Al Queda Target: Railways – Schumer calls for No-Ride List; Economic Hit Would be Devastating - Beef Up the Borders with U.S. Troops

Freight Train moving through Santa Barbara, CA from Tran Blog by Marcel Marchon

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were devastating to the U.S. economy; the immediate impact to New York City alone was 16.9 Billion dollars (fiscalpolicy.org), and, considered short-lived on a national scope, the economy was impacted for a period of 2 years, with an immediate impact on Wall Street on a par with two other events beginning in 1920, with the bombing of Wall Street 9/16/1920, and the September attack on the Olympics in Munich in 1972 (Journal of 911 Studies, March 2008).

With the cache of information gathered in the U.S. raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound, it was discovered that America’s railways are potential terrorist targets. With this revelation, even Charles Schumer (D-NY) is calling for a “No-Ride” list for passenger trains in the U.S. (Reuters), however, the documents do indicate that that the attacks would be on the rail lines themselves, rather than a terrorist boarding a train (KBOI) As any attack on a commuter train’s costs in lives and the economy may be, the disruption to rail service in general, would have an enormous impact on the overall economy. Over 43 percent of all U.S. goods are moved by rail (Boston Globe).

Beefing up security for all trains, commuter as well as freight lines is in order, however, the “no-ride” list and the Department of Homeland Security’s call for citizens to act as watchdogs, does not address the overall problem of border security, which remains porous, whether it be to the southern border, northern border, or more specifically the ports and coastlines both east and west. In this opinion, although some might sight tighter border control as somewhat draconian, when one considers the impact on lives and damage to the current unstable U.S. economy, the more nationalist view of border control, including the use of U.S. troops to patrol the border (a la Donald Trump’s suggestion (The Trump Card 2012), begins to make sense.

Politics aside, whether right, left or center, it is obvious that, even with the demise of Osama Bin Laden, there are members of the Al Queda organization radical faction to step in, replace, and even outdo Bin Laden’s legacy. The fact that there were continued discussions and plans within the hierarchy of that organization since September 11th only highlights the necessity of a more proactive border policy. The fact that the rails are a target makes this more urgent, in light of the current economy. Although the chances of this occurring under the current administration and Congress are slim to nothing, it would behoove our elected officials to consider this tactic, regardless of which special interest groups one might offend in the short-term, in the long-term, this type of policy would be a step in ensuring the safety of the public, but also go far towards controlling illegal immigration, as well as putting a dent into human trafficking which is an abominable trade, using all borders.

Obama - Immigration Reform not Likely – Additional States Consider Arizona Legislation.

Arizona border Rancher Rob Krentz and his dog murdered by illegal border crossers - story and image Examiner.com

Barack Obama is backing off Immigration Reform for this year according to Politico. The President indicated that he would prefer that immigration reform be taken up in the Congress; however, it is unlikely that a consensus would be reached in the house. He went on to blame “Republican’s” for the stalemate, even though the House Republicans are, at the moment, vastly outnumbered by Democrats who were able to push through Health Care legislation with ease. Meanwhile, he is seeking ways for the Federal Government to challenge the new Arizona immigration law – one which seeks to enforce Federal laws already in place.

The Act, SB1070-492R available here is loaded with “safeguards” against so-called “racial profiling”, and seeks to maintain stability in a Mexican border state where violent crime has become the norm. Special interest groups have vowed to boycott the State, and several Democrats and Republicans have banded together in a call for troops on the border. A press conference was held yesterday by Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ), Dan Burton (R-IN), Ted Poe (R-TX) and Edward Royce (R-CA) announcing legislation introduced in the House calling for immediate deployment of troops on border States. This may be why Obama’s plan to push immigration reform through the House may come to naught, with the more pressing issue being security and enforcing existing laws on the books.

Article 1, Section 10of the Constitution is an interesting read in relation to the border states and their right to protect themselves, even so far as: “engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” combined with the 10th Amendment which grants autonomy to the States (specifically and the people) in cases where powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, or not prohibited by the Constitution are up to the individual States. Therefore, while Obama seeks to find ways around protecting the citizens of the Border States in an attempt to pacify special interest groups, the State of Arizona has acted in accordance with the Constitution, and apparently has the ability to go further.

Progressive are up in arms over the fact that seven other states are considering legislation similar to Arizona’s. Included in the list: Utah, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska. All of the aforementioned are either border states or have experienced an influx of illegal immigrants and the resulting increase in crime. Apparently, much to the Progressive’s dismay, those State Legislators have access to the U.S. Constitution.

Why not close the border, enforce existing laws, and protect U.S. Sovereignty? Simply put, pacifying a large and growing voting bloc. Regardless of political affiliation, every single President since Ronald Reagan has promised to seal the border, yet somehow, words alone have not sufficed. From George Bush, who captured the Hispanic vote in both elections to Barack Obama who did the same, closing the border may upset certain groups that drive the vote. It is about racial profiling to the extent that politicians are depending upon a specific segment of the population to vote in a particular way – closing the border would stop the importation of positional “voters”.

Security should be the main concern regarding all borders, north, south and the coasts, regardless of the tip of threat posed by those crossing, be it guns, weapons of mass destruction or drugs. The United States already has a mechanism in place for those foreign nationals who wish to work in the United States through a visa process. The only overhaul needed on immigration is a reduction in fees for those applying for citizenship, a reduction in the wait time prior to an application being processed, elimination of the need for high-priced “immigration attorney’s” and a test revision that any one of our high school seniors might pass. As to those who are already here, and working in the United States (estimates of 12 million), those who have a clean record, should be fast-tracked, the rest, put on a first class one-way flight back to where they came. Understanding that “amnesty” is a dirty word amongst conservatives, it is not without some sanity that one must consider logistics in moving millions of people from homes and schools that have been established for years, and “shipping” them to their country of origin (be in Mexico or Ireland). Impose a fee,(give the IRS another job along with fleecing American’s who cannot afford health insurance by taking it out of their taxes) that must be paid – given a valid social security number, one which would allow the IRS to withhold refunds and garnish wages if necessary. Perhaps a penalty that fits the crime that had been committed when the individual crossed into the United States illegally would be in order. One can bet, however, that nothing will be done on reform, as it is as much a political issue as Gay Marriage and Abortion – a rallying cry for politicians in opposition of one another, with zero intent of doing anything – period.

Given that simple steps would go a long way towards fixing problems on the Federal level, and the same refusing to budge, over decades no less, the States have the right to protect them by any measure, apparently including going to war, in powers granted them by the Constitution of the United States.