I am reading Tom Clancy's newest book, The Teeth of the Tiger. I'm about halfway through it, and Clancy has written of something I have long feared (and something I am frankly quite surprised has not been attempted to date)>

If you haven't read the book, and don't like spoilers, stop reading this entry.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Still with me? Good.

In the book, a group of terrorists enter America (through Mexico -- imagine that) and disperse to four "middle-America" cities. At a designated time, the terrorists (in groups of four) enter a local shopping mall and begin hosing down the shoppers -- men, and especially women and children.

To the Islamic terrorists, it is merely enforcing the Koran, and slaying the infidel (a quick trip to heaven, in their eyes).

Of course, this causes all sorts of chaos, etc., etc. . . and frankly, I haven't finished the book yet.

But I have long wondered why we haven't had such an attack here.

I strongly suspected we would see something of that nature during this past Christmas holiday season. Such an attack, while grotesque and unspeakable, would go a long ways towards harming America and pointing out her vulnerabilities. Done in the Christmas shopping season, it would certainly have depressed sales, severely slowed the economy, and likely have harmed Bush's re-election chances (the economy would be weaker and he would be subjected to claims that (a) he couldn't protect American citizens; and (b) that his "amnesty-that-isn't-called-amnesty" plan left us open to such incursions in the future.

Chilling, eh?

So, how could we stop it? Well, there are several methods at home and abroad.

First, we could get serious about having borders and controlling them. This would require a massive increase in Border Patrol funding, and a goodly investment in some technology. It would also require us to get serious about deporting illegal immigrants.

The increase in funding and tech would be used to place more border patrol agents at key locations and technology in the form of monitors at places too remote for agents. It would also require harsher sentences for the co-called "coyotes" who help funnel people across the borders.

Deporting illegal immigrants would be the toughest part. Several cities in the United States have passed city ordinances prohibiting local authorities from cooperating with INS personnel. The reason these local officials pass these sorts of ordinances is twofold. First, some are ideologically opposed to current federal immigration policy (as well as to certain federal officials). Second, many have large numbers of illegal aliens or former illegal aliens as constituents -- so they pander to that voting bloc.

The proper federal response would be to cut off all federal funds to any city that passed such an ordinance, or otherwise interfered with or refused to cooperate with the INS. If cutting off city funds didn't work, then cut off federal funds to that county, and, if necessary, federal funds to that entire state. This would put severe financial pressure on the local officials to reverse the policy -- particularly if "federal funds" included federal welfare recipients, federal student financial aid recipients and federal social security and medicare/medicaid recipients. In other words, the local officials would suddenly have to worry about a whole new group of angry constituents, and hopefully the pressure would cause the officials to back down.

In addition, we would need to consider somethign like a "guest worker" program -- but we would need tight controls on the participants, and strict enforcement of time limitations. If you overstay a work/student/travel visa, you have just forfeited your privilege of legally re-entering the United States for the next, say, twenty years.

Another part of the problem is Constitutional. The Constitution was amended after the Civil War to the effect that any person born on American soil is an American citizen. Although originally drafted to make all former slaves American citizens, this provision has proved a great boon to illegal aliens, who cross the border late in pregnancy, have their child (for free) at an American hospital, and then claim a right to stay in America (and receive, among other things, federal housing and food assistance) as the guardian of this young American citizen. That provision should be changed to exclude children born of parents here illegally.

Would this completely take care of the immigration problem (and make our borders safer)? No, not completely. But it would be a good first step.

At moments like this, I wonder just how much it will take for us to decide we need to take such steps. September 11 has faded in many American's minds. I only hope we don't have to suffer through something similar before we start trying to actually protect ourselves.

Frankly, I'd vote against Bush on his spending and immigration policies if the alternatives weren't worse. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:08