Sanctuary cities encourage selective application of the law.

Link: Texas Governor Abbott signs Sanctuary Cities Bill.

Last week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a bill which provides police officers with the authority to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain.  In addition, the bill requires local officials to hold criminal suspects for possible deportation.  Previously, immigration officers would place an Immigration Detainer on the suspect, which required that local authorities hold the suspect for up to forty-eight hours, to give federal law enforcement the opportunity to arrange deportation proceedings.  The new bill signed by Governor Abbott is in response to the Sanctuary Cities phenomenon, in which certain communities were choosing to ignore the Detainer request.  Opponents of the bill argue that it will encourage profiling and create fear in Hispanic communities,  while supporters call for even enforcement of the law.  San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas are just a few of the communities who
self-publicize their "sanctuary" status.  Police Officers in sanctuary municipalities are not allowed to inquire about a person's citizenship.

According to the law of the land, a person present in the United States without documentation is in this country illegally.  For years these persons were identified as "illegal aliens".  That term has since been designated "dehumanizing" by the progressives and the politically correct in our society, and since they make all the rules, "illegal alien" is a term no longer utilized to describe persons in our country without authorization.  At the same time, the politically correct machine has decided that any foreign national in the United States who wishes to stay permanently should be identified as an immigrant.  Again, back in the ancient days when I was studying Cultural Geography at College, the term "immigrant" was reserved for persons who had arrived in the United States legally, and had some form of documented status.  My mother was a French citizen who married my U.S. Citizen father; she obtained her legal residency through marriage.  The U.S. Department of State, through its various Embassies around the world,  issues Permanent Resident Visas by the hundreds of thousands every year.  These people follow the legal pathway to living in the United States.  With some rare exceptions, Visa applicants must wait years on the list before being selected.  These people are the true heroes in this mess.  While they wait to obtain legal authorization to live in the United States, hundreds of thousands cross the U.S./Mexico border every year without documentation.

The Democratic Party is very sympathetic to the plight of persons who are in the United States without permission; not surprisingly, every Sanctuary City has a Mayor and City Council dominated by Democrats.  The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to include Amendments to allow the people to change unpopular laws.  Its not the simplest of processes, nor should it be.  Laws are enacted to protect people and property.  Coincidentally, Sanctuary Cities, which flaunt the law, have become magnets for Mexican and Central American criminal gangs.  The criminal alien sans documentation but with a bit of common sense, will gravitate to the communities that are not allowed to ask his/her citizenship.  Gangs like the evil, violent Mara Salvatrucha Trece , which is roughly translated as "Gangster Salvadoran Soldiers", have established a dangerous presence in most of the Sanctuary Cities, as have the Sinaloa and Gulf Cartels.  One way to combat these groups is through identification, but how to you identify someone when the law prohibits Police Officers from determining nationality?

For many years, undocumented immigrants kept a very low profile.  The idea was to find a job, send some of the money back home to help out, and hopefully find a way to adjust status to Resident Alien (Green Card).  Basically, all persons involved on both sides of the issue agreed that the rule of law was central to the discussion.  Not anymore.  The rule of law has no place in Sanctuary Cities.  Municipal authorities in places like San Francisco, Houston and Seattle have decided that they get to decide which laws should be respected and which should be ignored.  At the same time, they claim that undocumented immigrants have civil rights GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION.  The hypocrisy would be funny of it weren't so scary.  The longer we allow Sanctuary Communities to exist, the greater the encouragement for others to give their life savings to a smuggler and enter the United States illegally.  Many Central Americans are tempted by the lure of Sanctuary Cities to first attempt illegally entry into Mexico.  The Mexican government has not the slightest sympathy for persons entering Mexico "sin documentos".  People are robbed, beaten, sometimes assaulted, and dumped back on the other side of the border.  For all the bleeding heart liberals who believe that the United States has some humane obligation to persons trying to enter the U.S. illegally, does it matter that thousands are ruined, with many losing their lives, because of the existence of Sanctuary Cities?

National security is any nation is only as strong as its borders.  It is unfair to expect the American taxpayer to support ten million citizens of the Republic of Mexico.  In 1776, we were faced with tyranny and taxation without representation.  Our Founding Fathers went to war, to build a Democracy under the rule of law.  Mexican citizens must follow our example and stand up to the corruptocracy that pretends to be a government, and enforce their Constitution.  This includes going to war with the narcotraffickers who have an unwritten understanding with the government to stay out of each other's way.  Like it or not, the problem of undocumented immigrants has become an issue of national security for the United States, and we must get control of our borders.  At the same time, we must stand up for the rule of law and eliminate the reasons people are tempted to risk their lives, break our laws, and cross our border illegally.  This includes legitimate sanctions and jail time for employers who knowingly hire "cheap" labor provided by undocumented workers, and the elimination of communities who promise a safe haven for persons to live whose entire presence in the United States is predicated on breaking the law.        

