this is a bad look in my opinion. — “President Joe Biden’s administration instructed Border Patrol agents not to disclose to the American public the increase in terrorist encounters at the border, former chief patrol agent for Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector, Aaron Heitke, said on Thursday. “ Border Patrol Forbidden from Discussing Increasing Terror Threats, Ex-Border Patrol Chief Says | National Review
— Are you questioning this because of the source? You can watch video to see what he said. Not that it matters, but here’s other sources. Can we not agree this is bad? Biden-Harris border official claims cover-up as he was allegedly ordered to hide release of migrants Former fed alleges border crisis cover-up - Washington Examiner
The guy was under oath, I assume, so I further assume he told the truth. However, I doubt he told the entire truth, just as you'd doubt the complete truth being told by a witness you politically disagreed with. It's always politics. For example, TWO bipartisan bills have been crafted since 2013 which addressed the boarder problem. The right shot both down in both instances. Ignore their explanations why. It was pure politics: it gave them a chance to trot out boarder patrol agents and point fingers at democrats. Can we agree this was worse than bad?
So here's the problem. You may have presented an article with valid points. But I'm not going to read it. Because I don't care. Why? Because you support a political side that openly engages in dishonest and racist discourse. Specifically; JD Vance has said that he's willing to knowingly spread racist falsehoods in order to "draw attention to the issue." Trump obviously doesn't even need to make that clear at this point. So you are supporting a dishonest political force that has and continues to drag our nation into the gutter. You and your side are not worthy of honest discourse, at least certainly not at this point. You simply do not get to pivot between obvious racist lies, such as dog eating, to having a rational debate. This has been the case for eight years, and people like you are too intelligent to now know it or to pretend otherwise. So come back for discussion when you don't support a racist liar(s) please.
— Thanks for the response. And for keeping it civil. I do believe the bill that was rejected earlier, also had four Democrats and two independents against it as well. So it wasn’t just the Republicans that were against it. I believe Chuck Schumer even admitted he wasn’t expecting full support from the left. And I agree, I wish everything wasn’t political. We’re not getting anywhere. My point of this post, was that this is really a bad look on our President’s part. Anyone that thinks otherwise, is not being truthful. And yes, us not being able to get everyone on board and try and secure the border, is not a good luck for either party. I wish a bill would be brought to the table, that addressed the border only. Not aid to other countries or anything else. Maybe we could come to some kind of agreement. Probably wishful thinking on my part though.
^ Drive-by neg-rater disagrees. I guess he thinks it is reasonable to pivot between telling obvious racist lies on the national stage and attempting rational debate. Sad.
Yeah, that's not actually what he said. Those Border Patrol folks love using slippery language. He was talking about "Special Interest Aliens" (SAI). Generally, these are people who have the same or similar names to people on the terror watchlist or are connected to a region known for terrorist activity. Actual terrorists trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border is extraordinarily rare. DHS uses the designation "Known or Suspected Terrorist" (KST) for them. It is significant that he used SAI in his testimony and not KST. It's all about drumming up fear and taking advantage of people not understanding this distinction.
Two questions. When have we ever had a secure Southern border? And two, how many terrorists attacks have been successfully carried out by people who entered the US illegally entering through the Southern border? The answers are never and zero. And not listing SAIs? Not a big deal. Like stated, these are persons with a similar name as a terrorist or from a region where terrorists live. But the chances they are terrorists? Extremely slim.
Just curious, for the sake of argument, pre 9-11 how many terrorist attacks used planes to fly into buildings piloted by guys that were actually trained in flight schools in the US? Who when learning to fly didn’t really care much about landing the plane?
