Border crisis

[Mark1]

I assume you meant billion and not trillion. But if you think border fences in the right place can't solve illegal immigration / illegal border crossings tell that to Israel and San Diego.

San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control

Honest to god, I said to myself that it would take less than 3 posts following mine to see the 'San Diego case study' posted...I suppose I overestimated. I won't even entertain the suggestion that Israel's circumstances are applicable.

Pointing to the fence bordering San Diego as indicative of anything regarding border control in whole indicates either a complete lack of understanding regarding human behavior, or a willful ignorance of reality.

Illegals crossing the border look for the path of least resistance, just like everything else in nature. Their desire to make the crossing might be so strong that they'd be willing to swim through 10 miles of human shit to the other side, but if it's not necessary, they're happy to walk across into comfortable San Diego. Put a fence up blocking San Diego? Illegals crossing into San Diego drops by 95%. Because you've thwarted them? Give me a break.

Although not by much, El Paso is still easier than 10 miles of excrement, so they'll cross there. Block El Paso? Fine, they'll walk through 50 miles of mountainous desert with half a gallon of water. Fence of the desolate desert areas? Fine, they'll dig a tunnel, or cut a hole in the fence, or obtain a counterfeit passport and cross 'legally', or a thousand other options. OR, maybe they'll exploit the Gulf of Mexico, or that marginally large body of water called the Pacific Ocean. Raise the bar high enough and the coyotes will start employing submersibles like the Central/South American cartels use. Those options aren't used today because they aren't the path of least resistance. Put up a fence at enormous cost and the stream will just shift off land. Put the Coast Guard on it? They'll think of something else.

Want to raise the bar high enough that none of those options are viable? How many trillions of dollars are you in for at this point?

Maybe reasonable border control measures coupled with policy that makes legal immigration the path of least resistance is a better option than a 2000 mile long electrified razor wire fence (and yes I'm aware that you, Clark, aren't advocating that, but some are).

[Clark Griswold]

Honest to god, I said to myself that it would take less than 3 posts following mine to see the 'San Diego case study' posted...I suppose I overestimated. I won't even entertain the suggestion that Israel's circumstances are applicable.

Pointing to the fence bordering San Diego as indicative of anything regarding border control in whole indicates either a complete lack of understanding regarding human behavior, or a willful ignorance of reality.

Illegals crossing the border look for the path of least resistance, just like everything else in nature. Their desire to make the crossing might be so strong that they'd be willing to swim through 10 miles of human shit to the other side, but if it's not necessary, they're happy to walk across into comfortable San Diego. Put a fence up blocking San Diego? Illegals crossing into San Diego drops by 95%. Because you've thwarted them? Give me a break.

Although not by much, El Paso is still easier than 10 miles of excrement, so they'll cross there. Block El Paso? Fine, they'll walk through 50 miles of mountainous desert with half a gallon of water. Fence of the desolate desert areas? Fine, they'll dig a tunnel, or cut a hole in the fence, or obtain a counterfeit passport and cross 'legally', or a thousand other options. OR, maybe they'll exploit the Gulf of Mexico, or that marginally large body of water called the Pacific Ocean. Raise the bar high enough and the coyotes will start employing submersibles like the Central/South American cartels use. Those options aren't used today because they aren't the path of least resistance. Put up a fence at enormous cost and the stream will just shift off land. Put the Coast Guard on it? They'll think of something else.

Want to raise the bar high enough that none of those options are viable? How many trillions of dollars are you in for at this point?

Maybe reasonable border control measures coupled with policy that makes legal immigration the path of least resistance is a better option than a 2000 mile long electrified razor wire fence (and yes I'm aware that you, Clark, aren't advocating that, but some are).

So you're point is that just because the illegal crossers will look for another avenue of illegal entry after they find the usual route too difficult or impossible after being fortified / secured then we should not even try it? That is the point of strategic fencing, to force them to only have very difficult avenues to attempt with low probability of success and/or high likelihood of capture during the attempted illegal crossing. Of course they will try something else, for every move there is a counter-move.

