I simply cannot figure out why it is so difficult for President Trump and some of the alleged leaders in Congress to sit down together and find a way to resolve the border security stalemate.

The starting point is that most of the key players have agreed at one time or another that border security is important.  They all seem to want it, but when charged with doing something to achieve it and invited to sit down with the President and discuss it, “the other side” seems to develop a craving for pineapples or pork chops.  Why are they so afraid of success?   Or maybe they’re confusing terms.  Maybe they’re saying “secure borders” when what they really want and mean is “open borders”, no borders at all.  You know, Pueblo Sin Fronteras or Centro Sin Fronteras type stuff.

It seems to me the first step is to agree on what “secure borders” are in assuring the continued sovereignty of the United States.  If you don’t know exactly what it is you’re after, how will you recognize it if you stumble upon it?  I have yet to hear either side’s definition of “secure borders” though they intone that phrase reverently as if it’s etched on a marble wall somewhere.

Regardless, both President Trump and “the other side” would be taking a step in the right direction if they both started by explaining (truthfully if possible) what “secure borders” look like in their respective worlds.   At that point, they can then begin to intelligently agree on the methods to implement areas where they agree and resolve the issues over which they disagree.

One suggestion I’d make humbly is that all the participants on both sides agree that they could learn a lot from Customs and Border Protection’s field employees, the people from all twenty CBP Sectors.  Please notice I used the terms “field employees” and “people” rather than “BP agents” or “officers.”   Not every employee is a commissioned law enforcement officer, yet all of the employees have a role to play in successfully completing the agency’s mission.  Too often in many federal law enforcement agencies, the input is not sought from administrative, technical, and professional employees on whom the law enforcement officers depend.  The assumption is that if you’re not a handcuff jockey, then you couldn’t possibly have any meaningful input that would improve enforcement and removal operations.

My suggestion would be for each sector chief to designate a very experienced operational employee from each job series (administrative, enforcement, professional, and technical) to represent the sector.  Designate experienced boots rather than suits to participate.  Why?   Because whether you’re the President or one of the Fools on the Hill, your objective should be to try and get a very clear, apolitical, nonpartisan understanding of what a “secure border” looks like in each of the sectors.   Lobbyists for companies are less likely to be able to BS experienced boots from the field than suits whose last decade has been spent inhabiting the Swamp.

It’s also important to remember that a border needs to be secure in both directions.  The present emphasis is on illegal immigrants coming into the US.  However, the illegal transmission out of the US of currency or electronic funds which are the proceeds of contraband smuggled in needs to be addressed as well.

What I would expect this boots working group might reveal to the Mahogany Row denizens from DHS,  the White House, and the Hill is that “border security” is not a nice, tidy one-size-fits-all concept.  In other words, there’s no easy single fix like a wall or a drone or technology or more warm bodies with badges and guns.  Remedies will be most effective if they’re complementary rather than discrete and tailored rather than cookie-cutter produced.  They need to be regularly reviewed and modified when necessary.

But nothing is going to happen until both sides agree to sit down and start talking seriously.

The “other side” has invoked the deceptive practices of their hero, J. Wellington Wimpy who famously said, ““I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”  They’ll gladly start talking about border security if the President simply reopens the government.   Wimpy never came around on Tuesday to make his promised payment.  The “other side” used to be led by Senator Harry “Wimpy” Reid who bragged about how effectively his lie about Mitt Romney had cost Romney the 2012 presidential election.  When Leader “Wimpy” Reid was confronted with his obvious lie, he smiled and said, “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

I’m quite certain President Trump understands that J. Wellington Wimpy is the role model for those who favor open borders and no immigration controls.  The instant he relies on the assurance of Pelosi and Schumer and reopens the government, neither they nor their toadies on the Hill have any further incentive to cooperate with him and “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has sent a letter to President Trump suggesting that unless the government reopens this week, he should postpone the state of the union address (SOTU) until a later date or deliver the address in writing to Congress on January 29th.

Speaker Pelosi’s letter cites “security concerns” as the principal reason for her suggestion.   She implies that the partial shutdown of the US government has “hamstrung” the US Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) so the Secret Service cannot adequately protect this National Special Security Event (NSSE).

