Corrupting Our Social Norms

Here are several questions for biologists and medical professionals: If a person is found to have XY chromosomes (heterogametic sex), does a designation as female on his birth certificate, driver's license or Social Security card override the chromosomal evidence? Similarly, if a person is found to have XX chromosomes (homogametic) does a designation as male on her birth certificate, driver's license or Social Security card override the chromosomal evidence? If you were a medical professional, would you consider it malpractice for an obstetrics/gynecology medical specialist, not to order routine Pap smears to screen for cervical cancer for a patient who identifies as a female but has XY chromosomes?

If you were a judge, would you sentence a criminal, who identifies as a female but has XY chromosomes, to a women's prison? A judge just might do so. Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit focused on a Florida school district ruling that a transgender "boy," a person with XX chromosomes, could not be barred from the boys' restroom. Pryor suggested students shouldn't be separated by gender at all.

Fear may explain why biologists in academia do not speak out to say that one's sex is not optional. Since the LGBTQ community is a political force on many college campuses, biologists probably fear retaliation from diversity-blinded administrators. It's not just academics and judges who now see sex as optional. Federal, state and local governments are ignoring biology and permitting people to make their sex optional on one's birth certificate, passport, Social Security card and driver's license. In New York City, intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title is a violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. If I said that my preferred title was "Your Majesty," I wonder whether the New York City Commission on Human Rights would prosecute people who repeatedly refused to use my preferred title.

One transgender LGBTQ activist filed a total of 16 complaints against female estheticians, with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after they refused to wax his male genitals. He sought financial restitution totaling at least $32,500. One woman was forced to close her shop. Fortunately, the LGBTQ activist's case was thrown out by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and he was instructed to pay $2,000 each to three of the women he attacked. The LGBTQ activist is not giving up. He is now threatening to sue gynecologists who will not accept him as a patient.

In 2012, an evangelical Christian baker in Colorado was threatened with jail time for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. When Christian bakery owner Jack Phillips won a landmark (7-2 decision) U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2018 over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious convictions, he thought his legal battles with the state of Colorado were over. But now Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, 24 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, faces a new court fight. This fight involves a lawyer who asked him to bake a cake to celebrate the anniversary of her gender transition. There are probably many bakery shops in and around Lakewood, Colorado, that would be happy to bake a cake for homosexuals; they are simply targeting Phillips.

For those in the LGBTQ community, and elsewhere, who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide catering services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads and neo-Nazis? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress? If you're a liberty-minded American, your answers should be no

The Right to Destroy Cities

This week, the Supreme Court effectively mandated continued legal tolerance for homelessness across major cities on the West Coast of the United States. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Americans have a right to sleep on the streets, and that it amounts to

"cruel and unusual punishment" under the Constitution to levy fines based on such behavior. That court -- a repository of stupidity and radicalism, the Mos Eisley of our nation's federal bench -- decided that writing a $25 ticket to people "camping" on the sidewalk is precisely the sort of brutality the Founding Fathers sought to prohibit in stopping torture under the Eighth Amendment.

That ruling was so patently insane that even liberal politicians such as Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas joined the appeal attempt. "Letting the current law stand handicaps cities and counties from acting nimbly to aid those perishing on the streets, exacerbating unsafe and unhealthy conditions that negatively affect our most vulnerable residents," he explained.

But the 9th Circuit ruling will stand. That ruling followed a separate 2006 ruling from the same court, which found that cities could not ban people from sleeping in public places. In this case, Judge Marsha Berzon, in language so twisted it would make yoga pioneer Bikram Choudhury jealous, wrote that "the state may not criminalize the state of being 'homeless in public places'" and thus could not criminalize the "consequence" of being homeless.

It is worth noting that being homeless is not a "state" of being. It is not an immutable characteristic. It is an activity and can certainly be regulated. That doesn't mean the best solution is prosecution of those living on the street -- a huge swath of homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to drugs and would benefit from better laws concerning involuntary commitment or mandatory drug rehabilitation. But to suggest that cities cannot do anything to effectively police those sleeping on the streets is to damn those cities to the spread of disease, the degradation of public spaces and an increase in street crime.