And it will not be trillions of dollars, not even REMOTELY close to that. Besides which, you can pick your poison for how much illegal aliens cost the United States in direct cost and indirect costs and it dwarfs the cost of a reasonable security system on the border.

Crime and illegal aliens in the U.S.

• From 1980 to 1999, the number of illegal aliens in federal and state prisons grew from 9,000 to 68,000. Today, criminal aliens account for about 30% of the inmates in federal prisons and 15-25% in many local jails. Incarceration costs to the taxpayers were estimated by the Justice Department in 2002 to be $891 million for federal prison inmates and $624 million for inmates in state prisons.

That's just to house them at our expense after they committed some crime, just about 1.5 billion. The Israeli security fence system cost about 430 million for about 135 miles, just assuming you kept out only 50% of the would be convicts you could recoup your build out costs for building 6 135-mile sections of security systems in about 3.5 years and you have the benefit of having those prison beds available for some homegrown criminals who need a longer stay in the big house.

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

In 2011 there were about 320,000 apprehensions for illegally crossing into the USA, even if you only deterred 50% of them and assuming a them to be a head of household situation you would save on average per year in government benefit programs approximately 1.6 billion, just about enough to pay for the above six sections of 135-mile border security system and then every year you would have enough to maintain and man it.

Last point, why do we (being the United States of America) have to change because someone from a foreign country doesn't like an aspect of our society, that is a legal system that somehow 1,000,000 people managed to use legally in 2012 and they somehow can't? I guess some people don't have to file their income taxes because they find the form confusing and cumbersome... The burden is on the immigrant to use our system rather than the US bending for them.

No apologies for who we are or how we live, if they don't like it, figure it out somewhere else.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[Mark1]

Last point, why do we (being the United States of America) have to change because someone from a foreign country doesn't like an aspect of our society, that is a legal system that somehow 1,000,000 people managed to use legally in 2012 and they somehow can't? I guess some people don't have to file their income taxes because they find the form confusing and cumbersome... The burden is on the immigrant to use our system rather than the US bending for them.

No apologies for who we are or how we live, if they don't like it, figure it out somewhere else.

Nobody is asking for change for somebody else's benefit, any change would be for our benefit. You can take the 'burden is on the immigrant to use the system and we're not going to change' stance, but there's just one problem...we've tried that over the last 30 years and it isn't working. They see an easier alternative, so they take it.

5000 people circumvented an 80mi long Berlin wall under threat of death, and there weren't oceans on either side of the wall. If the desire is strong enough, people will find a way around any wall that gets put up. You have to attack the bulk of the problem from a different angle. Either eliminate the appeal of making the crossing, or find a way to deal with the inevitable flow of people.

And just for the record, aside from its comically short length (relative to our circumstance), Israel's wall doesn't aim to stop millions of people seeking to cross for a better life. It aims to prevent small isolated cases of crossings by people looking to do harm to the Israeli population (and isn't entirely effective at that either). It's effectiveness would be exponentially less if there were hundreds of crossing attempts a day. It should never be brought up in conversation about securing our borders.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Mark1

[TreeA10]

Estimates here in Texas are that the children of the most recent wave of illegal immigrant is going to cost $45 million for education. Mark1, in addition to your normal tax burden, how much more can I put you down for to help pay for this?

[Clark Griswold]

Nobody is asking for change for somebody else's benefit, any change would be for our benefit. You can take the 'burden is on the immigrant to use the system and we're not going to change' stance, but there's just one problem...we've tried that over the last 30 years and it isn't working. They see an easier alternative, so they take it.

5000 people circumvented an 80mi long Berlin wall under threat of death, and there weren't oceans on either side of the wall. If the desire is strong enough, people will find a way around any wall that gets put up. You have to attack the bulk of the problem from a different angle. Either eliminate the appeal of making the crossing, or find a way to deal with the inevitable flow of people.

