mixer is pointing towards “Reap what you sow”.
That’s going to leave a mark.
The Washington Times reports the results of an investigation into John Kerry’s repeated claims that he met with all the members on the UN Security Council during the run-up to the war in Iraq:
After conversations with ambassadors from five members of the Security Council in 2002 and calls to all the missions of the countries then on the panel, The Times was only able to confirm directly that Mr. Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon.
In addition, second-hand accounts have Mr. Kerry meeting with representatives of Britain.
When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate’s previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.
But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, “It was a closed meeting and a private discussion.”
A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.
The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry’s claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate “met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council.”
Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that “our office does not have any record of this meeting.”
That’s gonna hurt.
Redstate (and still more)
American Special Forces (Delta, for sure) will be at the Olympics in Athens, Greece this summer … and they’ll be carrying their own weapons. It’s highly unusual for any country to permit armed foreign troops on its soil. Sounds like the Greeks have tacitly admitted the inadequacy of their own security measures.
Hat tip: Drudge