Hilariously, Berzon contended that this 9th Circuit ruling would not mandate cities to provide full housing to the homeless; it would just prohibit them from moving or arresting the homeless for living on the streets. Which is somewhat like Tom Hagen telling Jack Woltz that while he doesn't have to cast Johnny Fontane in his new war film, he can't stop the Corleones from rearranging the family stable.

But here's the problem: Cities that have attempted to provide increased housing for the homeless, despite some early successes, have seen their problems return. Cities like Seattle and Los Angeles have attempted to build new housing. It's been an expensive failure. It turns out that the carrot of housing must be accompanied by the stick of law enforcement. If you cannot compel drug addicts to enter treatment, or paranoid schizophrenics to take their medication, or those who refuse to live indoors to do so, homelessness will not abate.

As it is, the Supreme Court has damned America's major cities to the continuation of the festering problem of homelessness. And that problem won't be solved by judges who attempt to force social policy through deliberately misreading the Constitution, or who believe they are championing "freedom" for tens of thousands of Americans who are seriously mentally ill or addicted to drugs

The Chinese Communist Party Is Setting Up Cells at Universities Across America (Smith Act of 1940 anyone?)

The Illinois university partners with several Chinese universities in exchange programs; at least two of those Chinese universities have directed participants to form party cells on the Urbana-Champaign campus, using those cells for ideological monitoring and control, according to articles posted to university websites and interviews with student participants.

One Chinese exchange student who studied at UIUC in the fall of 2017 says that before embarking on the study tour in Illinois, the students had to attend a lecture on the dangers of the Falun Gong, a strongly anti-party spiritual group banned in mainland China but active in the United States.

After the students’ arrival in Illinois, their home university asked the group to set up a temporary party branch and requested that the students hold a viewing party to watch the 19th party plenum in October, the major party planning conference held every five years. (The plenum was the subject of a major global propaganda push, with Chinese embassies and consulates reaching out to Chinese community organizations around the world, asking them to organize events for their members.)

The exchange students at UIUC were also asked to report on any potentially subversive opinions their classmates may have evinced while abroad, according to the student.

“After we went back to China, we had one-on-one meetings with our teachers. We talked about ourselves and others performance abroad,” the student says. “We had to talk about whether other students had some anti-party thought.”

Illinois is not alone. Party cells have appeared in California, Ohio, New York, Connecticut, North Dakota, and West Virginia. The cells appear to be part of a strategy, now expanded under Chinese President Xi Jinping, to extend direct party control globally and to insulate students and scholars abroad from the influence of “harmful ideology,” sometimes by asking members to report on each other’s behaviors and beliefs.

Members of a Chinese Communist Party cell at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign hold a meeting on July 20, 2017. (Fair Use/Huazhong University of Science and Technology)

These overseas cells fit in with the party’s broader goals, says Samantha Hoffman, a visiting fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin. “You still know that if you actively protest against [the party], or if you make some kinds of comments, you know that that could harm you later on,” she says. “Information gets around. It’s a way of controlling what you are willing to do.”

Since assuming office in late 2012, Xi has implemented a sweeping campaign to consolidate more power in the party’s hands. A major reorganization announced in late March transferred control of key government bureaus to party organs, changes that appear to undo some elements of the party-state divide set up by party leader Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s.

Mihrigul Tursun (right) speaks at the National Press Club in Washington on Nov. 26, 2018. Through a translator, Tursun, a member of China’s Uighur minority, said she spent several months in detention in China where she was beaten, tortured, and given unknown drugs. (Maria Danilova/AP)
The Chinese Communist Party Always Needs An Enemy


A relentless war on free spaces for Chinese exiles stems from past revolutions.
Argument | Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian
A section of the portfolio for Xijian, China's leading augmented reality firm, explains how their technology can be used to improve Chinese Communist Party propaganda. Courtesy of Xijian


Xi has also cracked down on universities, calling for greater ideological control on campuses. In early 2016, the Ministry of Education released a directive calling for more “patriotic education” for students — including Chinese students studying abroad. And in December 2017, Xi urged overseas Chinese students to adopt the attitude of “studying abroad to serve the country.”