Aside from the hyperbole, let's review the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

*Disclaimer: during today's blog post, I will attempt to compare some of the political views of candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  If, from your perspective, I incorrectly identify a policy position of either nominee, feel free to send me a note, yell at me, or wish me ill-fortune.  Any and all errors are undoubtedly not mine, but the fault of the two candidates.

If the American voter makes the effort to examine the issues and the opinions of the two nominees, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, then we should have a good idea just how conservative/liberal the United States has become.  The reason the political landscape should become crystal clear is because we have two candidates who couldn't be further apart on the issues.  Donald Trump openly espouses conservative beliefs and intentions, while Hillary is sounding more liberal than ever before.  Interestingly enough, both candidates have a prior history of being somewhat moderate, but 2016 finds the American populace deeply divided, and both candidates have left moderation behind.  The Obama Administration in itself was a tremendous mobilizer for the right.  Conservatives have been waiting for the opportunity to voice their disapproval to everything from Obamacare to Gay Marriage.  Donald Trump embraced the primary season with an agenda that included insulting every person who had the temerity to disagree (with Mr. Trump).  Many unhappy Americans chose to live vicariously through Trump, especially when he addressed either Obama or Clinton directly (through Twitter).  To the average conservative, Republicans in Congress appeared unwilling to stand up to the Democrats in any fashion.  Sure, Congress convened one investigation after another, but all that was achieved was to aggravate an already open wound.  During the primaries, Trump was successful uniting conservative voters at the ballot box, while Hillary had all sorts of trouble shaking her only real opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  The self-identified Democrat-Socialist gave Clinton headaches, and his ability to appeal to young voters made it clear to the Clinton Camp that the S.S. Hillary needed to take a sharp turn to the left.  Trump knows his only hope of winning is to ratchet up the same game plan that has worked so well.  He must remain confrontational, introducing a different Clinton scandal day after day; Hillary needs to remind voters of Trump's bruises as well.  When all is said and done, this election may go down as the most negative in history.

From the beginning, it was assumed that Hillary Clinton would appear more able to handle foreign policy issues that Donald Trump.  Not only was Hillary Clinton First Lady for eight years, but she was also a one-term Senator from New York and Barack Obama's Secretary of State during Obama's first term. Clinton has been all over the world and met with hundreds of foreign leaders and dignitaries.  Oddly enough, in all that time, Hillary never thought it prudent to learn a foreign language.  Regardless, Hillary is recognized as being deeply involved in the negotiations that resulted in 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Don't expect to hear Hillary bring up this Treaty very often in the campaign.  Basically, it calls for the United States to voluntarily eliminate our remaining ballistic missile deterrent vis-à-vis Russia.  Now that Vladimir Putin is recognized for the snake that he is, and Russia's signature isn't worth a bucket of shit, you can expect Hillary to avoid the subject altogether.  Unfortunately, Hillary was also strongly supportive of Barack Obama's legacy Nuclear Treaty with Iran, which has proven over and over again to be completely untrustworthy.  Also, Hillary must explain to the voter how it was that we were caught so unaware during the Arab Spring.  Why was the Clinton State Department always so reactive, as opposed to proactive?  Trump, on the other hand, must rely on his skills of persuasion and the popularity of his policies to convince voters that his foreign policy ideas are more in-line with the average American.

Trump has made the issue of immigration one of the cornerstones of his campaign.  In the beginning, many political pundits considered this decision to be a mistake, but the anticipated backlash has yet to materialize.  The truth is, once you dig a little deeper, you discover that most Americans are very concerned about immigration and support increasing security and enforcement on the border.  This very well could be the issue which sinks one of these candidates.  Our immigration system is broken, and regardless of what you hear from the Obama Administration, deportations have ground to a halt in this country, including deportations of felons. After hearing about another murder committed by a foreign national felon, aren't you getting tired of asking the same question, "why wasn't this guy deported before he committed another crime?"  Many Americans are offended to the core to see school children waving and showing reverence to the Mexican flag, while stepping on Old Glory, and we saw it time and time again last summer.  Regardless of the cause, this type of imagery, which is repeated ad nauseam during any event related to immigration, is a boon for Mr. Trump.  In order to placate Sanders and his crowd of unwashed twenty-first century hippies, Hillary will have to support the most liberal immigration platform that was ever crafted at a Party Convention.  No doubt it will include support for the Obama Administration's Amnesty.  Support for this policy will make it difficult for Hillary to ever fully step out of Obama's shadow, at least during the election.