Planning for NSSEs  usually begins weeks and on recurring events like the SOTU, often months ahead of the event and continues uninterrupted until the event concludes.  I’m certain this SOTU was no different.

It was and I presume still is a disgustingly common practice for deceptive politicians in both major parties to attribute cancellation or postponement of an event on “security reasons,” thus implying that the security providers have told them they just can’t adequately do their jobs.   If there is intelligence that a credible threat is actually posed against the SOTU, Speaker Pelosi ought to be meeting directly with the President, Senate Leader McConnell, the House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving,  and the Secret Service to discuss it.

It seems more likely that Speaker Pelosi’s reason for wanting to postpone the SOTU is to avoid giving President Trump prime television time to explain just how well the country under his presidency has begun to recover economically from the damage inflicted during the eight years of the Obama administration.

 * Excerpted from “The Raven” by E.A. Poe, at https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48860/the-raven

[

On January 2, 2019, Congressional “leaders” were invited to the White House Situation Room to receive a then-classified briefing on the situation at the US-Mexico border.  The briefing was likely classified and held in the Situation Room to give participants an opportunity to receive detailed national security information about the humanitarian crisis at the border.  Schumer and Pelosi and other Democrats attended but refused to listen to the briefing from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

Today the White House released an unclassified version of the briefing so the public could see the President’s reasons for wanting to build a border wall at strategic locations along the US-Mexico border.  Here is a link to the unclassified briefing released today.

[

[

[

Here is a link to the 31-page report entitled Stopping Terrorist Travel Through Illicit Pathways to the Homeland.  This report was released on January 2, 2019, by the House Homeland Security Committee majority party members.

In general, the Report describes how the US-Mexico border is being exploited by “Special Interest Aliens” (and therefore drug and human traffickers).  In general, a Special Interest Alien (SIA) is a non-U.S. citizen from a country outside the Western Hemisphere who, based on country of origin and travel pattern, poses a potential national security risk to the United States.

Clearly this report is relevant to the current proposal from President Trump to build a barrier along the entire US-Mexico border.

“On February 14, 2018, fourteen students and three staff members at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, were fatally shot and seventeen others were wounded, in one of the deadliest school massacres in United States’ history.”

“On March 9, 2018, Governor Rick Scott signed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (MSDHSPSA) into law. […] A key component of the legislation was the establishment of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Publoic Safety Commission (Commission) composed of 17 voting members and 4 non-voting members appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the House, Senate President or specified in legislation.  The Commission was formed to specifically analyze information from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and other mass violence incidents and provide recommendations and system improvements to help mitigate the impacts from and prevent future school shootings.”

Here is a link identifying the Commission appointees and a brief bio about each appointee.

Here is a link to the specific duties of the Commission.

On January 2, 2019, the Commission’s report will be submitted to the specified officials.  Here is a link to the 407-page DRAFT of that report.

Note that this is only a DRAFT of the report.  It was released on December 12, 2018.

This particular post could just as well have been titled First, Build the Wall.  And Then …, Part 2.

If you haven’t read my December 2, 2018, post which would have been Part 1, I’d suggest you read it first.  In that post I explained why a well-conceived and structurally superior barrier along the US – Mexico border is not a luxury; it is a necessity to protect the sovereignty of the United States.

To quickly summarize the main points in that post, the purposes of the wall are to:

(1) Visually, physically, and unmistakably identify the legally recognized boundary separating the United States and Mexico, and

(2) Delay illegal aliens from entering the United States until Border Patrol and ICE agents can get to the illegals’ point of entry at the wall and apprehend them if they’ve already entered illegally or discourage illegal entry if they have not, and

(3)  Guide and direct persons who seek entry and are permitted to enter lawfully to controlled points of entry where they can request United States law be applied.

As expected, opponents of the wall countered this week that the wall won’t be effective.  Their argument depends on their definition of “effective.”  If  their expectation for an effective wall is that it will, by itself, completely prevent illegal entry through the border, then they are absolutely correct.

But any barrier (e.g., the wall regardless of its design and materials) will only slow down (“delay”) illegal entry.   It will “Delay illegal aliens from entering the United States until Border Patrol and ICE agents can get to the illegals’ point of entry at the wall and apprehend them if they’ve already entered illegally or discourage illegal entry if they have not.”  This principle was explained in my December 2 post.

