Illegals Caught Entering U.S. From Terror-Linked Nations
Illegals Caught Entering U.S. From Terror-Linked Nations
The Border Patrol apprehended 315 aliens trying
to enter the United States illegally from nations that “promote,
produce, or protect terrorists” in fiscal 2011.
From Oct. 1, 2010 through Sept. 30, 2011, the
Border Patrol — the U.S. Customs and Border Protection component of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — arrested 327,577 illegal aliens
along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Among those were 46,997 termed “Other Than
Mexican,” including 255 who originated from what the DHS calls “special
interest countries.”
Those are defined by the DHS as nations “that
have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist
organizations or their members,” and consist of 34 nations plus the West
Bank and Gaza.
The illegals apprehended include 20 from Iran and
36 from Pakistan, plus 76 from Bangladesh, 41 from the Philippines,
five from Somalia, four from Tunisia, and three from Syria.
In addition, the Border Patrol apprehended 66
aliens from “special interest countries” trying to enter the country
along U.S. coastlines in fiscal 2011.
They included one from Iran, one from Pakistan,
10 from the Philippines, eight from Uzbekistan, seven from Jordan, and
five from Indonesia.
All told, the Border Patrol caught 6,552 aliens along the U.S. coast.
The Border Patrol also reported that last year it
seized more than 2.5 million pounds of marijuana at U.S. borders, plus
nearly 10,000 pounds of cocaine, 619 firearms, and 45,460 rounds of
ammunition.
Unfortunately, the Best Estimate is that fewer than half of those who cross the border are apprehended!
From PBS: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/mexico704/interview...
"Described by The Nation magazine as “the nation’s
foremost academic expert on Mexican migration,” Wayne A. Cornelius
founded the University of California at San Diego's Center for
U.S.-Mexican Studies in 1979 and directed it from 1979 to1994 and again
from 2001 to the present. He is also the founding director of UCSD's
Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, established in 1999, which
conducts comparative research on international migration and refugee
movements. Here, he talks with FRONTLINE/World
producers about the new methods migrants are using to get into the
country and the growth of human smuggling organizations, one of the
unintended consequences of border fortification.
Q: In talks with the heads of U.S. border protection
agencies, asking how many people are coming across the border illegally,
they all say that they don’t know. What does your research indicate?
A: Well, what they really don’t know is how many people are coming
across and not getting caught, not getting detected at all. Our research
shows that fewer than half of those who come to this border are
apprehended. And of those who are caught, all but about 3 percent
eventually get through. They don’t just give up and go home. So if they
don’t succeed on the first try, they almost certainly will succeed on
the second or the third try. It's all those people who get through
eventually that the border patrol really has no idea about.
Comment:
So 315 aliens from nations that "promote, produce or protect
terrorists" were caught, but an expert estimates that fewer than half of
those who cross the border are caught - that means the population of
possible terrorists in this nation grew by over 300 during FY 2011! If
the same statistic applies to guns and ammunition, they may have brought over 600 illegal firearms, and 45,000 rounds of
ammunition with them!

















The truth is that Bush tried to get "comprehensive immigration reform" passed, along with "amnesty", and failed when 70% of Americans objected and congress backed down. In other words, conservatives were against Bush on immigration too!
"All the trouble today" is because illegals from nations that “promote,
produce, or protect terrorists” are crossing our borders. Does that not concern you?
BTW, there were no "lawsuits" when Bush was in office but a lot of conservatives complained about his handling of illegal immigration.
FYI, the complaint is titled "The United States of America vs. The State of Arizona, and Janice K. Brewer in her official capacity as Governor"
Why is it that you can't see that people oppose Obama because of his policies, not his race? The same people who oppose Barack Obama love Allen West, Condoleeza Rice, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, all of who also oppose what Obama is doing to this nation.
http://www.politifact.com/tex...
http://polination.wordpress.c...
The articles cited here do not even mention Barack Obama or his administration, they simply point out a problems that should concern every American, the possibility of terrorists coming into the U.S. You are bordering on the psychotic with your insistence that Obama's race has anything to do with this blog.
One example - MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell recently aired a heavily edited (e.g. 90% omitted!) version of a Romney campaign speech. They had edited it to make him appear out of touch when he was marveling at the automation in a restaurant, and Mitchell made a demeaning comment about him being out of touch. In context he was talking about the efficiency of the private sector as compared to the public sector - they edited out the entire gist of the speech.
Another example: Less than two months before the 2004 election CBS and Dan Rather aired a segment which used a forged document to "prove" that George Bush had used the Texas Air National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. Not only was the "memorandum" they used an obvious forgery (It took less than two hours for internet "experts" to point out that it has been printed with a word processor that used "superscripts" that weren't available at the time it was allegedly written!), they ignored statements from Bush's contemporaries in the ANG that he had volunteered to fly in Vietnam but had been turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.
I challenge you to give me a single example of either Fox or News Max deliberatel...
One example - MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell recently aired a heavily edited (e.g. 90% omitted!) version of a Romney campaign speech. They had edited it to make him appear out of touch when he was marveling at the automation in a restaurant, and Mitchell made a demeaning comment about him being out of touch. In context he was talking about the efficiency of the private sector as compared to the public sector - they edited out the entire gist of the speech.
Another example: Less than two months before the 2004 election CBS and Dan Rather aired a segment which used a forged document to "prove" that George Bush had used the Texas Air National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. Not only was the "memorandum" they used an obvious forgery (It took less than two hours for internet "experts" to point out that it has been printed with a word processor that used "superscripts" that weren't available at the time it was allegedly written!), they ignored statements from Bush's contemporaries in the ANG that he had volunteered to fly in Vietnam but had been turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.
I challenge you to give me a single example of either Fox or News Max deliberately reporting falsehoods. And I don't mean "opinion" shows like O'Reilly and Hannity,that are clearly labeled as opinion and analysis - I mean the hard news segments on Fox. Give me a single example - and if you don't believe my examples of MSNBC and CBS above, I can provide links, including CBS's own investigation into Rathergate where I got the information about Bush.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/15...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://writer-david.hubpages....