Trump says Biden sees the country being 'invaded,' warns of 'terrorists' already inside the US
By: Brooke Singman, Adam Shaw (Fox News)
TOLD. YOU. SO.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump said the Biden administration is only citing the "immediate need" to build a border wall because President Biden is watching the United States be "invaded" by illegal migrants, warning that "terrorists" are "already" inside the country.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday said there was an "acute and immediate need" to waive dozens of federal laws in order to build a border wall in south Texas where illegal migration has surged. DHS justified the move due to "high illegal entry" — more than 245,000 migrant encounters have been recorded in the Rio Grande Valley Sector this year.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital shortly after the DHS announcement, the former president — who leads the 2024 Republican primary field by a massive margin — blamed Biden for halting construction of the border wall and causing the crisis at the southern border.
Former President Trump's legal woes have been covered significantly by ABC, NBC and CBS, but prosecutors are rarely identified as Democrats, according to a new study. (Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
"Biden sees our country is being invaded," Trump said. "What is he going to do about the 15 million people from prisons, from mental institutions, insane asylums, and terrorists that have already come into our country?"
The number of people arrested in FY 2023 between ports of entry by Border Patrol at the southern border who are on the FBI's terror watchlist hit a new record this year, with 151 arrests in FY 23, compared to 98 in FY 2022 and 15 in FY 21. At the ports of entry at the northern and southern border, there have been 505 people encountered by Customs and Border Protection's Office of Field Operations.
The watch list, officially called the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) is the government's database that "contains sensitive information on terrorist identities." The watch list originated to house information on known or suspected terrorists, but "has evolved over the last decade to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals," CBP says.
While the number is relatively small, compared to the millions of migrants encountered at the borders in recent years, Republicans and former border officials have raised concern about the numbers of those on the terror watch list who are getting past Border Patrol agents. There were at least 599,000 illegal immigrants who escaped Border Patrol custody in FY 2022, after more than 390,000 in FY 2021.
"What has happened to our country?" Trump said, adding that the Biden administration needs to "go back to Trump policies."
"He has to reinstate Remain in Mexico and Title 42," Trump said. "He has to do all of the other things that we were doing."
A Trump campaign spokesperson told Fox News Digital Wednesday night that "President Trump is always right."
"That's why he built close to 500 miles of powerful new wall on the border and it would have been finished by now," the spokesperson said. "Instead, Crooked Joe Biden turned our country into one giant sanctuary for dangerous criminal aliens."
The comments come after Department of Homeland Security posted an announcement Wednesday night on the U.S. Federal Register which outlines construction in Starr County in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
Mayorkas says he is using his authority provided by Congress to waive 26 federal laws, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
"There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas pursuant to sections 102(a) and 102(b) of [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996]," Mayorkas said.
A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told Fox News Digital Wednesday that the project is "consistent with DHS's plan to fulfill the requirements of President Biden's Proclamation, which ended the diversion of funds for border wall from military projects or other sources while calling for the expenditure of any funds Congress appropriated for barrier construction consistent with their appropriated purpose."
The construction is funded by the FY 2019 DHS appropriations bill, which specifically funded wall projects in the RGV Sector and which DHS is required to use for its appropriated purpose. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced plans for up to 20 miles of wall in the RGV Sector in June. The administration previously made moves to close gaps and replace gates, and says that such projects prioritize the completion of activities and projects to address life, safety and operational risks — including the safety of individuals, Border Patrol agents and migrants.
A CBP spokesperson confirmed to Fox News Digital that the waiver is for barrier projects announced in June, and that it will cover approximately 17 miles in Starr County. The spokesperson said that the project is consistent with DHS' plan to fulfill President Biden's Jan 20, 2021 proclamation which "ended the diversion of funds for border wall from military projects or other sources while calling for the expenditure of any funds Congress appropriated for barrier construction consistent with their appropriated purpose."
"CBP remains committed to protecting the nation's cultural and natural resources and will implement sound environmental practices as part of the project covered by this waiver," the spokesperson said.
The administration had put a halt to new border wall construction in early 2021, after then-candidate Biden had promised there would "not be another foot of wall constructed on my administration." The administration said that wall construction under the Trump administration was "just one example of the prior Administration's misplaced priorities and failure to manage migration in a safe, orderly, and humane way."