The overseas party branches are typically established by a group of Chinese exchange students or visiting scholars at the direction of their home institution’s party committee, according to articles and reports viewed by Foreign Policy. Each cohort forms its own cell, which is typically then disbanded when the group returns to China.

The party isn’t shy about the purpose of these new branches. “The rising number of overseas party branches is a new phenomenon, showing the growing influence of the [Chinese Communist Party] and China,” according to a November 2017 report in the party-aligned Global Times newspaper. “Overseas party cells are also responsible for promoting party and government policies.”

The UIUC public affairs office declined to comment on whether it was aware that party cells were being established on campus.

“We take the safety and security of all of our students seriously and work extremely hard to ensure that they have the opportunity to freely pursue the full educational experience we promised them when they chose to come to Illinois,” the university said in a statement to FP.

China’s effort to establish party branches at universities abroad has already hit some road bumps. In November 2017, a group of visiting Chinese scholars at the University of California, Davis attracted international media attention after it was revealed that they had founded a party branch on the Davis campus.

The scholars disbanded the branch shortly after its creation, citing unspecified concerns over compliance with “local laws.”

Yet other efforts appear to have gone largely unnoticed.

In August 2017, three teachers and five visiting scholars from Zhejiang University of Technology School of Pharmacy formed a party cell at the University of California, San Diego, holding meetings in a campus dormitory in which they selected their party secretary and discussed Xi’s recent speeches.

In July 2017, a group of visiting teachers from Shanghai Business School set up a party branch at West Virginia University College of Business and Economics, where they held joint events with the Confucius Institute there, according to an article posted to the Shanghai Business School website. Other branches have been set up at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, Ohio State University, Northern Illinois University, and the University of North Dakota’s aviation department, according to Chinese-language articles published on WeChat.

Grouping students into party cells while abroad sounds like a “downward extension” of a policy that has long been applied to high-ranking Chinese officials who travel overseas, says Andrew Chubb, a fellow at the Princeton-Harvard China and the World program. “This is important information that should be carefully considered by universities hosting exchanges. Host institutions need to make sure they are familiar with the kinds of situations their exchange students may be in,” he says.

The party cells popping up on campuses across the United States aren’t the Communist Party’s only expansion abroad. The U.S.-based party branches are part of a growing network of cells located on campuses in Canada, Mexico, Chile, Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, South Korea, Thailand, and elsewhere.

One hub for the establishment of party cells on campuses around the world is Shanghai International Studies University, which has partnerships with institutions in 56 different countries and regions, including in the United States. According to the November 2017 Global Times report, the university’s School of European and Latin American Studies started setting up party branches at its study abroad locations in 2009; it now operates party cells in a number of countries, including Spain, Portugal, Chile, Greece, Mexico, Italy, and the Netherlands.

The cells aren’t always used for ideological purposes. In March 2011, as the Arab Spring protests devolved into a civil war in Libya, Beijing sent a warship to the region to evacuate all 35,000 Chinese nationals there. A small group of Chinese students on Crete, members of a party cell at the University of Athens, participated in the evacuation effort, according to an article in the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main newspaper.

Helping to evacuate compatriots from a war zone is the type of humanitarian work many university groups would want to promote, but the students’ mobilization demonstrates Beijing’s growing capacity to establish functional party cells in Western countries that can be activated if needed.

“The party branches are the channel through which political power is exercised. It does not mean good or bad — power is not that,” says Peter Mattis, a China analyst at the Jamestown Foundation. “The way and purpose for which it is used is what matters.”

At least one Chinese university connected to the military has established party branches abroad as well. In 2012, the National University of Defense Technology, an institution affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), set up eight overseas party cells, including in the United Kingdom, according to a report in the official PLA Daily.

The branches were required to collect written ideological reports from members each quarter and submit them to their political department. The goal, according to the PLA Daily, was to strengthen the “management” of overseas students and to “resolutely resist the corrosion caused by harmful ideology.”

