baldilocks

Day-Dreaming

Consider this scenario.

1. Illegal Mexican nationals inhabit, say, Arizona to the point of being a majority; the US government does nothing about it.

2. The Mexican government allows them to retain their citizenship.

3. The Mexican Nationals try to chase all the Americans who are not of Mexican descent out of the state--aka cleansing ethnically.

4. The Americans fight back.

(Yes, I know. Some of this isn't make believe.)

What do you think the US would do if Mexico came to the aid of their countrymen?

What would it do if Arizona declared its independence from the US?

And, forgetting the fact that the US has Mexico overwhelmingly outgunned--the fact that might usually makes right--who would be morally in the right?

UPDATE: Reality mirrors fiction and turns it on its side.

Security is being heightened along the southern U.S. border because of a threat that warring Mexican cartels may send hit men into the United States, authorities said Monday.

Law enforcement officials would not discuss specific security measures being taken at the ports of entry, along the border or in the city of El Paso, Texas.

"We received credible information that drug cartels in Mexico have given permission to hit targets on the U.S. side of the border," El Paso police spokesman Officer Chris Mears said.

You don't think what has happened in the Republic of Georgia could happen here? Think again.

Hidden War

From Jill Stewart:

[T]he testimony was riveting this morning before the Los Angeles City Council when a group of black residents pleaded with the 15 elected council members to rescind Special Order 40, the longtime local rule protecting illegal immigrants from arrest by the LAPD.

The black residents are seeking a decision by the council to enact the so-called Jamiel's Law, named after Jamiel Shaw, a promising and law-abiding 17-year-old high school student allegedly shot by an illegal immigrant, 18th Street Gang member Pedro Espinoza. The noxious Espinoza, who has a massively long rap sheet, was arrested by cops in Culver City, and then released by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department jailers, shortly before he allegedly murdered Jamiel.

Jamiel's family members cried openly in the ornate Council Chambers, asking the council to allow cops to check on the illegal status of people like Espinoza so they can be deported rather than released.

Yesterday, I saw Sergeant Anita Shaw, US Army--who had to come home from Iraq to attend her son's funeral--get on the TV and lament that she had been safer in Iraq than her son had been in his native country, standing in front of his own home.

Living in LA is dangerous. Many of the native-born criminal element make living in any large American city an ordeal. But the native born have a right to be in this country. Must we put up with a criminal element of other countries also--those who do not have a right to be here? Is that the price the country must pay for cheap labor?

I suppose that our betters believe that illegal immigration labor plus the attendant criminality is the price we must pay to add to the Social Security coffers. (Yes, that's the reason that nothing meaningful will be done about illegals--not that the amount of workers contributing to the fund will ever be enough to make SS viable before it runs out next decade.) A few dead youngsters--murdered by sins of commission and omission--are but a small sacrifice to that "noble" end.

Personal note: trust me, I look both ways when stepping out of my door.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Don't Forget What the Date Is

Rules were made to be broken: the southern border fence--a real one--will be built.

The Bush administration will use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of this year, federal officials said Tuesday.

If they're still reporting this tomorrow, I'll believe that it might happen.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Interview With A Monopoly Capitalist

Did you know that the richest man in the world owns a significant portion of Mexico?

[Carlos] Slim accumulated his $53.1 billion fortune by collecting companies in much the same way he did baseball cards. He searches for businesses that are undervalued, infuses them with cash and uses the size of his holdings to overwhelm the competition. He now owns stakes in more than 220 businesses…[SNIP]

His wealth has caused some resentment in a country where 40 percent live in poverty and thousands emigrate each year to seek opportunity in the United States. Both the U.S. and Mexican governments complained recently that Mexico's economic growth is stunted because large conglomerates such as Slim's have too much control.

From the minute many Mexicans are born - perhaps in one of Slim's Star Médica Hospitals - they begin putting money in his pocket. They use electricity carried by Condumex brand cables, drive on roads paved by the CILSA construction company firm and burn fuels pumped from Swecomex drilling platforms. They communicate through Telmex phone lines, smoke Slim's tobacco, which is sold under the Marlboro brand, and shop at Sears Roebuck of Mexico, a subsidiary of his huge Carso Group.