And just for the record, aside from its comically short length (relative to our circumstance), Israel's wall doesn't aim to stop millions of people seeking to cross for a better life. It aims to prevent small isolated cases of crossings by people looking to do harm to the Israeli population (and isn't entirely effective at that either). It's effectiveness would be exponentially less if there were hundreds of crossing attempts a day. It should never be brought up in conversation about securing our borders.

Morality aside the Berlin Wall actually proves that physical barriers work, yes some will risk life and limb for what they want if the desire is strong enough but If the Berlin Wall was not there the population of East Germany would have quickly declined to zero as the Communist utopia was imposed and the Germans living there had an easy avenue to leave, as there was no easy avenue, the fact that only 5000 crossed proves you can control a border if you want.

I don't doubt that there will be some illegal immigration via illegally crossing the border or thru smuggling but my point is that the US should use reasonable means to control its border. It is in our interest, it is our responsibility and it is only common sense.

Immigration reform (either reforming to allow more or less) is a TOTALLY different issue, the only thing a security system of fences, cameras, lights, patrol roads, aerial surveillance, etc... would stop / deter is ILLEGAL immigration and all the associated evils like drug / weapon smuggling, infractions by foreign military / LE on US territory, etc... There is an enormous difference between legal and illegal immigration. Most plans to secure the border leave 2,000 legal Points of Entry meaning it would average 1 legal POE for every mile of the border, that is PLENTY and proof that we are not trying to wall ourselves off from the world but just trying to keep law and order as opposed to a free for all drag your carcass across wherever you feel like and we won't ask any questions because that's racist situation we have now.

I would also disagree with your assessment that Israel's system of barriers, patrol and security infrastructure is comically short. The security system I referenced is one project of several that the Israelis have done and part of the reason they don't have a-holes routinely blow themselves up in cafes and buses any longer is they actually have a responsible government that protects its citizens first and then worries about others later. Stoping infiltration attacks via barriers, monitoring and secure POE worked very well for Israel, it can work here too.

When you see bullshit like this:

Two-time illegal immigrant charged with rape in Philly’s sanctuary city

7 Horrible Crimes Committed In America by Illegal Aliens

You know something has to change.

And the security situation is worse than you think:

Cartels suspected as high-caliber gunfire sends Border Patrol scrambling on Rio Grande

Also, if you think we need more low-skilled laborers or high skilled workers from abroad to compete with US citizens for jobs, try going to their countries and looking for work. Then reference Grady's post below and this article's numbers:

Ninety-two million Americans are not working. If the labor-force-participation rate were the same today as it was one year ago, the unemployment rate would be 8 percent. If the labor-force-participation rate were the same today as it was in January, 2008, the unemployment rate would be nearly 12 percent.

And yet our political leaders are committed to doing everything in their power to make things even worse. The political elite of both parties have renewed their drive for immigration “reform,” a drive sure to send the employment numbers falling further down the cliff — especially the employment numbers for low-skilled Americans. As I testified last April before the Senate Judiciary Committee, any reform remotely resembling the Gang of Eight bill will harm low-skilled workers in particular, resulting in both lower employment and lower wage rates for this vulnerable cohort. The harm’s not minor: Evidence adduced before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights shows that illegal immigration has displaced hundreds of thousands of black American workers alone. So sure, let’s embark on a policy with a demonstrated track record of throwing Americans onto the unemployment line. Perfect timing.

" economical driven" is simply another way of saying cheap skilled labor from the 3rd world. Companies like Bank of America are lobbying hard to open the flood gates of skilled labor visas. If you don't believe me there is an entire apartment complex in Charlotte full of computer analyst that are contracted by the Ta Ta corporation from India. They bring these people over for 6 months at a time, cram 6-8 in an apartment, and pay them 1/3 of what they used to pay a skilled American worker.

There is an unholy and uncaring alliance of big businesses and short sighted politicians that don't give a flying f@ck about actual American citizens, they want slave labor and dependable voters at the expense of the existing middle /working class

But finally immigration reform, foreign workers, etc... have NOTHING to do with the need for real border security, which is there to only prevent illegal entry into the USA.