The announcement comes as the Biden administration is facing a fresh surge in illegal immigration, leading to record-high numbers at the southern border and intense political criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources told Fox News last week that there were more than 260,000 encounters in September — which would be the highest monthly total on record.
Meanwhile, Trump last month vowed, if re-elected, to carry out "the largest domestic deportation operation in American history," and promised to begin a second term by "immediately" terminating "every Open Borders policy of the Biden Administration."
Tags
Who is online
183 visitors
MAGA is more than just an idea. MAGA is a way of life.
MAGA is fascism.
Really? Could you post a link to an instance of MAGA trying to mess with my 1st or 2nd ammendment rights?..
A spectacularly incorrect statement.
Sigh.
Hilarious when someone thinks words are fascist.
ESPECIALLY when they call it a word they have no knowledge of the meaning.
You have no idea what fascism means.
3 days and no answer? Not surprised.
The terrorists are here alright - the former 'president's' supporters/enablers/cult/followers
It really is, and that is why it is so dangerous. MAGA has flat out gone into fascist territory.
Of course..
Anyone not far left is identified as a fascist....
or just another one that does not know what the term means.
it just amazes me how otherwise educated people still can't figure out how to use a word properly.
It's not nice of him to talk about his followers like that.
“MAGA is a way of life.”
And thus the terrifying nature of the beast. It promises to be around for a while, rearing its brainless head long after trump is but a sad footnote in history.
For if their is anything we can assure, it is that opportunists will always be amongst us, only so willing to prey and profit from the weak.
Yep, that horse left the barn long ago Joey.
You broke it, you own it.
I wonder how many are on that "got away" list?....
According to the stats., Trump ran a lax border.
The bad guys don't walk, they drive, fly and boat.
What stats?...
You're wrong again. With Biden's open border policy, countless terrorists have had ample opportunity to walk across the border and rent the house next door to yours.
Not nearly as lax as Biden.
Biden has handled the whole thing irresponsibly.
The "stats" you just made up? You actually don't expect anybody to take YOUR word on this do you?
Compared to who? Surely not Biden.
Apparently, they're imaginary stats. Once again, another dump and run.
Personally, I've always thought that building a wall was a 14th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. Do people not realize we have drones with infrared sensors now?
That said, I was also always surprised to see anybody who thought we should do something about the border labeled a racist, xenophobic fascist.
So I have a bunch of questions.... Does this now make Biden a racist xenophobic fascist? Or Myorkas? When will we see AOC back for another Instagram photo shoot, and will any immigrants actually be allowed near her this time? Does this mean we can leave the floating barriers in place?
Lots of details to be addressed here.
Out of curiosity, do you have a fence between you and your neighbors property? I disagree, low cost barriers help the higher cost tech barriers become more cost-effective.
Not one that I expect to keep anybody out, no. And my yard is slightly smaller than the southern border.
I don't think you can build a fence that would matter for $5b. Any fence that would matter would need to be manned anyway. The Great Wall of China only worked because it was guarded.
So I'm not convinced the wall/fence is really the low cost option.
Are there not CBP outposts along the border?
Well since the mayor of NYC is saying something about $12b?.... seems like it might be cost-effective imo.
Yeah. So my plan would be to give those folks force multiplier tools. I trust the Border Patrol people better than the static fortifications, especially on that scale.
Surely we're not taking his word for anything. That's triple true for anything math related.
My thoughts exactly.
We have the technology to detect attempts to illegally cross our border. It likely would be less expensive than a physical wall and has the means to early detect well before the border.
Do you have any citation to support that?
No, that is my expectation. Technology can be mass produced. Walls require substantial heavy material and labor.
Why? Do you think building a wall would be cheaper?
Yeah... Indeed, technology can be mass produced but is still prohibitively expensive. There's a reason barbed wire fences are still put up...
We are talking walls vs. technology. A string of barbed wire fence is very different from a wall. Given Trump has defined what we mean by a wall at the border, we are talking about substantial structures.
Do you think building a wall would be cheaper than using modern technology to early detect attempts to cross our border?
If so, on what basis?
So you have no cite that low technology barriers aren't effective?..
What are you talking about now? Is barbed wire an example of a low-tech barrier?
If so, I did not make any comment on the efficacy of barbed wire. You do understand that this is NOT Trump's vision, right? So are we talking walls (per Trump) or talking a string of barbed wire fencing?