For Chinese students abroad, there’s a clear message, according to Hoffman of the Mercator Institute.

“You know that the party’s there,” she says. “It’s integrated directly into your study abroad experience.”

The Scott Walker Effect At Trump's Impeachment

A funny thing happened on the way to President Trump’s impeachment.  Somewhere along the way, House Democrats lost the support of the American people.

When they announced Articles of Impeachment against Trump on Tuesday, they did so with the support of just 48% of the American people (a number that is dramatically skewed by the fact that a near-unanimous 87.3% of Democrats want him impeached and removed from office), while the RealClearPolitics average of polls finds that 46.2% of the country does not want the President impeached and removed.

Amazingly, support for impeachment has gone down as impeachment hearings have attempted to paint a clear picture of impeachable offenses.

On October 8th, after weeks of breathless media coverage of the Ukraine scandal, support for impeachment hit a high of 52.2% in the RealClearPolitics average.  On November 10th, two days before hearings began, support for it was at 51%.

After two weeks of hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, though, that average dipped to 48%-46% support for impeachment, where it remains to this day.

Obviously, the absence of any actual firsthand evidence of wrongdoing impacted public opinion, but newly released polling from key battleground states suggests that something more might be at play.

Republican polling firm Firehouse Strategies reports this week that the impeachment inquiry seems to be helping President Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where he is now beating every single leading Democrat in hypothetical matchups.

Not only does a clear majority of voters in these three critical states oppose impeachment and removal from office, President Trump has reversed declining numbers as the impeachment inquiry has taken off.

Nowhere has this shift been more pronounced than in Wisconsin.  In March, former Vice President Joe Biden (who has been damaged by his association with the Ukraine scandal) led President Trump by a whopping 12 percentage points.  Now, President Trump leads him by nine.

What could have caused a 21-point swing in just 10 months?  Why did it come during a period in which logic would seem to dictate that Trump would lose support as evidence of his supposed wrongdoing is made public?  And why is this odd trend so especially pronounced in Wisconsin?

The answer is what might be dubbed “The Scott Walker Effect.”

In November of 2010, then-Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker swept into the Governor’s Mansion with a 52.3%-46.5% victory over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  A little over a month after his inauguration the following January, Walker introduced a comprehensive overhaul of collective bargaining for Wisconsin’s public employees known as Act 10.

Anyone who was in Wisconsin or even had a passing familiarity with the state knows what happened next.  Public employee unions went ballistic, and more than 100,000 angry demonstrators descended on the State Capitol building for weeks on end.  Democrats in the State Senate fled to Illinois to avoid a vote on the bill.  Once it was signed, liberal activists immediately organized recall efforts against state legislators who supported the bill.

The anger didn’t subside, and more than a year later, Walker himself faced a recall election.  But a funny thing happened on the way to his ouster.  He won with an even greater percentage of the vote (53.1%-46.3%).  Even more shockingly, he gained 206,644 votes over his total from November of 2010, when he faced the same opponent.

This increase is The Scott Walker Effect: Voter backlash to a perceived unjust effort to oust a leader over political differences.  In other words, while voter turnout increased overall from November 2010 to June 2012, Walker’s dramatic rise came largely from voters expressing their dissatisfaction that Democrats vindictively abused the recall process to get rid of a Governor whom they simply didn’t like.

Recall elections were traditionally used as a remedy for malfeasance in public office—not as revenge for an unpopular policy—and the widespread belief in Wisconsin that Democrats were simply bitter about losing the battle over Act 10 (and the 2010 election) helped make Walker the first Governor to ever survive a recall election.

It seems fairly obvious that the Scott Walker Effect is now driving impeachment polling, especially here in Wisconsin.  Did 21% of Wisconsinites suddenly change their minds about President Trump since March, or do they recognize impeachment as yet another tired recall effort?