Trump and Clinton may actually agree on some foreign trade issues.  Both candidates have expressed support for the American laborer, as existing trade agreements with Europe, Asia and North America always seem to be more concerned with the foreign worker.  In reality, neither candidate has yet to put forth a detailed plan regarding the restructuring of America's trade agreements. There can be no doubt that the playing field is uneven, with countries like China able to protect their workers and product through trade agreement and tariffs, while the United States appears to always be the one sacrificing.  I look forward to the day when we no longer have to hear some loud-mouth politician lecturing about China's economy being so huge that we must ignore human rights violations, aggressive, dangerous espionage, especially in our universities, theft of department of defense property, and daily, deliberate hacking that is costing the United States billions of dollars.  I'm a bit worried about Hillary Clinton and the Chinese, only because they always seem to be involved in her political campaigns (google "Hillary Clinton" and "Chinese Campaign Contributions").

Today we have taken a look at a few of the issues that the two candidates will be debating during the next two months.  Later this week, we will examine a few additional policy differences.  Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have a lot to say regarding Taxes, and who should pay what.  At least they agree on the need for a more simple tax form.  We look forward to seeing you hear throughout the tumultuous next ten weeks.      

The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.

Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.

At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience.  We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others.  The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media.  The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria.  The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem.  Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?"  In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked.  Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live?  Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states.  Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause.  These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?

I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants.  The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings.  Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem.  The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico.  We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway.  The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family.  This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system.  Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change.  Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry.  The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth.  The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families.  Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa.  The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice.  But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation.  This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself.  Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.

In reality, it may be too late for the United States.  President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States.  Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party.  But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees.  The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis.  But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria.  The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft.  Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest.  South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited.  Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War.  The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees.  The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.

Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees.  Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life.  But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source.  Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence?  Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines.  Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort?  In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption.  Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another.  Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account.  If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs.  We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home.  The same is true for Mexico.  I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again.  But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.

It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor.  I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week.  But what about next week, and next month?  What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands?  The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling.  They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off.  Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?    

The United States has the finest Armed Forces in the world, and it has nothing to do with equipment or size.

Link: Wikipedia entry on United States Armed Forces.

I come from a military family.  My father was enlisted career U.S. Army, and his choice of occupations took him to France in 1962, where he met and married my mother.  For this reason I was raised in a bicultural household, and I am very proud of my heritage.  Almost every country on the globe has a military of some sort, although a few of the more smaller states rely on larger and more prosperous neighbors for defensive purposes.  Unless a war starts, most armies stay within their own national borders.  For example, although Mexico declared itself at war with the bad guys in World War Two, the Mexican Armed Forces haven't been outside the borders of Mexico since 1846.  Because the United States is a superpower and has been one since the advent of the 20th century, the U.S. military has found itself involved in numerous conflicts far from its own national boundaries.  Just like my father, there were many young soldiers who met local girls while overseas and fell in love.  This fact only added to the unique demographics of the United States of America.

I consider myself so fortunate to part of a military family.  When members of the U.S. Armed Forces serve overseas, their families must live in foreign countries and adjust to languages and customs that are unfamiliar.  The U.S. military community quickly turned this circumstance into an advantage.  As a child, I spoke French before I spoke English, and before entering Middle School, I had a decent
comprehension of German.  Even though we lived in our own neighborhood, we were surrounded by a larger city and had no choice but to become friends with our hosts.  The American military schools were/are exceptional, and our community was always taking field trips to castles and historic sites, the likes of which don't exist in the United States because of Uncle Sam's relative youth.  During the holidays, the military families would become one extended family, with so much generosity, compassion, and joy.  At Christmastime, all the families joined together to decorate the community.  Leagues were organized that allowed kids from the different communities to compete against each other in American football, softball, baseball and basketball.  And we never forgot that the reason we were in Europe was because my father had a responsibility as a U.S. soldier to defend Europe from communism.

Since the end of the Civil War, the United States has rarely had its territorial integrity threatened.
From my perspective, only twice has our national survival been at stake; the Second World War and September 11, 2001.  We have fought many wars because we believed that the cause was just and the sacrifice necessary.  On two occasions, Vietnam and the second Iraq War, the decision to get involved was not universally supported by the American people.  But our soldiers have been so well-trained and raised in good families, that they have always understood the absolute necessity to leave the politics back home.  On two occasions during my career in the CIA, I was able to work with the U.S. Armed Forces.  I am unable to provide details, but I will say that I was left with a tremendously positive impression.  The United States continues to produce the world's FINEST young men and women, and my blog is not a U.S. Armed Forces recruitment site.  My comment is simply the truth.  Time and time again, our military proves that courage has a permanent home in the uniform of the United States Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard.  Once I was fortunate enough to hear a presentation given by a survivor of the Bataan Death March in World War II.  He challenged everyone to buy a world map, and draw a cross in every foreign location that has become the permanent home of a U.S. soldier.  I still have my world map with all its crosses, and I still find myself making updates.  Even though I like to consider myself a bit of a history buff, I continue to learn about young American soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice in unheard of places.  I am convinced that as the ultimate melting pot of humanity, for a time we were welcoming the best, the brightest, and the bravest to our shores.  So it should be no surprise that our troops have the intellect to recognize the importance of freedom, and the courage to fight to defend it.    

My book is available.

Link: "Mukhabarat, Baby!" website: www.MukhabaratBaby.com

It has been a strenuous, educational, and at times, frustrating experience, but my book, "Mukhabarat, Baby!" is available for purchase online at my website, and Amazon.  I have

Click here to read a free sample

received a bit of grief regarding the choice of the name for the book.  Actually, for me it was a no-brainer.  "Mukhabarat" was one of the first Arabic words I learned in Iraq.  I spent a good amount of time in Baghdad with the U.S. Army, and even though I was armed, I stood out because of my civilian attire.  The kids immediately started pointing me out, with the word "Mukhabarat" being repeated.  I asked the military linguist the meaning of the word, and he replied that it was common word used to describe Secret Police and spies.  The more time I spent on patrol with one particular military humint (human intelligence) collection team, the more I heard the term. Some of my military buddies started calling my partner Mark and I "The Mookies".  This explains the evolution of my choice for a book title.  To be reasonable, I understand that most people will not understand the word.  But I'm confident that it will engender enough curiosity to encourage folks to take a closer look.  And "Viola!", I have planted the definition right at the top of the back cover of all versions of the book.  The definition is also included at the very beginning as well.

Trying to decide which company to select for the printing and dissemination of the book was a tiresome task.  Thank goodness a few people have done my homework for me, and broken down/ranked the numerous companies in all the important categories, including prices, time, quality, people skills, history, and, most importantly, reviews.  I chose BookLocker for two reasons: their immediate, clear, useful response to my initial inquiry, and the reams of positive reviews from satisfied customers.  Up to this point, you can certainly add my name to the list.  The interaction with BookLocker is totally in email, but I can't recall the last time I received such one-on-one attention.  I was uniformly happy with the work that was done, especially the amazing cover, but the real positive thing about the company is their sincerity.  The charge a pittance of what some of the others charge, and if you get things done quickly up-front you might just get a discount like I did.  I realize that it sounds a bit moronic to say that BookLocker buys in to the success of every book, because of course they do; they make money off of the sales as well.  But these folks want you to succeed on a real personal level, and any guidance an author might request regarding marketing, etc., will be addressed.

The next paragraph is where I will hide my subliminal message to everyone that they MUST buy a hardback copy of my book for themselves and for every member of their family, including left-wing Great Aunt Olive, who stills brags about voting for Adlai Stevenson for President in '52.  The truth is, the only way for a self-published book to be successful is through word-of-mouth.  It's what makes the process so special.  Its truly rewarding that people might enjoy my book enough to take time to recommend it to family or friends.  For books that have opted for the traditional, Publishing company route, the path to success truly is smoother.  Of course the Publisher is determined to see the book sell, so the company reaches out to contacts in the media, and in no time at all, reviews in major newspapers have been scheduled.  Then it's time for television.  The Author's Literary Agent and Publisher will set up short interviews on CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, etc.  And all the while, as a Self-Published Author, I'm sitting in front of the local VFW (a quiet crowd of thirteen or fourteen), listening to someone else's war stories.  The real rub is that I know I have a good book, and that I have really unique experiences to share with folks.  I was raised in a two-language household, and traveled to Africa to work, right out of college.  After returning to the U.S., I accepted a job as a Federal Agent in Laredo, TX., for INS (formerly Immigration & Naturalization Service), and gained tremendous life experience working on the International Bridges to Mexico.  Eventually I accepted a position with the CIA, and during my career I was fortunate enough to serve on four continents.  I was poisoned early on in my career, but I continued working, and completed a tour in Iraq.  A great deal of my book focuses on my Iraq experiences.  That is my book, in a nutshell.  And Brandi Glanville of the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" writes a book about her life, and it gets launched directly onto the best-seller list.  Sometimes all you can do is say, "screw it", laugh a little, and move on.

I'm not the first person who ends up in this position: trying to adequately thank the many folks who read my blog regularly and who will be reading my book.  You can't imagine how grateful I am to the validation that comes with a book sale.  Writing the book was not easy.  This book is extremely personal, and writing was a bit of a cathartic experience.  God bless all the amazing people who I've been fortunate enough to know, and thanks again to everyone out there, for being my friend.

A few questions regarding the border and the Department of Homeland Security:

Links: A. Incoming Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
           B. Number of Deportations Plummet

As of late, the Federal Government has been focusing a great deal of attention on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  The Obama Administration has come to the conclusion that the only solution to the "problem" of illegal immigrants is to create a law that will allow them to become U.S. citizens.  Lets begin this discussion with an agreement that we will try and keep the issue as simple as possible.  Lets start at the beginning: why do persons cross the border into the United States from Mexico without documentation?  What is their intention?  The simple answer is, that some cross the border to deliver narcotics to drug smugglers, but most persons cross in the hope of finding a better life.  The governments of Mexico and Central America (and some in South America) are ineffectual at best and corrupt at worst, and regular jobs are very hard to find.  For some reason, everyone seems to have access to a television, and they see in the USA a country that provides education, jobs, and security.  So they scrounge up their last few pesos, and risk their lives just getting to the Mexican side of the border, before locating a Coyote (smuggler) to get them across.  Some of those traveling from south of Mexico never make it to the Rio Grande.  Mexico has very strict immigration laws which are enforced, unless, of course, you have the appropriate baksheesh (bribe money). 

So where were we?  Oh yes, people crossing the border into the United States sin documentos because they believe that the United States might provide them with the opportunity for a better life.  But at the end of the day, every nation on this planet has laws.  Those laws are intended to serve a purpose, usually to provide rules that allow us to interact in public (speed limits, traffic lights, etc.) and also to provide us with security. The United States is a nation of immigrants, so to speak.  At various times in the history of our Republic, we have welcomed large numbers of immigrants from overseas, including Italy, Russia, Ireland, England, China and Vietnam.  At the time, we needed the kind of labor that tis population surge provided.  Our nation was growing up....and out.  We needed roads, buildings, railroads, factories, ships, and on and on.  Our demographics have changed considerably since those days.  Now we are in need of highly skilled, educated immigrants, to work in the computer and high tech fields.  Sure there will always be construction jobs, lawn maintenance, and similar types of manual labor, but even those jobs will become more competitive if we don't enforce our border laws.

While the Administration and the Congress discuss the amnesty issue, the Administration has ordered a review of all criminal orders of removal (Deportation Orders).  Simply put, when a person without legal status commits a crime which requires incarceration, Homeland Security officials are obliged to arrange travel documents and escort this individual back to their country of birth, following the completion of their sentence.  Well, the Obama Administration, without probable cause (no history of abuse in this program), has suspended these deportations until a judge can review the deportation order and confirm that everything is copacetic.  Until then, the individual is released onto the streets, on their own recognizance.  Oddly enough, overall deportations have dropped considerably as well.  No doubt the Obama Administration has decided that Spring, 2015, is the time to overload us all with so much immigration stuff, that we will just throw up our hands and say, "you win"!  Not so fast.
The lack of border enforcement and the suspension of deportation orders has one purpose: to seduce the Hispanic community in the United States.  Hispanic Americans have always supported Democratic candidates over Republicans.  I think the trend really took off with President John F. Kennedy, but I could be wrong.  And the Latino community has been tremendously loyal to the Democratic Party.  If you take a poll along the southern border, and write down the party affiliation of every county sheriff, every judge, every chief of police, every mayor, every superintendent and member of the school board, you will notice the one commonality is that they are all Democrats.  Of course, the border areas of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are heavily Hispanic.  Which means a Republican candidate for any of the above-named offices will never win.  But here is where things gets tricky; another problem with our border communities?  Ineffectual leadership and corruption.  Communities with no running water and no paved roads, problems with the schools, infrastructure collapse, etc., would be a problem anywhere, but add to that almost endemic corruption.  In the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, it seems as if the FBI is taking out one group of corrupt cops after another.  And the judges, who facilitate so much of the operations, get rounded up as well.  Its always persons who belong to and are loyal to the Democratic Party Machine. What would it take, after five decades and more of the same garbage, to try something different, and elect someone else?  Heck, if Republicans truly are monsters, then vote Libertarian.  But at the end of the day, the Democrats in Austin and in Washington DC know that they are guaranteed Representatives from those communities.  And that is the real tragedy, to be taken for granted year after year after year......

In the title of this post, I mentioned a few questions that I wanted to present to the Department of Homeland Security.  But after I started to type, I realized that I already knew the answer, and I was only hoping against hope that my questions might just put someone on the spot.  But that is an unreasonable dream, because, just like you, in the big scheme of things, I'm nobody.  Sometimes I get angry about politics and current events, but at the end of the day, I can only be responsible for myself and my own actions.  And that should be enough.  My perspective on the issue of amnesty is not complicated.  If we provide a path to citizenship to persons whose entire presence in our country is predicated on breaking our laws, then how in the future, do we decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?  Its a slippery slope (HATE that cliché), but there it is.  The issue has already presented itself as a bit of a problem.  Should the police officer continue to enforce laws against possession of Marijuana, when, just five miles away in Colorado, its legal?  Another bit of annoyance for me regarding this amnesty plan is, what about all those people who followed the law, and have been waiting patiently for their turn to arrive, where they are granted legal residency?  Should we take that list, and just put them on the pathway as well?  How can we not?  These are people who respected our country enough to actually follow the legal path to residency.  Will they be punished for FOLLOWING the law, by being excluding from Obama's largesse?