[matmacwc]

Put the razor wire up, make it look like N/S Korea border. Adopt Mexicos immigration policy as our own. Cheaper, better, quicker, effective. Anything else is trying to get votes from Obamabots. Or at best a Republican idiots trying to be Democrats thinking they will get anything close to an immigrant Mexican vote. Done, anything else out of Mark1 will be about "feelings" in regard to this post versus fact.

And comprehensive is a word that needs to die, it's another word for total power grab.

Edit: To throw another jab at, well, you know who.

And dudes, don't touch the german angle, you are getting trolled

Edited September 3, 2014 by matmacwc

[Mark1]

Put the razor wire up, make it look like N/S Korea border. Adopt Mexicos immigration policy as our own. Cheaper, better, quicker, effective. Anything else is trying to get votes from Obamabots. Or at best a Republican idiots trying to be Democrats thinking they will get anything close to an immigrant Mexican vote. Done, anything else out of Mark1 will be about "feelings" in regard to this post versus fact.

And comprehensive is a word that needs to die, it's another word for total power grab.

Edit: To throw another jab at, well, you know who.

And dudes, don't touch the german angle, you are getting trolled

That the word 'comprehensive' has appeared precisely once in this thread (prior to this instance) and it was in your post. So I'd say that it was dead until you tried to make a point with no premise and brought it up out of nowhere.

For humanity's sake, I hope there was alcohol involved in that gem of a post.

[TreeA10]

Here's a national estimate. $761 million dollars just for educating the new illegal immigrant children. And this does not include housing, medical, nutrition, and who knows what else benefits they will be entitled to. I would like those who welcome all across our borders to show us how much they really care and voluntarily pony up cash until it hurts to help pay for the wave of humanity coming into our country.

https://washingtonexaminer.com/immigration-group-surge-will-cost-schools-761-million/article/2552749

[Vertigo]

Here's a national estimate. $761 million dollars just for educating the new illegal immigrant children. And this does not include housing, medical, nutrition, and who knows what else benefits they will be entitled to. I would like those who welcome all across our borders to show us how much they really care and voluntarily pony up cash until it hurts to help pay for the wave of humanity coming into our country.

https://washingtonexaminer.com/immigration-group-surge-will-cost-schools-761-million/article/2552749

Wow, imagine if our immigration system was set up to encourage LEGAL immigration rather than what we have. Then those immigrants WOULD be ponying up that burden through their tax dollars.

[TreeA10]

So, you are saying if they legally crossed the border that their children should be able to speak English and meet grade level education requirements? I thought you didn't want any limits? Hey, I'm on board with your desired English speaking and educational minimums requirement. And I thought we would never agree on anything.

[Vertigo]

So, you are saying if they legally crossed the border that their children should be able to speak English and meet grade level education requirements? I thought you didn't want any limits? Hey, I'm on board with your desired English speaking and educational minimums requirement. And I thought we would never agree on anything.

I'm saying they could help in paying the tab to get their children to that desired level if there was a system in place that allowed them to easily and cheaply enter the nation legally.

But instead we would rather throw money at obstacles that aren't effective, and then when they enter illegally their children get that same level of education without their contribution to the associated costs.

Our current policy for legal immigration is costing us more money in the long run. Doubling down on that policy won't decrease our tax burden, it'll only increase it.

[TreeA10]

Just a quick Google and I get a cost for illegal immigration was $113 Billion in 2010. How much was that fence going to cost? $4 Billion? Hell, let's get a fence with all the bells and whistles and pay $10 Billion. I think we still come out ahead. Total that year to year and I think it is one hell of a return on investment.

You honestly think that low skilled illegals coming across the border will pay anywhere near the taxes to offset the benefits they receive?

[Vertigo]

Just a quick Google and I get a cost for illegal immigration was $113 Billion in 2010. How much was that fence going to cost? $4 Billion? Hell, let's get a fence with all the bells and whistles and pay $10 Billion. I think we still come out ahead. Total that year to year and I think it is one hell of a return on investment.