Barbed wire fencing is used as a temporary measure. It can be quickly installed, is not expensive, and does slow things down (albeit wire cutters do exist). But barbed wire is ugly, is hazardous to life forms (including human), and by itself has no early detection capability.
I think we can do much better with technology that can early detect attempts to cross the border, can actually fly to the individuals in question, take pictures, engage them with voice instructions, and (importantly) give border agents (which I mentioned in my original comment) more time to deploy if needed.
As Jack noted, we built walls in the past because that was literally the best we could do. We are no longer limited to hardened walls.
I just Googled and immediately got this article:
This is from 2017. Technology, six years later, is even better and cheaper. I am sure there are plenty of articles that would suggest that we have myriad technological options other than building a physical wall as Trump described and at a fraction of the cost.
What does early detection do, if they're not apprehended till they're in the U.S.?..
Already answered:
We tried a virtual wall from 2008-2011 with Boeing as the prime. We spent around $1B with little results. The system was meant to sense the crossing and report numbers and locations to the BP.
Today, don’t many migrants want to be detected so the can begin receiving benefits and get the paperwork started as an asylum seeker.
Okay TiG, I don't think there needs to be man-made physical barriers from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific. I just don't understand why some would think they have no effect. Obviously Biden does, right?..
I'm talking about... a wall
“ I just don't understand why some would think they have no effect.”
I agree. Is it easier to walk from point a to point b with no wall between points or a substantial wall between points?
Seems rather simple doesn't it?..
Who has stated that they have no effect? I have made no such comment. So why is this now being introduced?
It sure does, but apparently it’s not so easy to some.
Where, exactly, do you see anyone in this thread suggesting physical walls would have no effect?
So you are now off the barbed wire tangent and now are talking about a wall?
Okay, do you have anything that supports your implication that a physical wall as Trump has described would be less expensive than contemporary technology such as the use of drones and early detection sensors?
You first TiG, do you have anything that supports your implication that a wall would be cost or performance ineffective compared to technology answers?....
Are you reading what I write here? See @6.3.7
Here is another (more recent):
Easy to find.
Do you have anything that supports your implication that a physical wall as Trump has described would be less expensive than contemporary technology such as the use of drones and early detection sensors?
[Deleted]
I thought so...
You comment is entirely vague.
I have supplied two links. There are many more.
I will assume by your response that you have no links to offer.
Where does this article illustrate that a physical wall as Trump has described would be less expensive than contemporary technology such as the use of drones and early detection sensors?
plenty of Democrats bleated how walls don't work whenever Trump mentioned a wall.
The same folks now seem perfectly fine with a wall.
Hypocrites like Joe Biden.
Since when are Democrats concerned about what something costs?
Where do the articles you linked illustrate that a "14th century" proven technology would be as expensive?
Given this comment ties to my comment, you are implicitly deeming me a D (you are wrong) and that I am one of those who claimed that walls do not work (you are wrong again).
If you did not mean to include me in your generalization then say so.
Ask one.
take it however your heart desires.
if it doesn't apply to you, let it fly!
So walls work?..... hilarious
Jack @6 equated walls to 14th century technology. We are talking about walls vs. contemporary technology such as drones.
Only when they think they can use it to their advantage.
Typical evasion ….. sad ….
What is funny about walls working?
Evasion of what, exactly? I am not a D so I am not going to speak for what the average D believes. There are plenty of Ds here who can speak for themselves.
Ask one.
I see, you’re not a Republican or Trump supporter either but you have no problem talking for them.
You’re comments here are regularly hypocritical and evasive but no one here expects a connection on that.
Oh nothing, suddenly I'm craving a pretzel with cheese....
I do not speak for Rs or Trump supporters. I criticize the R support of Trump. That is very different.
Pure projection by you. Note how you pop into a thread and engage in disruptive behavior rather than attempt to discuss the topic.
Well let's see.
In short, you asked questions, your questions were answered. I asked questions. You ignored them. You asked for citations, I gave you two. I asked for a citation, you gave me a link that did not address the question I asked.
Apparently you then gave up with your little game of stealth taunting and just made innuendo comments.
What you just offered was the opposite of a thoughtful, adult discussion. Why should anyone take you seriously going forward?