And at the end of the day, most people who chose to be honest, will admit that they understand the motivation for this focus on amnesty.  Its all about votes.  First and foremost, it solidifies the Democratic Party as the friend of Hispanic Americans, at least in their eyes.  And if the program grows, and eventually includes as many as fifteen to twenty million persons, who transition from no status to citizenship, what does that do to our political process?  try to imagine twenty million new Democratic votes in the next Presidential election.  President Obama defeated Mitt Romney, roughly sixty-five million votes to sixty million votes.  Even if you were generous and gave the Republican candidate twenty-five percent, it still will end up creating a one-party state in the United States.  Its not complicated, and it very doable.  And the whole process starts at the border.  If you allow them to skirt the law, and stay in the United States, you have gained someone's gratitude for life.  Voting Democrat in return is an easy repayment.     

Mexico is in Need of a Revolution.

Links A. Wikipedia definition of Mexico
          B. Corruption in Mexico

We have a few political issues in the United States that always appear to be on the front-burner.  Immigration reform is one of those issues.  For some reason, the laws that are in place are not sufficient or appropriate anymore, therefore reform is in order.  Actually, its not the laws which have lost their efficacy, its our willingness to enforce those laws.  If you are a citizen of a foreign country and you wish to become a U.S. citizen, then you have the option of entering into the United States Immigration Lottery (Yes, that is the name).  Every few years, a certain number of persons from every country that participates in the program are selected (after Interpol, FBI and related checks, I assume) to become Resident Aliens.  The U.S. government has other avenues for potential immigrants as well, including applying for asylum or for refugee status.  I don't believe that we should increase the numbers of immigrant visas being issued, but if someone believes differently, we have a system by which the figures may be adjusted.  The problem of illegal immigration that we face in the United States has nothing to do with the number of foreign nationals that are allowed to immigrate each year.  If we increased the number, it wouldn't impact the number of persons attempting illegal entry one iota.  As is almost always the case, the best place to fix a problem is at the source.  For all serious and practical purposes, the source of illegal immigration to the United States is Mexico.  Its true that in the past three decades, the numbers from Central America have increased dramatically, but these individuals travel through Mexico and cross into the United States in the same manner and at the same location, as Mexican illegal immigrants.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that roughly 700,000 illegal immigrants cross into the United States from Mexico every year, and that the great majority of these persons are nationals of Mexico.  My goodness, Mexico must be a barren land of no resources and no opportunity.  While else would so many Mexican nationals risk everything to come to the United States?  The truth is, Mexico is a fat and healthy country, resource-wise.  At one time, Mexico was sitting on the fourth largest oil deposits (Gulf of Mexico) in the world.  Because the Mexican government and its state-owned company Pemex focused exclusively on the deposits that were easily extractable, Mexico isn't the player on the oil market that it once was.  But Pemex has belatedly started looking for new sites and investing in ways to continue exploiting the deposits that aren't so easy to get at anymore.  Mexico can still rely on oil revenue to bring in a substantial amount of revenue to the government.  Also, Mexico is agriculturally blessed, and is a leader in the international livestock industry.  Tourists continue to flock to the beaches of coastal Mexico and to the historic Catholic cathedrals of the interior.  Tremendous potential exists for Mexico to access hydroelectric energy, and the country is well-placed to compete with Asia in certain markets, including car manufacturing.  I am determined to keep this post from becoming a "two-parter", so I can't get down in the weeds, but Mexico creates plenty of jobs every year.  The economy appears to be healthy, but so many people live in abject poverty, regardless of which political party runs the show.  Mexico's problem is one as old as the hills.  Mexico suffers from endemic corruption, a corruption that runs so deep it has become the normal way to conduct business to most people.

A very small percentage of extremely wealthy individuals and families enjoy the largesse from Mexico's many resources.  They control Pemex, Telmex, the Unions, both houses of Congress, and both political parties.  This percentage has agreed to a "laissez-faire" arrangement with the narco-traffickers.  They know that the drugs companies aren't going away, so they just agree to stay out of each other's way.  The narco-traffickers are mostly interested in moving their product through Mexico and into the United States; they don't have much other interest in Mexico, as most Mexicans can't afford drugs like the Yanquis can.  The majority of the elite Mexican families of which I speak, can trace their roots all the way back to Spain.  They drive up from the interior and cross into the United States to visit Sea World or go shopping.  They drive SUVs (sometimes Mercedes or Lexus) with Monterrey or D.F. plates, and give off a distinctly European attitude.  The kids either go to private school in the U.S. or in Europe, and many time have blonde hair.  When they drive through Nuevo Laredo to enter the United States, they make good use of their tinted-windows and Chanel sunglasses, so their view is not disturbed by the children begging on the side of the streets, or the cripples, or the construction workers breaking their backs during 16-hr shifts, making one-tenth what they would make in the United States.  This group has a unique ability to ignore the people from whom they steal.

You see, this small group shares in the majority of Mexico's wealth, and lets enough trickle-down to keep a modest middle-class functioning.  Analysts can point to Mexico's middle class as a sign of progress.  Bullshit.  Its just a distraction.  There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as Mexico to replicate the same theft year after year, benefiting the same people, and keeping the majority of Mexicans poor. I realize that the type of corruption that infects Mexico runs deep and wide, but it can be eradicated the first time someone stands up and says, NO MORE EXCUSES.  Mexico exports much of its labor to the United States.  It has become a problem for us because of the impact on our social welfare apparatus and, frankly, the unwillingness of many Mexican immigrants to embrace the traditions and history of the United States over the language and culture of Mexico.  Its absolutely true that the United States has always been a country of immigrants.  But those immigrants from Ireland, and Russia, and Germany, and various parts of Africa, are now Americans.  The United States must also enforce some rule of law on its borders.  We are a separate country from Mexico.

Mexico needs a revolution.  The young men and women of Mexico need to decide that "enough is enough".  Frankly speaking, they need to stand up to the government.  They must stand up a political party whose entire manifesto focuses on ending corruption and returning as much ill-gotten gains as possible to the Mexican treasury.  They must spread an infectious message of fairness and opportunity, that will resonate with the young men and women in the police and military.  The resources from Pemex can be directed to finding new forms of energy.  It would be nice to imagine that the ones in power would relinquish their control without a struggle, but a struggle there will be.  Mexico will have to follow the footsteps of its northern sibling who in 1776, decided that freedom and fair representation were worth dying for.  Mexico needs an open, inclusive economy that stays targeted on the future.  The Mexican people are accustomed to hard work, and have had their share of brilliant scientists and researchers.  The Revolution will unlock all the potential that has been dormant for a century.  The economy will flourish, and Mexicans living in the United States will return HOME.

None of this will happen without sacrifice, and group sacrifice does not occur spontaneously.  Someone will have to be the hero, or possibly the martyr, who takes the first step.  Mexico can take care of her own.  But her shackles must be the first to be removed.

Since Obama Took Office, Foreign National Criminals Rarely Face Deportation

Links: A. Foreign Criminals Allowed To Stay In The U.S.
           B. Almost 31,000 Foreign Criminals Released In U.S.


Forgive me; the two links I have chosen tonight deliver almost the same exact message.  I chose to include the second link because the source of the first, The Daily Caller, makes no bones about its decidedly anti-Obama perspective. Occasionally another less-political source can provide a bit of seriousness to an issue.  The debate regarding President Obama's determination to utilize an "Executive Order" to reform Immigration Policy is in full swing.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the results of the most recent midterm elections were a referendum on President Obama's intentions, more than an indictment of his record.  I'm sure some folks who are directly impacted voted in support of the Keystone Pipeline, and persons in parts of Kentucky voted for Mitch McConnell because of fear that a Democratic Senator would support Obama's anti-coal agenda.  But one issue resonated in every precinct from San Diego County to Bangor, Maine.  The majority of Americans do not support an Amnesty for persons living in the United States illegally.  Here is a news flash for the Beltway Politicians from both parties. The average American does not get caught up in the weeds of an issue.  How long has the person been here illegally?  Have they spent any time in jail?  What were the living conditions like in their home country?  Why didn't they pursue resident alien status during their time living here sin documentos?  Who cares?  At the end of the day, it is the simple case of an adult making the decision to predicate his first visit to this country with the breaking of one of our laws. 

The average American, God Bless Him 'Em, likes to keep things simple.  If someone purposely and illegally crossed the U.S. border from Mexico as an adult, and lived in this country for any particular amount of time, then they are subject to deportation according to the laws of the United States of America.  This basic, concise declaration should be the platform for any conversation regarding illegal immigration.  We should not allow persons with different viewpoints to confuse the issue by removing words such as "illegal".  I have spent a good part of my life living in the third world.  I am well-aware of the hardships most people face everyday just to feed themselves. Mexico is a paradise in comparison to most African countries.  While special interest groups go before Congressional Committees and groan and sob about the lack of jobs in Mexico, the average man or woman on the street in Burundi would do anything to have the opportunities available in Mexico.  The truth is, its all relative.  The world is full of suffering people, and I am convinced that the United States has a role to play in alleviating some of that suffering, particularly over the long-term.  But we cannot solve the problem by allowing every foreigner to become a U.S. citizen.  If you show me a 36-year old citizen of Honduras who has been living in Chicago for 15 years, working construction jobs off-the-book, I will introduce you to a 36-year old Bangladeshi who digs through garbage dumps everyday to try and find enough food to feed his pregnant wife and their two children.  Now you tell me who is more deserving, or in need of, U.S. citizenship?  Does the fact that the construction worker has been able to avoid the authorities for 15 years somehow make him more legitimate?