Just as troubling for Democrats, the impeachment push seems to be galvanizing Republican support for President Trump just as the recall effort did for Governor Walker.  Those who might have been on the fence about Walker and voted for him almost out of a sense of obligation to vote Republican suddenly had a reason to back him with everything they had.  They knocked on doors, they made phone calls, and they put up yard signs…even if they had never done so before.  They felt it was their duty to save Walker from a fundamentally unjust process.

And now Republicans are doing the same for President Trump.  89% oppose impeachment and removal from office and 90% approve of the job he is doing.  Nearly all of them recognize impeachment for what it is—an effort to politically weaken a President (there is no chance the Senate will vote to convict and remove him from office) less than a year before he stands for re-election.  A process reserved for actual malfeasance in office is being cheapened with imagined offenses that barely mask naked political hatred.

The dramatic and seemingly paradoxical turn in support for impeachment reveals this, and once House Democrats’ overreach inevitably backfires, they will have only themselves—and the Scott Walker Effect—to blame

Five Ways America Should Secure the Border Against Terrorist Infiltration

Part IV: Five Ways America Should Secure the Border Against European-Style Terrorist Infiltration


Editor's note: This report represents the fourth and final installment of a series about what an epidemic of border-crossing Islamic terrorists who infiltrated Europe means for U.S. border security.

Read Part I, "A New Terror Travel Tactic is Born; Part II; “New Study Explains Why Islamic Terrorists Have Not Attacked Through America’s Southern Border; and Part III, “Like in Europe, America’s Broken Asylum System Enables Terrorist Infiltration Over U.S.-Mexico Border”

After working for years in Brazil as a “large-scale” smuggler of U.S.-bound Somalis, Mohammad Ahmad Dhakane decided to cross the Texas-Mexico border himself in 2008 and claim political asylum. He gave U.S. immigration a fraudulent story of persecution of the sort he often gave his smuggled clients.

But an FBI informant positioned inside the Texas detention facility soon discovered and reported that Dhakane was a trained guerilla fighter and trusted senior insider of the U.S.-designated terrorist group al-Ittihad al-Islamiya (AIAI), also known as the brutalizing “Islamic Courts Union,” the predecessor of al-Shabaab. He also was so trusted by senior AIAI leadership that he served for six years as its chief “hawaladar,” by which he used the U.S. Treasury Department-banned terrorist finance network known as al-Barakat to transfer millions in off-book funds to AIAI.

Whatever it was, if anything, that Dhakane was planning once across the Texas border with U.S. asylum never happened because, of course, he was serendipitously caught first. However, his 2008-2011 prosecution showed that he also facilitated the crossings of at least “several” AIAI operatives across the Texas and California borders whom he knew, from long discussions in hotel rooms along the way, were “ready to die for the cause.”

From the public disclosure of other border-entrants with dark terrorist pasts like Dhakane’s, the several AIAI clients he smuggled in, and at least 20 suspected extremists on terrorism watch lists also reported caught each year, the American public can definitively know that this threat exists on some arguable scale and cannot be dismissed as merely theoretical even absent actual attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Theory-turned-proof-of-concept is especially the case now, in light of new Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) research documenting that 104 Islamic terrorists infiltrated European borders as migrants between 2014-2018, completed 16 attacks and plotted 25 thwarted ones. The epidemic of death, destruction, and public cost from terrorist border infiltrations, which continued in Europe during 2019, is hardly notional there. Nor should it be here.

Five Solutions Government Can Implement without Congressional Approval

But what should American homeland security leaders do now that we know about the emergence of a new global terror travel tactic that terrorist organizations and operatives could not possibly have not noticed? As explained in Part II of this Townhall series based on the CIS research, American homeland security did build counter-smuggling, detection, and interdiction cordons in the years after 9/11 to partially filter the roughly 4,000 migrants from Muslim-majority nations, known in government parlance as “special interest aliens (SIAs),” that annually reach the U.S. southern border. But the whole effort, as I reported, is “neglected and easily defeatable,” leaving a persistent elevating threat unmitigated.

Following are five solutions that American homeland security authorities should and can immediately implement to help apprehend more Dhakanes and thereby reduce the threat.