You honestly think that low skilled illegals coming across the border will pay anywhere near the taxes to offset the benefits they receive?

Oh a fence is all we need for a secure border? Shit that is cheap then. I thought maybe you'd want surveillance on that fence, and a more robust border patrol force with all the associated tools, etc. But if it's only a one time cost of $4B for a totally secure border for now and forever then count me on board!

FYI that $113 B for illegal immigration goes down substantially when those illegals are now coming in legally.

[TreeA10]

Please define "substantially."

[Vertigo]

Please define "substantially."

Lets say for simplicity it costs us $100 per illegal alien and in any given year we have 100 illegal aliens coming in.

Now let's say the law is changed that now 90 of those illegals can now easily and cheaply enter the country legally. And they do.

We just decreased our costs by 90%. That's substantially.

Also - do you think a low skilled worker will stay in that same job for life or are they like most all other humans in the workforce and tend to work their way up the ladder?

[TreeA10]

I'm sure these guys are lying since the word "conservative" is listed in the description.

In 2013, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation released a study concluding that at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household. During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455. At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household. Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

[Vertigo]

I'm sure these guys are lying since the word "conservative" is listed in the description.

In 2013, the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation released a study concluding that at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household. During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455. At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household. Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

That's an issue of social welfare programs, not immigration.

I prefer this by the CATO Institute:

Based on the few studies that have tried to systematically examine the impact on government budgets, taking into account immigration’s impact on the size of the economy and pace of economic growth, as well as the impact of immigration on government budgets, the longitudinal and static studies reveal a very small net fiscal impact clustered around zero (OECD 2013: 125).

The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies, the fiscal impacts of immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1 percent of GDP in dynamic models (Rowthorn 2008: 568). Even dramatic changes in the level of immigration have small effects on government budgets and deficits (Auerbach and Oreopoulos 2000: 151). Besides the net present value of the individual immigrant or group fiscal contribution, immigrant-caused deficits or surpluses could also be represented as a percentage of future economic growth or projected budget deficits. Regardless of those details and nuances, there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration.

The enormous economic gains from immigration described in Chapter 1 indicate that an open borders policy of the type proposed in Chapter 7 is not likely to lead to large government deficits or surpluses.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21.pdf

I particularly like this point:

This chapter leaves aside the wisdom of judging the benefits of immigration based on the immigrant’s fiscal impact largely because the fiscal impact is so small. A worldview that seeks to judge whether immigrants are beneficial based on their fiscal impact, where the chief value of an additional American is determined by the size of their net-tax contribution, is fundamentally flawed and a testament to how dehumanizing a large welfare state can be. The fiscal impact of immigration is neither a proper evaluating metric nor is it a particularly meaningful one upon which to base support for or opposition to immigration.

[Clark Griswold]

The Border Crisis is really a symptom of the real crisis, of responsible / lawful governance. The Executive Branch is ignoring the Legislative Branch, and pretty much making this up as they go. I wonder when this is all going to come to a boil.

ATTKISSON: OBAMA ADMIN REFUSING TO TELL CONGRESS WHERE ILLEGAL CHILDREN WENT

Judge Sets Hearings for Illegal Alien Minors--4 Years From Now

[StoleIt]

The Border Crisis is really a symptom of the real crisis, of responsible / lawful governance. The Executive Branch is ignoring the Legislative Branch, and pretty much making this up as they go. I wonder when this is all going to come to a boil.

ATTKISSON: OBAMA ADMIN REFUSING TO TELL CONGRESS WHERE ILLEGAL CHILDREN WENT

Judge Sets Hearings for Illegal Alien Minors--4 Years From Now

Well the second link would be a representative of the Judicial Branch, so right there we have 2 out of 3 of them doing whatever they want. I really think this is really just politics trumping laws and duty.

Edited September 4, 2014 by StoleIt

[Clark Griswold]

Well the second link would be a representative of the Judicial Branch, so right there we have 2 out of 3 of them doing whatever they want. I really think this is really just politics trumping laws and duty.