What is also remarkable is that some of the wall’s opponents suggested this week that the wall President Trump wants to build should not be built at all.  Rather, they suggest the money that would be spent for the wall should be used for “technology and manpower.”

Any of the wall’s proponents who believe President Trump’s proposed wall is the definitive and dispositive answer to US-Mexico border security are as ignorantly wrong as the wall’s opponents such as US Senator Dick (appropriately named) Durbin who believe “technology and manpower” is the definitive and dispositive answer.

As they are used to augment security along the US-Mexico border, the wall (a manmade physical barrier) and technology (deterrent, detection, and verification systems) fall under the category of “tactical infrastructure,”   usually abbreviated “TI.”

Barriers introduce deterrence and time delays to discourage and delay invaders until responder arrive to apprehend.

Technology has already been used for years to sense unauthorized activity (tunnels, barrier defeats, airborne overflights, etc.).   Conventional video and satellite imagery can also help verify that the source of an intrusion alarm is human versus animal.

There are nonlethal energy directed weapons that theoretically could be used to repel intruders, however the ADS shown in the example would seem to be most effective against wall climbers while they’re still on the invader’s side of the wall.    Likewise, claims about no permanent damage caused by ADS and other systems are generally based on the immediately observable short-term results of tests performed on healthy adults.  Long-term harm such as cancers, miscarriages in pregnant women, immune system-compromised invaders, etc. would probably have to be determined.

Ultimately, however, apprehension, arrest, detention, and associated legal action requires manpower.  That’s Customs and Border Protection agents.  For the last several budget cycles, CBP has been unable to recruit and train sufficiently qualified and committed agent applicants to meet existing staffing needs.

Barriers and technology can have a force multiplier effect to make the CBP agents more effective, however neither barriers nor technology can replace the human decision-maker and operative.

When he first declared his candidacy, now-President Donald J. Trump strongly advocated building a wall to separate the United States from Mexico.

The wall, regardless of its final design and construction, was to be formidable enough to discourage illegal aliens from entering the United States illegally (that’s why they’re “illegal” aliens).  At the same time, the wall was to preserve the process which allows lawful immigrants or temporary residents (e.g., workers) to make lawful application and then enter the United States lawfully.

“A wall won’t work.  It won’t be effective.  It will never stop everyone,” many opponents scream.

These opponents are only partially correct.   A wall can work, it can be effective, but by itself it is never expected to indefinitely prevent illegal entry.

For these opponents, this post will be a tutorial.   (more…)

[

The Washington Free Beacon online news outlet is reporting “A Gonzaga University administrator blocked an event featuring conservative pundit Ben Shapiro not over the content of his speech, but because protesters might use hateful language.”

Here’s a link to Washington Free Beacon article posted today.

Somehow I suspect that Shapiro would have been welcomed with open arms if he could dribble a basketball, if he had promised a large endowment to the athletic department, or if he had assured the Gonzaga pearl-clutchers he would say nothing nice about President Trump.

Eric Swalwell,  a 38-year old lawyer elected to Congress to represent California’s 15th Congressional District, has a plan for gun control.  His plan is for the federal government to buy back every “military-style semiautomatic assault weapon” in the United States. (You’ll need Dramamine in boxcar quantities if you try to mentally resolve the factual descriptor conflicts in that five-word quote from Swalwell.)

For those who won’t voluntarily sell back the rifle, Congressman Swalwell says the federal government can nuke us.

Swalwell’s intellectual deficiencies became apparent when he was questioned by the National Rifle Association’s spokeswoman, Dana Loesch.  She may wish to apologize to him, however, for jumping to the conclusion that a US Congressman advocating the use of nuclear weapons against US citizens even in jest might still be mentally stable enough to hold any elective office, anywhere, anytime.  Clearly she was wrong if she concluded that.

And by the way, Swalwell is considering a run for President in 2020.  Well, why not?  After all, Hillary Clinton did a pretty fair imitation of Kim Philby, so why shouldn’t Swalwell take a crack at imitating Pol Pot?