And even with all of that filthy lucre, he’s not above playing the “Mexican” card!

Slim says that he is held to a double standard because he is Mexican and that many U.S. companies such as Microsoft, Boeing [sic] and Intel enjoy similar dominance of their sectors.

Actually, Mr. Slim is partially correct, he is being criticized because he’s Mexican, but the standard isn’t double, but separate. Slim is a citizen of the same Mexico whose economic and social practices trap its poorer, darker citizens in their low station in life; that’s why they’re coming here. (When darker Americans begin to bum rush the Canadian border, call me.) That same climate allowed Slim to become what he is today; he may not be the creator of it, but the advantages taken by him are born from his country’s apartheid-like economic and social character.

Still, it’s an interesting article about a man whose sound personal economic practices are part of why he's where he is today.

Back Door Open

This morning, during a White House Press conference, Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend was answering questions about the recently released National Intelligence Estimate--which predicts that the US Homeland will be hit again by al Qaeda or, possibly, Lebanon's Hezbollah and which says that terrorists' abilities are improving--they're getting better at being terrorists. No surprise in either case.

I didn't even bother to laugh derisively, however, when Ms. Townsend had the gall to assert that President Bush's fervor for Comprehensive Immigration Reform was due to the threat which we face from Islamists.

And, now we find out that,

[...] the FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico. [SNIP]

[T]he smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative." Each individual would be charged a fee of $20,000 to $25,000, according to the report.

You mean to tell me that everyone coming clandestinely into the US via its southern border isn't merely a poor hard-working Mexican looking for a better life? Gee, who could have ever predicted that?

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Technorati Profile

Good Neighbors

A few days ago it was reported that parts of an outdated barrier between the US and Mexico had actually been built a few feet too far inside Mexican territory.

COLUMBUS, N.M. – It will cost the U.S. some embarrassment and up to $3.5 million to fix a mistake that resulted in 1 ½ miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border being put on Mexican soil.

James Johnson, who runs an onion farm near the U.S. border with Mexico, thinks his forefathers may have started the confusion more than a century ago by placing a barbed- wire fence south of the border.

The mistake may have its roots in a barbed-wire fence put up in the 1800s.

The barrier is part of more than 15 miles of border fence built in 2000, stretching from Columbus to an onion farm and cattle ranch, and designed to keep cars from illegally crossing into the United States.

A routine survey in March revealed that the barrier – made of vertical metal tubes that were sunk into the ground and filled with cement – protrudes into Mexico by 1 to 6 feet. [SNIP]

Crews erecting the barrier may have used that fence as a guideline.

To assuage the feelings of our neighbors to the south, Mac Johnson of Human Events has taken it upon himself to write a letter of apology to Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

How refreshing to find a member of the Mexican government that respects the border and has become such a stickler for the details surrounding it.

Since the United States of America is a good neighbor, and not a corrupt mischief-maker, I can assure you that the offending sections of the fence will be removed, just as soon as you give our workers permission to enter Mexico and remove the fence. After all, what sort of government would purposely send its laborers into another country to conduct demolition and construction without first obtaining the proper authorization?

The snarkage gets deeper.

The Will to Build (UPDATED)

Our neighbors to the north somehow managed to complete construction of the 1,522-mile long Alaska-Canada Highway--also known as the Alcan Highway--in a mere eight months. The time period? Between 1942 and 1943--with 1940s technology and partially during an Alaska-Canada winter. And let's not forget that the Canadians were our allies in war at the time.

But in 2007, Americans can only manage to get thirteen miles of a border fence up in an identical time span--and in a southern-climate winter, no less. Hmmm.

(Thanks to Joe in Biloxi)

UPDATE: In the comments, CalTechGirl informs us that:

The Al-Can highway was built by the US and Canada jointly as part of the war effort, so extra resources and $$ were put towards the project. It was a PRIORITY for national security, for BOTH countries.

CTG's grandfather helped to build the highway while he was a member of the US Army.

Makes you wonder what the government REALLY wants, huh?

Indeed it does.

Congressional Will

I’m sure that some other citizen-journalist has already observed with wonderment how fast our federal government can get something done when it wants to.

After we were attacked in 2001, our troops were in Afghanistan in less than a month. Granted, there are portions of the military which are always ready to go somewhere: they're trained, their equipment is serviced and their gear is packed and repacked. However, the military cannot just get up and go take care of business of its own volition. For such a large scale deployment to happen so quickly, the DOD must, of course, get the go-ahead: some legislation must be proposed, quickly debated and approved by both houses of Congress and by the president.

In the case of Afghanistan, funding was approved by the House---where all funding bills originate—the Senate gave its approval, President Bush gave his approval and on October 7, 2001, a very bloodied and even more PO’d Eagle deployed to take care of Al Qaeda and its brother-in-arms, the Taliban.

Recently, as we know, the US Congress and the president were just as eager to implement tactics “necessary” to win another “war.” (However, it’s unclear to many as to who some members of the Congress believe are its enemies in this matter.) Though the attempt to execute the policies of the Illegal Immigration Compromise (IIC) wasn’t as lightening quick as was that for Operation Enduring Freedom, the push for IIC was speedy enough for attentive citizens to ask, among other questions: “What’s the rush?”

Want a relevant contrast? Here it is. The US Congress passed and the president signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in October of last year, which, judging from the language of the related White House press release was intended to be a first step for this year’s IIC. (I wish I had read the press release sooner because it shows that President Bush’s position on illegal immigration should not have been a big surprise to us.)

Before the president signed the bill, the New York Times reported—in its usual partisan manner—on the necessary Senate approval of the bill; that the body, by a vote of 80-19

approved the building of 700 miles [now up to 854 miles] of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.

Do take note of the text that I emphasized. The Secure Fence Act requires that

the Secretary of Homeland Security[…] take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire [US-Canada border also] international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following…[SNIP]

[at] least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors

(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

How long does the government have to secure the southern border in the manner specified? “Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act…,” meaning March April 2008.

Okay. There are ten eleven months left until March April 2008 and the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit a progress report to Congress not later than October 2007--one year after the date of the Act.

How many of the specified measures have been started and how much progress has been made toward completion? According to US Representative Steve King (R-IA) only thirteen miles of the physical barrier have been constructed, with priority having been placed on cameras and ground-based radar, according to the congressman.

Thirteen miles in eight months. Well, at least no one can say that steps have not been taken. :::rolls eyes:::

Contrasting the implementation of Operation Enduring Freedom with the implementation of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (and controlling for the condition already stated), I’d say that we can safely conclude that our betters don’t really want to follow through with the latter. But you knew that already.

The question that remains unanswered—or, rather, remains insufficiently answered is: why not?

AFTERTHOUGHT: I certainly hope that Rep. King isn't referring to the fourteen miles of fence that is already up just south of San Diego and has been there since the 90s.

UPDATE:Via Instapundit, here's an opinion piece containing data which suggests that, at some point, the seemingly endless northward migration of working class Mexicans may actually have an end.

There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico, which means that, in a few years there will not be many teenagers in Mexico looking for work in the United States or anywhere else. If this trend in the fertility rate continues, Mexico will resemble Japan and Italy - rapidly aging populations with too few young workers to support the economy.

According to the World Bank's 2007 Annual Development Indicators, in 1990 Mexico had a fertility rate of 3.3 children per female, but by 2005, that number had fallen by 36 percent to 2.1, which is the Zero Population Growth rate. [SNIP]

If this trend toward fewer children per female continues, there being no apparent reason for it to cease, the number of young people in the Mexican population will decline significantly just when the number of elderly is rising. As labor markets in Mexico tighten and wage rates rise, far fewer Mexican youngsters will be interested in coming to the United States.

The author concludes that illegal immigration from the south is merely a temporary problem. Perhaps. However, some of us may have forgotten this: Mexicans who merely want to work aren't the only illegal immigrants desiring to cross the border.

Again, why are our betters dragging their feet in completing the already-mandatory fence?

UPDATE: Welcome Hot Air readers--and friends.

Okay, It's Really Dead This Time

From the WSJ (subscription required):

WASHINGTON -- The Senate fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to end debate on immigration overhaul, dealing a near-fatal blow to the landmark bill and one that could very well dash President Bush's hopes of ever achieving this goal before leaving the White House.

The 46-53 roll call evolved into a blowout as a strong majority of Republicans sought cover and lined up against the administration once the outcome became apparent. [SNIP]

Beyond this summer, the political and legislative calendars don't favor a quick turnaround, and House Democrats will be reluctant to act given the continued stalemate in the Senate. Already the 2008 presidential elections have begun to intrude on the debate, and Republican lawmakers, worried about their own political survival, are more reluctant to take risks for the president.

Like Lyndon Johnson on civil rights and Bill Clinton on welfare reform and trade, the immigration issue has pitted Mr. Bush squarely against his party's base.

(Emphasis mine.)

I was waiting for someone in the MSM to use some part of the IIC in an analogy with the Civil Rights Debate of forty years ago. But at least the analogy reminds close observers that LBJ, a Democrat, was going against his party when he signed the CRA.

Next question: when will real construction begin on the already-approved border fence?

UPDATE: I heard that Ted Kennedy compared the now-dead IIC to the Civil Rights legislation this morning. One obvious problem with that analogy, Senator: Civil Rights legislation was meant for the benefit of actual American citizens.

Mexican Ambassador to US: "Reform must also take place in Mexico"

As Mexico's ambassador to Washington [Arturo Sarukhan] warns, even the "rosiest, peachiest" reform in the US won't end the flow of poor migrants.

Well, heck. Even I know that, as do many of my readers. But it seems that the proponents of the Illegal Immigration Compromise (IIC) haven't thought probabilities out that far.

More:

For the past seven months, Mexico has been at war with itself, literally.

And what is the definition of such a war?

A new president, Felipe Calderón, has dispatched 24,000 troops into battle with the most corrosive influence in Mexico's economy: powerful drug cartels.

These violent syndicates, which mainly transport drugs into the US, have exploded in the past decade. They've escalated crime and political corruption, hindering creation of well-paying jobs for would-be migrants. At election time, they provide cash for many campaigns.

This domestic war, which resembles the Iraq war in tactics and killing rates, was Mr. Calderón's opening gambit for wholesale reform. It is widely popular but faces an uncertain future. The cartels are fighting back with gruesome murders. And the Army, one of the few respected institutions in Mexico, is not good at policing, a task it must do to root out local drug networks. Some of its elite soldiers have joined the cartels.

Still, the war gives Calderón enough public support to conduct a quiet and pragmatic battle with the ruling opposition in the legislature. In March, he was able to win reform of state pensions. This week, he will propose tax hikes to reduce the government's risky reliance on oil-export revenues. And he was helped this month by a Supreme Court ruling that struck a blow at the broadcasting giant Televisa, one of many monopolies controlled by powerful, vested interests.

Opening up these key parts of the economy – telecommunications, oil, cement, and electricity – to fair competition under the law would be Calderón's greatest legacy. It would build on two other major reforms: the opening of Mexico's markets since the mid-1990s through NAFTA and the establishment of real democracy with the end of one-party rule in 2000

Any reforms would do little to stem migration, however, unless they reach the poorest regions in the south, such as Chiapas and Michoacán. These areas are the main source of migrants to the US, and a better economy there would help keep valuable workers in Mexico. Among his reforms, Calderón has offered help to young entrepreneurs and launched job-training programs.

How can the US help? For one, effective border enforcement would keep more Mexicans in Mexico where they can contribute to the economy. The US can also better crack down on the flow of arms to Mexico's cartels and the flow of drugs into the US. [SNIP]

[A]s one of the world's 15 largest economies and an oil exporter, it doesn't need money – just reform.

The US Congress should see its immigration reform in the larger picture of Mexico's needs. The ultimate solution truly lies south of the border.

(All emphasis mine.)

It's interesting to note that Sarukhan would rather take the much tougher (and, possibly, bloodier) route of real reform for his country rather than the "easier" one which the US government would like to offer. Because, if Mexican reform doesn't happen--if the Civil War escalates to the recognized Mexican government's detriment--the flow north will never stop. And no matter how many IICs are in our future, there will be a tipping point--for both countries.

(Thanks to Hot Air, which has some other interesting links on the topic.)

ON THE OTHER HAND: As I said in my earlier post on the subject of Mexican civil war, it's possible that our leaders have thought possible future events out this far, but are willing to take what they think is the least bad of a bushel of bad options.