Former Senator Scott Brown continues to shit himself over the thought of Ebola-carrying terrorist criminal persons crossing our southern border with Mexico.
When asked if we should place restrictions on traveling to or from West Africa, Brown went much further than he was prompted to go and tied the question into border security.
BROWN: I think it’s all connected. For example, we have people coming into our country by legal means bringing in diseases and other potential challenges. Yet we have a border that’s so porous that anyone can walk across it. I think it’s naive to think that people aren’t going to be walking through here who have those types of diseases and/or other types of intent, criminal or terrorist. And yet we do nothing to secure our border. It’s dangerous. And that’s the difference. I voted to secure it. Senator Shaheen has not.
It continues to amaze me that Brown has chosen to make border security the centerpiece of his campaign in New Hampshire which is 2,000 miles away from the southern border.
And make no mistake, this is a campaign with racial undertones that is focused on the southern border with Mexico rather than the border New Hampshire shares with Canada. That is not a coincidence. There have been no documented cases of immigrants or other undocumented persons walking across the border with Ebola or with the intent of committing terrorism. Furthermore, there have been no documented cases of Ebola in Mexico.
Even if it were a possibility, are we suppose to accept the idea of someone infected with Ebola making the perilous journey across the border on foot? Does that make any sense?
Whether prompted to or not, Scott Brown has taken questions about ISIS and Ebola and turned them into a border security issue at a time when our border is more secure than it has ever been.
The irony is that a scenario in which an American infected with Ebola crosses into Mexico is more plausible.