Resurrect a 2016 initiative from Obama-era DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to bring together all DHS agencies, as well as the FBI and military intelligence components of the U.S. Southern Command, in a coordinated campaign to target and disrupt SIA smuggling over the American border.

In 2016, Secretary Johnson recognized the border threat from SIAs and ordered a comprehensive plan to apply the powers of all homeland security agencies in a coordinated way to disrupt this flow. Its purpose was to create common definitions, and finally integrate disparate intelligence with law enforcement efforts to vet SIAs at the border and to dismantle their smuggling networks in Latin America. After the election of President Donald Trump, the initiative lost traction and is no longer driven by leadership as a priority. The Democratic appointees' plan is fundamentally bi-partisan and should be resurrected.

Direct and prioritize a surge of SIA smuggling investigations in Latin America by ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI); ensure more HSI units exclusively target SIA smuggling in South America, in Central America, and in Mexico.

As described in Part II and the CIS research, ICE-HSI conducts most SIA smuggling investigations in Latin America, but is under-resourced and too often diverted to drug trafficking investigations. SIA smuggling investigations are time-consuming, expensive, and complex because they must occur in conjunction with the law enforcement and intelligence services of sovereign host countries. However, research shows that because SIA smugglers are uniquely specialized in terms of multilingualism and bi-nationality, and access to mandatory fraudulent identity documents, their removal can disrupt smuggling networks for longer periods of time than would the removal of typical contraband smugglers.

Require U.S. Attorney offices to prioritize prosecution of asylum fraud; direct agencies to prioritize asylum fraud detection and investigation involving claims made by SIAs.

As described in Part III, SIA smugglers rely on U.S. unwillingness to detect, investigate, or prosecute asylum fraud to ensure that migrants achieve legal status after arrival. SIA smuggling business continuity relies on successful asylum claims to justify fees paid in origin countries; therefore, smugglers coach clients in how to craft fake persecution stories to get U.S. approval. However, a 2015 GAO report found that U.S. Attorney offices usually decline to prosecute asylum fraud investigative referrals, so investigators won’t make cases. Directing an emphasis on asylum fraud investigations -- and prosecution -- for SIA smugglers would do real damage to the business.

Require that ICE ERO, the FBI, and other government agencies conduct personal security threat interviews of all SIAs detained inside the United States, as well as in Mexican and Central American detention centers, to assess individual risk before migrants are feed.

In past years, ICE intelligence officers and FBI agents were guided by a goal of 100-percent, in-person security vetting assessments of detained SIAs and to collect intelligence on their smugglers. However, these efforts are now largely episodic inside U.S. detention centers and in those of allied countries such as Mexico, Panama, and Costa Rica. The release of SIA detainees absent security interviews vastly increases the potential that unknown extremists will be among them and valuable intelligence on their smugglers is uncaptured. Prioritize and direct as many interviews as possible while arranging for extended detention time and bed space to allow the time necessary.

Fund large-scale migrant repatriation flights of SIAs from Mexico and Central American transit nations, to include funding for detention facility infrastructure and air transport.

Mexico, Panama, and several other common SIA transit countries practice catch-and-release of SIA migrants as this video from my reporting last year in Panama and Costa Rica shows, with only a rare few undergoing security threat interviews. The two countries provide food, shelter, and medical attention for 10-21 days and then arrange bus travel to their northern borders. Both countries, because they are geographic smuggling chokepoints, are logical staging grounds for repatriation flights to home countries, which would profoundly deter future smuggling. In addition to their geographic advantages for repatriation flights, Mexico and Panama are U.S. allies with longstanding collaborative histories in intelligence and law enforcement operations.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, governments place traffic lights and stop signs only after fatal car crashes mark the spots in blood. Europe and the capture of far too many people like Dhakane at the U.S. border are blinking now like red dummy lights on the car dashboard.

Ideally, common-sense solutions like the five described above would be implemented preemptively, without Congressional approval, using security assistance aid and other foreign assistance funding. But, if political leadership cannot bring itself to act preemptively, these solutions will be available on the Day After a border infiltrator attacks, just like in Europe.

Consider this series that clarion call