Do we need a Great Wall around the USA? Canada to fly in 900 Syrian refugees a day.

The boarder is very permeable up there. Maybe measures should be stepped up but not because of a reaction to the Syrian refugees. It should be because it's necessary.

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - MiIkel; It's going to be somewhat difficult for the Syrian refugees to cross from Canada to the US because they won't have Canadian passports. There is also no one in the US who is actively attempting to kill all of America's homeless veterans so they don't really fall into the "refugee" category.

Using the NCHV figures, America could "take in" 100% of its homeless veterans in around 55.5 days at the rate of 900 per day.

CPT (Join to see) - Captain; Exactly what do you mean by "porous"? There has been a total of ONE terrorist known to have entered the US from Canada and he was stopped and arrested upon entering the US. I wouldn't think that a 100% success rate was all that shoddy. Remember, if the border is "porous" then it's because that's the way the US wants it to be - the Canadians are not responsible for preventing people from entering the US (and all of the WTC/Pentagon mass murderers had entered the United States of America - through American control points - with the legal permission of the US government).

PS - Do you also propose "closing off" the Eastern and Western borders of the US, and, if so, how do you propose to completely seal off a 8,878 mile long perimeter (to compare, the Great Wall of China is 13,170.7 miles long)?

http://nchv.org/index.php/news/media/background_and_statistics/

LTC Stephen F. I was using that as an analogy based on the fact that we are letting refugees into this country putting a roof over their head and feeding them, when we have millions of civilian and veteran homeless individuals in this country now. Why aren't we providing them with shelter and a meal. Sorry that was my main point!

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Would that be because those things are "entitlements" and "entitlements" are anathema to "conservatives"?

MSgt (Dr.) Greg Wilson - Master Sergeant; When you make a comment about countries where everyone is the same culturally (thinking and acting the same), we find the potential for abuse, I'd ask you to take a look at the linked thread and its linked document.

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/have-you-read-umberto-eco-s-eternal-fascism

COL Ted Mc, there have been reports both ways on the 9/11 attackers, but it is clear that we have had terrorists infiltrate from Canada.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/canada.html

COL Ted Mc,

"The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has apprehended more suspected terrorists on the nation’s northern border than along its southern counterpart, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin said Tuesday.

'In terms of the terrorist threat, it’s commonly accepted that the more significant threat' comes from the U.S.-Canada border, Bersin told a hearing of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/canadian-border-bigger-terror-threat-mexican-border-says-border-patrol-chief

GySgt John Olson, enforcing the law might be a good place to start.

Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; Indeed "there have been reports both ways". Unfortunately the ones coming from the people who knew what they were talking about have all been one way - NONE came in through Canada.

Both of your linked articles are interesting, but other than the headlines don't actually prove your case. It appears that everyone on the US "no-fly" list who was apprehended while trying to enter the US did so through the normal US Border channels. This hardly qualifies as "infiltration".

I do note that the second article quotes “Because of the fact that we do not share no-fly [list] information and the Canadians will not, we are more than we would like confronted with the fact where a [person designated as a] no-fly has entered Canada and then is arrested coming across one of our bridges into the United States,”. Strangely enough, the Canadian government HAS offered to provide the US government with the names of the people on the Canadian "no-fly" list. Of course the Canadian government also expects, as a 'quid pro quo' that the US government would share the names of the people on ITS "no-fly" list. The US government is adamantly opposed to releasing those names (as a "national security measure") but seems to think that the Canadian government is doing something devious by not simply handing over the names on ITS "no-fly" list.

Of course, it is completely a mystery why the Canadian government doesn't stop people it doesn't know are on the US "no-fly" list from coming to Canada or (at least) telling the US government that they are in Canada. Right?

As far as "arresting more suspected terrorists", I'd like to know how many of those were actually CONVICTED of something (and what)? [I'll give you a hint, the answer is probably about as close to NONE as you can come - but it sure SOUNDS great when you are making your budget increase pitch.]

PS - "Substantial" is not a number.

PPS - It isn't the obligation of the Canadian government to police the American border to prevent people "linked (whatever that means) to terrorism" from entering the US. I can just imagine the outcry if the Canadian government "detained" an American citizen because someone had told the Canadian government that that person was "linked to terrorism" - especially if they were held incommunicado and detained for years without trial.

PPPS - When the "no-fly" list contains the names of US Senators, US Representatives, American industrialists, media "stars", sports "personalities" and four year old children as "potential terrorist risks" you should have some qualms about whether anyone is actually doing their job or not.