I've asked several questions, of which one is, how the less expensive option of barriers isn't worth consideration overall. I don't think you've provided anything that would change my opinion in relation to that. And could care less how you take me, either respond or don't...
Personally, if we're committed to structures along the border, I'd prefer we go ahead and build a series of reservoirs powering hydroelectric plants along the Rio Grande. You could fund it with revenue bonds and have it pay for itself over the next however many years.
Somebody drew this whole idea up and submitted it a few years ago, but I'm not sure what happened after that.
Your least expensive option is not a wall, it is a barbed-wire fence. And I do not believe it is not worth consideration. After all, I think a hundred miles or so of that was erected while Trump was PotUS. What I stated is that it looks like crap, is dangerous to life, and is not really that secure (wire cutters work). But it is cheap and expedient to erect (and that is why it is sometimes used).
Given I made no attempt to suggest that barbed-wire fences are not worthy of consideration it makes sense that your mind was not changed.
Now, what you have utterly failed at here is making a sound argument that building a conventional solid wall (as Trump sought) is less expensive than using contemporary technology.
You insisted on citations backing my expectation that a contemporary technology solution was less expensive. I delivered two links to articles (out of many) that discuss this and conclude that technology would be much more cost effective than a physical solid wall.
You provided a link to an article that (laughably) discusses the psychology of walls and does not even hint at a comparison of physical walls vs. using modern technology.
It is not my fault that your 'argument' was both ridiculous and feeble.
I agree on this too. If we are determined to build physical structures then they should serve multiple purposes:
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that
Well tig, this topic isn’t about me is it? And my comment is spot on. As noted, no one expects you to admit it.
And it is not about me either. Yet here you are jumping in with pure personal crap while disrupting the topical discussion.
Pure projection by you.
I didn’t make it about you.
You claimed you didn’t speak for Democrats. I simply pointed out you speak for Republicans here all the time. You made it personal with your popping in and being disruptive comment. On a discussion site. Ridiculous!
Deny it if you want. You will once again, be wrong.
“On a discussion site.”
What part of that statement do you not understand?
He, like you have mentioned many times before, has the right to opine on any subject matter he likes, as this is a public forum.
Yes, bugsy, subject matter — as I noted even. Making things personal is entirely different. See?
I can’t understand it for you.
Lol ….
I'm starting to think there's a disconnect....
So then you agree that using the term...many times ..."you, et al" is making it personal.
Why do you like to do it but complain when you believe someone else is doing it to you?
No, a term alone does not make things personal. You cannot simply focus on words out of context and deem that the use of a phrase like "you, et. al." is making things personal. Context always matters.
For example, "you, et. al. have enabled Trump by defending him" is not making things personal. This is not talking about you personally but rather the consequence of actions that you and others have demonstrably taken.
In contrast, "you are a stubborn fool" would be making things personal since it would be talking about the person as an individual.
But then again "your comment is foolish" is at best claiming that you are being foolish with your comment. It is not saying you are a fool.
Context is everything. If someone believes you have made it personal, then it is personal, whether you like it or not.
If you use the term, "you, et al" with a claim that a person has never made, then you make it personal. You have done that many times, especially with claims of people being Trump supporters, where, in fact, they have posted numerous times they are not. .
Correct, context determines the usage of a word or term. If you look in a dictionary, you will see most words have multiple meanings (usages). We use context to disambiguate the word and secure a more precise meaning.
The phrase "you, et. al." is entirely abstract. It can be used in a wide range of contexts. It is stupid to think that this phrase has any meaning other than to reference a set which includes the target ("you") and those who are similar to the target in some way ("et. al." ... and others).
That is not context, that is interpretation. Good grief man. If someone interprets your comment as making things personal, that in itself does not mean that you intended it to be personal or that your language reasonably translates into being personal. We cannot control the sometimes bizarre interpretations of our words. In short, you are wrong. Making things personal applies when the comment redirects from the content under discussion and uses language that reasonably translates into making derogatory quips about the individual.
No, that would technically be making a mistake. For example, "You, et. al. voted for Trump" is not in itself making things personal. It is making a claim that you and others (defined by context) voted for Trump. If you did NOT vote for Trump then the claim is a mistake. If you claim you did not vote for Trump and your comments support your claim, then repeatedly stating that you voted for Trump would be taunting. And, if your interlocutor redirects from the topic to gratuitously claim you voted for Trump, that is making things personal.