Hopefully so, not a pessimist but this seems worse than previous episodes of abusive / irresponsible governance. Not just an action against a political rival but one that is against the interests of the American people, particularly the poor and working class.

[Clark Griswold]

Back on frequency...

With Ebola in Dallas, drug resistant TB, the Enterovirus D68 now spreading in American & Canadian children is probably due to the 60,000+ illegal alien minors who are now in every state and ISIS interested in but not yet able (probably) to infiltrate thru the rusty screen door hanging by one hinge that is our southern and northern borders, are we finally at the point where Fortress America can be built? The need is so obvious that even selfish political & economic interests can be overcome?

DOCTOR: GOV’T ‘TIGHT-LIPPED’ ON RESPIRATORY VIRUS, MAY BE FROM ILLEGALS

Illegal immigrant brings drug-resistant TB case to Texas

Islamic State Has ‘Increased Interest’ in Exploiting Southern U.S. Border for Attack: Local Law Enforcement Bulletin

The stable prosperous republic is being killed by the death of a thousand cuts...

Edited October 3, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[TreeA10]

And Vertigo still won't adopt a family from anywhere and allow them to share his home and his noble view of sharing with no borders. I hear there is a family from Liberia that needs someplace to stay until they clear quarantine.

[Clark Griswold]

And Vertigo still won't adopt a family from anywhere and allow them to share his home and his noble view of sharing with no borders. I hear there is a family from Liberia that needs someplace to stay until they clear quarantine.

US Southern Command is starting to get how serious a risk an unsecured border / illegal immigration is.

Kelly: Southcom Keeps Watch on Ebola Situation

By Jim Garamone

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 2014 – The potential spread of Ebola into Central and Southern America is a real possibility, the commander of U.S. Southern Command told an audience at the National Defense University here yesterday.

“By the end of the year, there’s supposed to be 1.4 million people infected with Ebola and 62 percent of them dying, according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention],” Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly said. “That’s horrific. And there is no way we can keep Ebola [contained] in West Africa.”

If it comes to the Western Hemisphere, many countries have little ability to deal with an outbreak of the disease, the general said.

“So, much like West Africa, it will rage for a period of time,” Kelly said.

This is a particularly possible scenario if the disease gets to Haiti or Central America, he said. If the disease gets to countries like Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador, it will cause a panic and people will flee the region, the general said.

“If it breaks out, it’s literally, ‘Katie bar the door,’ and there will be mass migration into the United States,” Kelly said. “They will run away from Ebola, or if they suspect they are infected, they will try to get to the United States for treatment.”

Also, transnational criminal networks smuggle people and those people can be carrying Ebola, the general said. Kelly spoke of visiting the border of Costa Rica and Nicaragua with U.S. embassy personnel. At that time, a group of men “were waiting in line to pass into Nicaragua and then on their way north,” he recalled.

“The embassy person walked over and asked who they were and they told him they were from Liberia and they had been on the road about a week,” Kelly continued. “They met up with the network in Trinidad and now they were on their way to the United States -- illegally, of course.”

Those men, he said, “could have made it to New York City and still be within the incubation period for Ebola.”

Kelly said his command is in close contact with U.S. Africa Command to see what works and what does not as it prepares for a possible outbreak in the area of operations.

(Follow Jim Garamone on Twitter: @garamoneDoDNews)

https://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123359

[Clark Griswold]

New year, same problem.

Texas Governor: Since Jan. 1, 'We Have Had More Than 20,000 People Come Across the Border'

[Clark Griswold]

Don't worry about this guy illegally crossing into the US with a shotgun, he's just looking for a better life.

Shocking images from cameras on Texas-Mexico border capture steady stream of illegal immigrants sneaking into the United States with packages of drugs and guns

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3042805/Shocking-images-cameras-Texas-Mexico-border-capture-steady-stream-illegal-immigrants-sneaking-United-States-packages-drugs-guns.html#ixzz3XdGdB4hC

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook