Border security.. some things do matter

[Lawman]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6204251.html

 

 

And some wisdom from the past:

 

June 6, 2005

"WASHINGTON – Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, credited with engineering the demise of the Soviet Union, once predicted – because of illegal immigration and social unrest south of the border – the U.S. would be at war with Mexico by 2003.

As the U.S. becomes increasingly concerned about just those issues – and one more, the growing power and violence of the drug cartels operating in and around the border – some U.S. intelligence and military analysts are dusting off Weinberger's "Operation Aztec" battle plan for review. "

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44604

 

 

 

 

 

[Twisties]

Of course we could just rationalize drug and immigration policy and all this would go away.

[John Ranalletta]

what's new? nobody gives sh!t. narco violence will increase and we'll not do a thing about it; so, it's not in the interest of your mental health to worry about it - kinda' like tomorrow's weather forecast.

 

Stratfor

[Dave McReynolds]

Of course, the whole thing is fueled by US $. We are creating a mess in our own backyard, which Mexico is incapable of solving since they don't have anywhere near enough money to pay a living wage to cops which might keep most of them from being corrupted.

 

So these seem to be the possibilities, (and to give a nod to JohnRan, I will add, if anyone gives a sh!t).

 

1. Invade Mexico, which if we are stupid enough to do, we deserve another Vietnam, Iraq, or Afganistan.

 

2. Control the illegal flow of $ to the south, which I'm sure we're trying as hard as we can to do already, without much success.

 

3. Legalize drugs, which would allow us and Mexico to tax the profits. Almost nobody other than drug users likes this answer either, as it encourages a self-destructive habit. People will also say that legalizing drugs does not necessarily mean that illegal drugs and the related drug violence will go away. But the end users control the $, and I think they would certainly prefer to deal with legitimate sources if they had a choice. Based on the prohibition model, my guess is that illegal drug traffic would dwindle to insignificance after legalization.

 

4.??

[John Ranalletta]

How about putting a higher priority on our border security than whether other countries suffer our form of representative democratic government?

 

Not a chance. Too many votes against it. It's far easier to deploy a half million men to some god-forsaken location and dick with some 2-bit governor from Illinois than do anything useful.

 

Frankly, this is another reason why it seems silly to worry about portfolios, investments, etc. That's re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

We're losing every fight we pick. We've got neither the political will, the values or the wealth to protect ourselves.

[ghaverkamp]

3. Legalize drugs, which would allow us and Mexico to tax the profits. Almost nobody other than drug users likes this answer either, as it encourages a self-destructive habit.

 

Such a move encourages nothing. Instead, it removes the government from yet another aspect of individuals' lives, removes the bulk of the benefit of large-scale criminal activity around the trade, and provides for increased revenue on many fronts.

 

Might it make it easier -- as opposed to encouraging -- a self-destructive habit? Sure. So what?

[tallman]

3. Legalize drugs, which would allow us and Mexico to tax the profits. Almost nobody other than drug users likes this answer either, as it encourages a self-destructive habit.

 

Such a move encourages nothing. Instead, it removes the government from yet another aspect of individuals' lives, removes the bulk of the benefit of large-scale criminal activity around the trade, and provides for increased revenue on many fronts.

 

Might it make it easier -- as opposed to encouraging -- a self-destructive habit? Sure. So what?

 

Not to mention the effect on deconstipating the courts and prisons.

Don't know what all the freed prisoners would do, but it would greatly reduce the amount of $$$ spent on incarceration.

Life is a self-destructive habit for many people.

Some look at motorcycles that way.

 

[John Ranalletta]

The right to ingest or inject whatever chemicals we desire is a actually a privacy right, a right that some find in the constitution, though my copies of the constitution don't don't have a privacy clause.

 

Perhaps, Obama's appointees will be able to read and expand that particular freedom beyond the two political hot button issues to cover private drug use as well so we can end this drug war charade.

[Pilgrim]

Billy, I could write a book on the subject. It matters a lot in a whole bunch of ways, too many to cover here.

 

I recommend some reading to those who want to know more, even if you think you already know a lot about the subject.

 

Start with the daily foreign media synopsis that the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers prepares daily. In the interest is transparency, I'll say here I'm founder and chairman. The reports are prepared by two of our members who speak diplomatic-quality Spanish; they are drawn from on-line news sources in Mexico and Central America. The focus on three things: first, official attitudes in those countries about our immigration policies. (It may not surprise you to know they think we should not have any), and the violence taking place between the cartels and the Mexican government to decide who will rule Mexico (as opposed to "govern" it), and finally, reports on the inter-cartel violence as they vie for supremacy and markets. It our institutional opinion that there is a better than 50/50 chance the cartels will win and Mexico become a failed state. You can see the media report through our website at nafbpo.org. Click the yellow button. Also, as a rule, we don't editorialize in those reports, but September 10 was an exception. It speaks of our fear of the development of contagious corruption up here and why we (the U.S.) are as vulnerable to it as Mexico. It's already going on.

 

General Barry McCaffrey returned from a quasi-official visit to Mexico in November. His report reflects essentially what NAFBPO believes; it's touch and go down there, and the war (5,300 casualties in 2008 in addition to the "normal" murders that take place anywhere) could go either way. He speaks to the corruption that exists but does not link that factor his support for the Merida Initiative, money and equipment from here sent to Mexico for the drug war. NAFBPO opposes the MI because we believe all that stuff will go straight to the cartels through corrupt officials - which is nearly every one of them. You can read his report HERE. As of today, it's the top subject line on the website.

 

Read Down by the River by Charles Bowden (see it HERE on Amazon. I thought I had a pretty good mental handle on how bad it was down there, but this book left me nauseated with dismay. Start with this premise: every President of Mexico since the mid-60s has been in on the drug market except, perhaps, Calderon. There is another element he covers that is shocking unless you've encountered the manifestations in your work. I did, and now I understand what I was seeing; I didn't then.

 

If things do get worse down there, if Mexico fails and a civil war takes place (or revolution; call it what you will), the United States will be, as a matter of our own law, required to accept the millions of refugees from the violence. We have something called Temporary Protected Status designed to cover precisely those circumstances and the chaos of natural disasters. I want you to imagine hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Mexicans living in tent cities or any other shelter over here while we try to figure out, in this economic climate, what to do with and for them.

 

What's happening down there is a big deal for us here in several ways, big, important ways. Frankly, considering the strength of the cartels and the nature of Mexican society vis a vis its attitudes toward gringos, we do not see a satisfactory solution, one that does not lead to disaster for Mexico and damage (even grave damage) to U.S. society. War is not out of the question, unfortunately, at least in the border zones. The Mexican government does not (cannot, but they're trying) exert effective control over its border areas and that acts to the detriment of the United States.

 

This is not black-helicopter, tinfoil beanie stuff, folks. It's a real problem, critical in the truest sense.

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

If there were to be another revolution in Mexico, I would be interested in knowing what the sentiments of the common people were. I would not want to be on the wrong side of those sentiments. In prior revolutions, they hung a lot of people who they thought were oppressing them. What do you think their view is of the narcotics trafficers? Do you think the majority of common Mexican people feel oppressed or enriched by them? Do you see another Obregon, Carranza, or for that matter, Fidel Castro rising up against the massive corruption, or do you see an outlaw state, like Somalia, run essentially by pirates?

[John Ranalletta]

Would the fact that China is supplying Hamas with rockets lead anyone to think China's not doing everything it can to surreptitiously de-stabilize Mexico beyond it's normal unstable condition? That happens to be an inconvenient truth. We spend billions to arm Israel to fight an enemy equipped by the Chinese via Iran; and we can't retaliate against China because they own us.

 

Marc Faber is correct when he opines that WWIII has begun and we're losing on every front.

[Lawman]

Pilgim,

 

Thanks! Much there to digest..

 

General McCaffrey's report is chilling. If the corruption is so bad that the Merida Initive would do more harm than good it would seem to me to be a lost cause..

 

Subscribed to the daily report....I don't think people here realize what's happening there..I didn't..That report is an eye opener!

[Mike O]

 

4.??

 

4. Pardon Ramos and Compean

 

Story here

 

Mike O

[Skywagon]

Option 4. Quit being stupid enough to take drugs..

[Matts_12GS]

Might it make it easier -- as opposed to encouraging -- a self-destructive habit? Sure. So what?

 

Indeed. Just ask the liquor bidnesses.

 

Legalize.

 

Tax it.

 

Get draconian on ANY OUI/DUI/DWI type laws.

 

Did I just agree w/Greg?

[Dave McReynolds]

 

4.??

 

4. Pardon Ramos and Compean

 

Story here

 

Mike O

 

Sounds like a horrible miscarriage of justice from the short blurb you reference. The only thing that makes me wonder is, Texans aren't known for letting anyone lead them around by the nose. Why do you suppose the jury handed down a conviction?

[Twisties]

 

4.??

 

4. Pardon Ramos and Compean

 

Story here

 

Mike O

 

Sounds like a horrible miscarriage of justice from the short blurb you reference. The only thing that makes me wonder is, Texans aren't known for letting anyone lead them around by the nose. Why do you suppose the jury handed down a conviction?

 

 

The Prosecutor's Response

 

USDOJ Webpage on this matter.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Quite a different story, huh!

[Twisties]

Quite a different story, huh!

 

I'm holding my tongue pending Mike O's response.

 

Jan

[Pilgrim]

 

4.??

 

4. Pardon Ramos and Compean

 

Story here

 

Mike O

 

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers has not taken a public position on that case since it outside the brief we have established for ourselves. However, we each have our own knowledge and opinions. Everyone on our BoD knows someone involved in the case, especially among management. Some of the senior management involved were trainees under us. I know several, but neither Ramos nor Compean are among them.

 

Let begin by saying that despite anything I might tell you here, I am sorry for those guys. I'd like to see the President pardon them, but I sure he won't. He has pandered to Mexico since day one of his administration and he knows how much it would infuriate the Mexican government and people were he to do so. They're screwed.

 

The factual long and short of it is this: one of them did something that is absolutely, positively, forbidden: Compean fired shots at a fleeing subject with no legal reason to do so. The BP's shooting policy is the same as all federal policy (except Bureau of Prisons): You may shoot only in self-defense, defense of another officer, or defense of an innocent third party whom you believe to be in danger of death or great bodily harm. Period.

 

Then together, they and others covered it up, failed to report it, and destroyed evidence of it.

 

The story of the victim having a gun did not come up until long after the charges had been filed. There was never any evidence that he did (although I imagine he probably did, but courts require proof).

 

They were offered several plea bargains. (Presumably) because any of them would have resulted in the loss of their jobs, they turned them all down. We don't know if that was on advice of, or contrary to advice of, counsel.

 

Any prosecutor here will tell you that if the defendant turns down a fair plea bargain, and if the prosecutor has adequate evidence, he's going to go full-bore with everything he has. Johnny Sutton did exactly that, including bringing back a victim/witness from Mexico. That is exactly the same thing he would have done if the victim had been a Border Patrolman and a witness was in Mexico.

 

Keep this in mind when you think of the total picture of the case: a federal felony committed while in possession of a firearm calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in addition to any sentence imposed for the underlying charge. They knew that, but for some reason were confident they could beat the basic charge. Sometimes a defendant is just not in touch with the reality of his situation.

 

It is only fair to point out that the Office of the U.S. Attorney in El Paso has a sterling record of giving an officer the benefit of the doubt in shooting cases if he is plays it straight and true from the beginning.

 

From a legal standpoint, based on evidence and testimony, it was an indefensible shooting. There was no credible argument of self-defense made, that being undermined by the fact their initial statements in the case did not mention the victim having a firearm. Once the jury came back with a conviction the big sentence was a foregone conclusion.

 

Unfortunate and tragic? Yes. Entirely predictable and avoidable? That, too. They were willing participants in their own screwing.

 

Here I speculate, but it's from having been a field officer and a manager both.

 

I think Compean came on the scene after Ramos had been assaulted by Aldrete-Davila (an issue not contested). He saw Aldrete fleeing, knew he was a drug smuggler who had just beat up his partner, and fired (they both did, as I recall) a total of about 14 shots. I don't believe they intended to hit him at all, but things happening as they do when lead flies, one shot did. They may not even have known, and even if they did they knew he made it to Mexico. Who'd expect to hear any more about it? (Comment: it's hard for me to believe that two Border Patrol agents firing that many rounds at the distance mentioned would not achieve multiple hits. That's what leads me to believe they were not shooting to hit.)

 

It's not the only time shots have been fired like that. Usually, nothing comes of it. Not knowing they hit him, they didn't expect anything to come of it that time, so they filed no report. It's said that they were told by a supervisor to never mind; maybe so, but immaterial except in that he would have been culpable of several crimes himself, including a conspiracy charge. That made him a legally vulnerable individual, the perfect candidate for a prosecutor to flip as a witness. Doom on them.

 

Anyway, I hate it that it happened to them, period. But that emotion is tempered by the knowledge that to the extent they are victims, they are victims of precisely the system of laws they were sworn to uphold.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike O]

Quite a different story, huh!

 

I'm holding my tongue pending Mike O's response.

 

Jan

Oh, sure, I believe everything the government says, don't you Jan? Please, do your own research. Google is your friend. (google Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila). I wonder what Adrete is doing these days;)

 

Mike O

 

P.S. Anyone want to place bets that former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers and/or Michael Millikin gets a 'pass'? Only 12 more days!

[Mike O]

Well said, Kent. You have far more insight into this than any of us. I've followed the story for some time and heard both sides (it's been a hot topic - again - here on local talk radio KHOW). The outcome was unfortunate, but it fries my a$$ that the very illegal alien/criminal in the middle of this subsequently continued to practice his trade (smuggling over a ton of pot into the U.S.) well after Sutton provided him immunity to testify. There is very little satisfaction knowing that Aldrete is now in jail but that the border patrol agents are still there too.

 

Mike O

[Whip]

Quite a different story, huh!

 

I'm holding my tongue pending Mike O's response.

 

Jan

Oh, sure, I believe everything the government says, don't you Jan? Please, do your own research. Google is your friend. (google Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila). I wonder what Adrete is doing these days;)

 

Mike O

 

P.S. Anyone want to place bets that former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers and/or Michael Millikin gets a 'pass'? Only 12 more days!

 

 

My feeling are Millikin and Ebbers stay where they are and the BP guys get time served and are pardoned.

 

Because that's what I would do......no other reason.

 

I would be surprised at any other out come.

[Pilgrim]

Well said, Kent. You have far more insight into this than any of us. I've followed the story for some time and heard both sides (it's been a hot topic - again - here on local talk radio KHOW). The outcome was unfortunate, but it fries my a$$ that the very illegal alien/criminal in the middle of this subsequently continued to practice his trade (smuggling over a ton of pot into the U.S.) well after Sutton provided him immunity to testify. There is very little satisfaction knowing that Aldrete is now in jail but that the border patrol agents are still there too.

 

Mike O

 

I know that Peter Boyles on KHOW follows it closely. Another member of the BoD and I did an hour-long gig with him last year on the general topic of illegal immigration. He pressed us pretty hard to say what we thought about Ramos and Compean - it was hard to avoid doing so.

 

It's hard to maintain a commitment to the principle of the rule of law sometimes, but an evenhanded (albeit aggressive) application of it is what I see here.

 

Pilgrim

[Twisties]

Oh, sure, I believe everything the government says, don't you Jan?

 

No, of course not. Which was why I just posted the links without comment and then abjured from commenting until you responded. I did use Google, that's how I found the DOJ reports.

 

In any event, I'll gladly Google Adrete.

 

Later.

 

 

[Twisties]

Ok, good, they got him. What's the problem?

[Dave McReynolds]

The outcome was unfortunate

 

I would say that Ramos and Compean are victims of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, as much as anything. It's pretty clear that they committed a crime, since they were tried and convicted. I don't imagine anyone, from the judge on down, was very happy that they had to be sentenced to more than 10 years for shooting a fleeing criminal in the a$$, possibly by accident. But if we vote for mandatory minimum sentences because we believe that judges are soft on crime, we have to accept the consequences of prison overcrowding and that judges sometimes don't have discretion when we wish they did.

[bridwell52]

I wonder what would happen if we just annexed them and made it another US state. Just think, no fence needed, lots of new land to explore for new jobs, all those US companies could start paying taxes. Hell, they are here already.

 

Fire away

 

(this ought to be interesting)

David

[Dave McReynolds]

I wonder what would happen if we just annexed them and made it another US state.

 

Does Mexico have anything to say about that? Do you think they would want US senate seats and comparable seats in the House of Reps for each of their 31 states?

[bridwell52]

I wonder what would happen if we just annexed them and made it another US state.

 

Does Mexico have anything to say about that? Do you think they would want US senate seats and comparable seats in the House of Reps for each of their 31 states?

 

Ya never know unless you ask them. Vote comes to mind here. I think that it would be good for both countries to combine. Goods and bads, richer or poorer. I think in the long run we would come out on top of the merger.

Another thing I dont understand is a Mexican can join the US military and when his term is up he is not offered a citizenship for his duties to this country. Something is wrong with that.

 

David

 

[Matts_12GS]

Something is wrong with that.

 

Why?

[Twisties]

I wonder what would happen if we just annexed them and made it another US state.

 

Does Mexico have anything to say about that? Do you think they would want US senate seats and comparable seats in the House of Reps for each of their 31 states?

 

Ya never know unless you ask them. Vote comes to mind here. I think that it would be good for both countries to combine. Goods and bads, richer or poorer. I think in the long run we would come out on top of the merger.

Another thing I dont understand is a Mexican can join the US military and when his term is up he is not offered a citizenship for his duties to this country. Something is wrong with that.

 

David

 

There is a lot to be said for some form of merger. I was thinking more EU style. But while that may at least solve the perceived immigration issues, it won't solve the problem with the drug lords. We need to rationalize drug policy to do that.

 

I want to say, I agree with Kent about the severity of the problems in Mexico and the potential downsides. This issue is very very important. I am sure that we will disagree vigorously regarding the solution, but we may both learn something in the debate. So far in this thread I have learned about Barry McCaffrey's group, the Ramos and Compean controversy, and a few other things.

[Gary in Aus]

Luckily we don't have any land orders with any countries which makes illegal immigration very difficult but we still do have a illegal drug trafficking.

 

Illegal immigrants are detained usually in detention centres in the middle of nowhere or remote islands like Nauru or Christmas Island {if you want to see what remote is find Christmas Island on a map}

 

Dave , from an outsiders viewpoint , your comment "of course the whole thing is fuelled by the US $".

 

I have only briefly visited Mexico as a tourist ,Cancun , Tijuana , Mexico City {will not do that again} so can't really comment from an on the ground viewpoint and most of the reading I have done is US originated or managed. I am sure there are resources that will provide the Mexican perspective but again I am not sure of credibility of those sources.

 

The problems faced are manifold and simplistically lean toward opportunity.

 

My very simplistic and general reading always leads back to the same starting point , identifying what the problems are and determining who is responsible for these problems ,perceived or otherwise.

 

How much responsibility for these problems can be allocated to either the US or Mexico but even more importantly who has the ability , expertise or the will to resolve them.

 

Do both US and Mexican border authorities need to seek outside assistance , the can't see the woods for the trees is more prevalent than you realise.

 

In a certain African country that I recently did aid work ,the problem of illegal immigrants crossing the border for work and social benefits was dramatically reduced by an estimated 80% by unofficially paying a bounty to border guards.This ended as concern was reached that some of the border guards where rounding up "innocents" to hand them in for the bounty money.

 

I usually deal with lot of government and non government agencies and continually see "paralysis by analysis" ,from reading some of the referred reports in this post , this may be the case in some of these.

 

Problems are usually as complicated as we make them or need them to be ,

[brennaman]

Another thing I dont understand is a Mexican can join the US military and when his term is up he is not offered a citizenship for his duties to this country. Something is wrong with that.

 

From what I remember, as an American, we can join the armed forces of our ally (as long as that country allows it), as allies of ours can join our military. The only thing in our military is, if you want to reenlist, (beyond your first enlistment) you must become a US citizen. As long as you have not screwed up, and are eligible to re-enlist, they can apply for citizenship. It is a much simpler process to become a citizen. Thier choice, but just not automatic on thier first enlistment.

[Matts_12GS]

Jan,

For edification, can you define what you mean by rationalizing policies for drugs and immigration? I'd be curious to know how you see those issues. Here or in a PM is fine.

[bridwell52]

I agree about learning in a debate as I have learned some thing new here about the re-up program of the military.

As for the drug wars, Im for legalizing for a 2 year period and then making a permanent decision, because what we are doing now is throwing money down a rat hole. I wonder how much is spent on the drug war each year?

 

David

[Twisties]

Jan,

For edification, can you define what you mean by rationalizing policies for drugs and immigration? I'd be curious to know how you see those issues. Here or in a PM is fine.

 

It's open for debate and negotiation as to the details, but in general legal access to most currently illegal drugs in some manner, at a price which more closely reflects their costs of production, and altering driving restrictions to reflect actual impairment as we do for alcohol. Ending foreign interdiction efforts. In general this has to go far enough to put the cartels out of business as we did with the rum runners.

 

Why do I refer to this as rational when legal access is sure to cause some harm? We've had that argument on this board before, and I really don't care to repeat it in detail. William F Buckley has laid out the basic tenants of the argument. You can Google him and find it quick enough. I don't know that Buckley considered all the factors on the benefits side, but even so he makes a strong case that the harm from drug access is much less than the harm from our current policies. The present policy is now bringing Mexico to the brink of collapse if you believe Kent and McCaffrey. That raises the stakes even further. The basic point is that much of the problem of drugs is in fact an artifact of them being illegal. The approach should also appeal to those for more minimal government, personal responsibility and freedom. Frankly, I'm surprised that the strict constructionists haven't attacked the expansion of the commerce clause (source of feds power to regulate these things), but they seem to support it.

 

On the immigration front the matter is much more debatable. There doesn't seem to be any consensus amongst economists as to the net effect of immigrants (despite widespread belief that they are harmful), but we can be sure of certain things:

 

Illegal immigrants are here.

Many problems are simply the result of them being illegal.

We are spending massive amounts of resources to keep them out and failing miserably.

 

I say we have to create a legal pathway for them to come, and gain control. That's the minimum necessary rational action that would enable us to solve most of the problems they cause now. It solves tax and services issues, it solves insurance issues, it puts them in the same employment pool (reducing negative impact to wages and exploitation of the workers), it gets rid of coyotes.

 

My personal preference is to go farther and create open borders within North America and reciprocal rights to work, hold property and live. I would like that freedom for myself if nothing else.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

I agree about learning in a debate as I have learned some thing new here about the re-up program of the military.

As for the drug wars, Im for legalizing for a 2 year period and then making a permanent decision, because what we are doing now is throwing money down a rat hole. I wonder how much is spent on the drug war each year?

 

David

 

It's too hard to take something away once people have it.

 

Personally, I'd be much more interested in legalizing drugs if we first repeal the nanny state. i.e. If you want to snort draino until your brain turns to apple sauce and runs out of your ears, have at it. But don't make me pay for it.

[SageRider]

If you want to snort draino until your brain turns to apple sauce and runs out of your ears, have at it. But don't make me pay for it.

Not that much of a difference between brains as applesauce due to snorting Drano or riding a motorcycle...

Either one is dangerous. Either one can result in lifetime medical bills, and very few can afford to pay those bills.

What would you suggest so that no one has to "pay" for anyone elses pleasures???

[russell_bynum]

If you want to snort draino until your brain turns to apple sauce and runs out of your ears, have at it. But don't make me pay for it.

Not that much of a difference between brains as applesauce due to snorting Drano or riding a motorcycle...

Either one is dangerous. Either one can result in lifetime medical bills, and very few can afford to pay those bills.

What would you suggest so that no one has to "pay" for anyone elses pleasures???

 

I have liability insurance to cover my direct impact on others and for myself I have medical insurance, short term disability insurance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance.

 

I'm not going to pretend that this would cover every possible contingency, but it's much better than nothing.

 

What does the average meth user do to mitigate their risk?

[Pilgrim]

I say we have to create a legal pathway for them to come, and gain control. That's the minimum necessary rational action that would enable us to solve most of the problems they cause now. It solves tax and services issues, it solves insurance issues, it puts them in the same employment pool (reducing negative impact to wages and exploitation of the workers), it gets rid of coyotes.

 

I'm only going to respond with a couple of facts and observations. We can turn into a civil discussion of this issue if you wish.

• A pathway already exists. Over one million foreigners (yeah; one and six zeros) enter this country every year using that path. Refugees are allowed in on top of those numbers. And that is apart and aside from all those who come under a temporary, but in reality, open-ended status with the specific purpose of accepting employment. My friend, that path exists in spades, but because so many people in the world want to come here (and because of Mexico's proximity) it is called "inadequate" by those with either an economic or ethnic agenda.
  
• Another amnesty, or anything like it, will recreate the problem in another generation. In 1986 we had our first amnesty, legalizing three million people. The estimate had been 1.5m, but nobody really knew. The last of those cases were finally adjudicated three years ago. In 1987 the office I ran (here in Yakima) began catching Mexicans who had just come in, they told us, so they would be here for the next one.
  
• Chain migration (that is, relatives following the principal alien) is known to be between four and five to one. So if we decide to give amnesty to 12 million, we're really talking about nearly 50 million over the next ten years or so.
  
• The law of supply and demand applies to sweat as much as it does to diamonds; as it becomes more available, it becomes cheaper. That is why unskilled and semiskilled construction wages are lower now, in terms of purchasing power, than they were in 1973. Most of that type of labor in the U.S. is done by illegal aliens, with American workers being locked out of entire fields of it. A good example is Dallas/Ft. Worth. An Anglo cannot get hired on a curb/driveway crew there because they are run by illegal Mexican aliens. In New Jersey, it is Eastern European drywall hangers. Agricultural labor is done by but a very small portion of them now. Putting illegal aliens officially into the labor pool would solve nothing. It would change their legal status, but not their impact on the labor markets. They don't depress wages because they want to work cheap; they depress wages because they have created an oversupply of labor in this country for 30 years, now.
  
• At a time when we have over 20 million people underemployed, and over ten million (and growing) outright unemployed, we DO NOT need to be giving jobs away to foreign competition. Being an American citizen or legal alien in the United State ought to be worth something.
  
• Mexico has been independent for 188 years, now. It is rich in resources and rich in energetic people. Why is it that they have not yet developed a society that can manage to give people a decent place to pursue a life? Mexico needs another revolution, and much as I hate to say it, they may need a bloody one. The Powers that Be down there know that, and fear it. So for forty years now they have been exporting their revolutionary class (young, ambitious people) to the U.S. It's a two-fer for them. They get relative peace at home, AND over 20 billion dollars a year in remittances. Right now, our economy is scaring them to death because so many of their own are coming home with expectations, and Mexico is in no position to deliver anything to them. Many of them will turn to the drug trade, which, as in Colombia, may become a political force as well.
   
  This is an issue that is subject to many quick proposals for solution, but most of them are wrong. In fact, most of them have been proven to be wrong in past practice. We don't need to be repeating our mistakes, although that seems to be our wont generally.
  

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

1. Invade Mexico, which if we are stupid enough to do, we deserve another Vietnam, Iraq, or Afganistan.

 

How 'bout this, Dave?

 

We draft all the illegal aliens into the Army. With them, we form an expeditionary brigade and use it to invade Mexico. Then, once they're in place down there, we pay them handsomely to occupy the country.

 

Back in the 1950s, what follows was seriously discussed. At that time Mexico was not hostile to our attempts to regulate immigration, as they are now.

 

There were 16 military districts along the border in Mexico, each commanded by a general.

 

The proposal was for the U.S. to deposit in escrow a million bucks for each one of them on the first of the year, with withdrawals made from that sum for each illegal alien we caught coming across the border in the general's district. On December 31, he got to keep what was still in the bank.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

Pilgrim

[SageRider]

I have liability insurance to cover my direct impact on others and for myself I have medical insurance, short term disability insurance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance

All of which spreads your costs to others....

[SageRider]

A pathway already exists. Over one million foreigners (yeah; one and six zeros) enter this country every year using that path. Refugees are allowed in on top of those numbers. And that is apart and aside from all those who come under a temporary, but in reality, open-ended status with the specific purpose of accepting employment. My friend, that path exists in spades, but because so many people in the world want to come here (and because of Mexico's proximity) it is called "inadequate" by those with either an economic or ethnic agenda.

...

Chain migration (that is, relatives following the principal alien) is known to be between four and five to one. So if we decide to give amnesty to 12 million, we're really talking about nearly 50 million over the next ten years or so.

 

The first paragraph should finish economic, ethnic or political agenda.

 

Since this illegal immigration tends to support one major political party over the other, think about how this immigration (and the legal by birthright offspring) have affected the national political landscape over the last 30-40 years.

[russell_bynum]

I have liability insurance to cover my direct impact on others and for myself I have medical insurance, short term disability insurance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance

All of which spreads your costs to others....

 

Correct. But none of those others are being forced to participate in the same insurance plan that insures me.

[Lawman]

I have liability insurance to cover my direct impact on others and for myself I have medical insurance, short term disability insurance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance

All of which spreads your costs to others....

 

Sage;

The more I think about your statement the more odd it seems...

 

 

 

 

BTW - This in today's Houston Chronicle

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6205412.html

 

[SageRider]

I have liability insurance to cover my direct impact on others and for myself I have medical insurance, short term disability insurance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance

All of which spreads your costs to others....

 

Sage;

The more I think about your statement the more odd it seems...

 

 

 

 

BTW - This in today's Houston Chronicle

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6205412.html

Billy,

My point was that when one starts to throw stones about what someone else is costing them, take a look at themselves. The whole point of insurance is to spread the loss of the one across the many.

In this modern era, one cannot avoid costing someone else something. Receive benefit from taxes? Receive benefit from insurance?

Complaining about how some group is costing one is convenient tunnel vision..

[Dave McReynolds]

The proposal was for the U.S. to deposit in escrow a million bucks for each one of them on the first of the year, with withdrawals made from that sum for each illegal alien we caught coming across the border in the general's district. On December 31, he got to keep what was still in the bank.

 

What a great idea! Only, I don't know how many other people are in the generals' chain of command up through the president, but I suppose they would all want their millions too, if they were going to allow the front-line generals to play. Plus, I would assume, Mexicans being the way they are (and I don't mean this as a slam), the generals would take the opening offer of $1 million each as just being an expression of interest in starting the bidding, which would go up from there.

[Dave McReynolds]

Since this illegal immigration tends to support one major political party over the other,

 

Believe it or not, there is a small, but vocal minority with the Democrats who are also opposed to illegal immigration. I believe we're getting to be as rare as conservative Republicans, though.

[SageRider]

The proposal was for the U.S. to deposit in escrow a million bucks for each one of them on the first of the year, with withdrawals made from that sum for each illegal alien we caught coming across the border in the general's district. On December 31, he got to keep what was still in the bank.

 

What a great idea! Only, I don't know how many other people are in the generals' chain of command up through the president, but I suppose they would all want their millions too, if they were going to allow the front-line generals to play. Plus, I would assume, Mexicans being the way they are (and I don't mean this as a slam), the generals would take the opening offer of $1 million each as just being an expression of interest in starting the bidding, which would go up from there.

This might have the opposite effect of that intended. The Generals might find it more lucrative to invest in methods of the illegal aliens avoiding capture. Especially as related to the drug trade. If successful, the Generals efforts on alien capture avoidance would actually be subsidized by the USA.