I will deem someone a Trump supporter based on what they write here. One can claim that they are not a Trump supporter, but if they have a history of making excuses for Trump then I do not buy their claim that they are not a Trump supporter. I will consider them a Trump supporter as long as their comments illustrate that this is a correct characterization.
Some like to play a childish taunting game of calling me a partisan in response to me characterizing their comments as partisan or pure-partisan. They cannot demonstrate otherwise so they resort to taunting. I have corrected them repeatedly and my comment history contradicts their allegation. I have stated, for example, who I would prefer to run in 2024 and my favorite is actually an R (Chris Sununu). I have stated that I will vote for Biden if Trump is the nominee and has a reasonable chance to win. But if Trump is not the nominee and is instead Nikki Haley, she will get my enthusiastic vote over Biden. That is demonstrably NOT partisan.
So when someone claims I am partisan, that is clearly wrong and contradicts what I have written. When I explain why it is wrong then I have provided information that can be verified. If one then gratuitously drops in on threads only to call me a partisan, that is a clear taunt and is redirecting from the topic to me personally.
In general now, when having a discussion on a topic, if someone departs from the topic and starts making taunting personal comments, that is going personal.
For future reference, set the record straight. If Trump is the nominee, will you vote for him?
No interest in your lectures.
My post that was to the point is on target and stands.
For future reference, set the record straight. If Trump is the nominee, will you vote for him?
Why do you keep asking this question? It seems you are infatuated with the voting habits of others.
The answer, again, is a resounding yes, and no, I do not have to, nor will I, explain myself. No matter how many times you demand it.
Now, I invite you to answer the questions I asked of you in another thread.
Now that you have affirmed that in this context I can make my point.
You should not object to being referred to as a Trump supporter. Labeling you a Trump supporter is not making things personal, it is making an accurate reference to the positions you have freely offered in your comments.
Good luck with that.
They want to both vote for Trump and deny they want to do it.
False of course.
In or out of context, it has never stopped you from making your "point"
"You should not object to being referred to as a Trump supporter."
Never said I did. I said that when you claim others are Trump supporters, when you know they are not, as they have told you, it is trolling and is making it personal.
Who is this "they" you speak of and when have they done what you claim?
BTW...You still have not answered the questions I asked of you in another thread. No doubt you have seen them as you have deflected more than once from them.
Why do you not answer them?
That is a lie. I never refer to someone as a Trump supporter if I know they are not.
Advice; given once. Do not try to continue a debate / discussion that was in a completely different article. Especially if you are doing so as part of an activity that is against the CoC.
I told you that I was not going to answer questions from you that deflected from what we were discussing.
Nobody cares. Sounds like a threat to me.
"Do not try to continue a debate / discussion that was in a completely different article"
Never did that. I was inviting you to go to that seed and answer the questions.Notice I did not copy/paste the post numbers from that seed to here.
"I told you that I was not going to answer questions from you that deflected from what we were discussing."
Don't care what you "told" me. Sounds like you are not living up to the expectations you expect others to live up to when you demand things.
Sure
OK
Whatever you say s/
The MAGAlomaniacs...
Thanks for sharing nothing.
Yea...like the memes, that made zero sense.
[X]
Groundhog Day comment ……. Duty!
“Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement that there was "no new Administration policy with respect to border walls. From day one, this Administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer."
Mayorkas said the construction project was appropriated during the prior administration and the law requires the government to use the funds, with an announcement made earlier in the year. "We have repeatedly asked Congress to rescind this money but it has not done so and we are compelled to follow the law," he said.
Guess that the administration hasn’t heard of Above Threshold Reprogramming. We use it in the Army when priorities change and we no longer want to spend the money on A but now on B.
So are they gong to spend it than auction it off at discount prices?
In his first month in office, Biden issued a proclamation pledging that "no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall" as well as a review of all resources that had already been committed. Should should have notified Congress in that year that they wanted to “repurpose” those funds to new priorities.
well, yeah, but Joe is a liar.
[Deleted]
Biden is doing this to placate Democrats in sanctuaries.
That's it.
If anyone thinks Biden is serious, look at his past promises and declarations.
Has MTG suggested we blast the invaders with Israeli space lasers yet?