
Terror Attacks Like El Paso Aim to Topple Government, Experts Say - AnimalMuppet
https://news.yahoo.com/terror-attacks-like-el-paso-aim-to-topple-the-government-experts-say-145010800.html
======
AnimalMuppet
I know this heads toward politics, but I thought it was an interesting enough
(and important enough) view to be worth posting.

And (to get all sides mad at me politically): If this is right, it seems that
one way to cut the ground out from under the alt-right would be to secure the
border.

~~~
sp332
What does secure the border mean? There's already 650 miles of fence, and net
immigration from Mexico has been negative for years now.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
And how long's the border? 1950 miles? 650 miles of fence is one third of
that.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, how many people attempt to cross
illegally (per year, say), and how many succeed? My Google-fu is letting me
down; I can't find those numbers so far.

And even that isn't really the point. The point (per the article) is that
these people think "This is an _invasion_ , and we're about to be _overrun_ ,
and the government isn't doing _anything_ , so _we_ have to". Having a better-
secured border (or a more-obviously-secured border) might drain part of the
swamp that these peoples' ideology breeds in.

It won't drain all of it. They will move on to legal immigration, or to those
who have been here for multiple generations, or whatever. But there might be
fewer people believing this alt-right garbage if the border was removed as a
focal point.

 _Presuming_ that this line of thinking is correct (both the article and my
thinking here), it presents Democrats with an interesting dilemma: Would you
give in to Trump on the border (and, from their point of view, waste all that
money), if doing so would cut down on mass shootings?