This issue to be a very sensitive subject to MB.  For a year of my life, I processed foreign national felons for deportation out of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Holiday Unit in Huntsville, Texas.  If someone committed a crime in Texas that required incarceration, I worked with the deportation officers to prepare the paperwork to deport the individual after time served. Everyone needs a passport, and the gang banger originally from El Salvador isn't going to volunteer his passport to the authorities.  So someone has to contact the Embassy or consulate of El Salvador to inform them that so-and-so is being returned to his native land after completing jail time, and is in need of travel documentation.  At one time this job was the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  The INS died an unfortunate death after 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Deporting criminal aliens who had completed their time was now the job of DHS.  To most folks, it just seemed like a change in uniform and title, and for the first decade, the United States continued to aggressively remove dangerous criminal aliens (yes, I consider someone on their third and fourth DUI/DWI to be a dangerous criminal alien).  But the Obama Administration started slowing everything down.  An order from above required that all deportation orders be reviewed.  This was followed up by moratoriums on deportations in certain sectors.  Entire deportation offices were no longer functioning as designed.  This process continued, with fewer and fewer criminal aliens being deported after time served.  Its almost too crazy to believe.  Not only does this Administration want to end deportations of illegal aliens, it has now embarked on a mission to end deportations of CRIMINAL illegal aliens.  The actual statistics provided in the links is not political in the slightest.  It is clear and clean data collected from the Department of Homeland Security.  If a Mexican national kills another person during a robbery attempt, and is found guilt by a jury and sentenced to 25 years in prison, that Mexican national MUST be deported after serving his time.  But its just not happening, at least not in most instances.

I don't like this issue.  There is no enjoyment in expressing my shock and frustration at what has been allowed to happen over the past 6 years.  When I was a child, national borders denoted a sea change, from one society, culture and sometimes language, to another.  The border separated currencies, histories, and in some cases political ideologies.  A passport, and in many cases, a Visa was required to enter another country.  American history in Grade School taught me that corruption and taxation without representation convinced the founders of our great nation to take up arms and put their lives in jeopardy to make a better future for their children.  In 2014, the young men and women in Mexico are aware that the system in their country is corrupt and that a small percentage of families control most of the wealth.  Are they encouraged to march in the streets, and take up arms if necessary, to create a better life for their children? NO.  They are advised to enter the United States illegally, find a job as a landscaper, construction worker or in fast food, and send whatever money they can afford back home to their parents.  I remember that this particular reality truly mystified my late father.  He could not understand why the young men of Mexico, who obviously love their heritage and traditions, would not rise up and take the country back from the thieves who currently run the show.  It is no great secret that Mexico is blessed with natural resources.  Besides the oil (the easily accessed stuff is about used up), Mexico is a nation of tremendous livestock and agricultural potential.  Every week, Mexican fishermen catch enough fish to feed Latin America for a year.  As for industry, Mexico produces and produces and produces....cars, microwave ovens, tile, cell phones, clothes, etc.  And yet, for some reason, Mexican workers have to sneak into the United States to find employment that will pay a decent wage.  If the wealthy class in Mexico would steal just a little bit less every year, then Mexico might avoid another revolution indefinitely.

Again, I am in agreement with the average American on this subject.  I like it kept simple: if you are in my country illegally and you are an adult, then you need to be removed and returned to your own land.  If you decide to return as a tourist or even on an Immigrant Visa, then you should be required to reimburse the U.S. government the money that was spent on your deportation.  We cannot have an open border policy, nor should we accept that federal law enforcement releases foreign national felons on our streets after they have completed their sentence for their crime.  Hey, I'm glad so-and-so turned himself in and completed his 3-year sentence for domestic abuse, but what about the sentence for his original crime?  You know, the "entering the United States without documentation or alternate authority" crime?  I can only imagine what the next couple of years will be like.

The United States and its Third World State Department

Links: A. Oregon Woman Trapped In Timorese Jail
           B. Contractor Held In Cuban Jail Because he Is American
           C. Marine Locked Up In Mexico
           D. Two Americans Freed In North Korea

If you happen to be anywhere near Foggy Bottom in the District Of Columbia, you might notice the distinct smell of rot.  Granted, the Potomac is just around the corner, and who knows how far Barney Frank's old male whorehouse is, but today the smell of rot comes from the U.S. Department of State.  As usual, the decay is not in any way connected to the performance of the State Department's ground troops: the heroes and heroines who sit behind a desk all day processing visa applications and  conducting interviews.  The rot comes from the top, and the infection began before Hillary Clinton resigned.  The United States Department of State has a myriad of responsibilities.  In addition to processing the foreign nationals trying to get Tourist and Immigrant Visas, The State Department is responsible for helping Americans in foreign countries every single day.  Well-traveled Americans expect the Department to be on hand in case they have trouble with local authorities, and Americans abroad have a tendency to lose things like passports and return tickets.  It's rarely a glamorous job.  From the links I have provided, it should be obvious that I will be addressing the number of Americans who have ended up in foreign prisons and have not received assistance from the State Department.  Of course, when I refer to assistance, I'm not talking about letters from home, a list of local attorneys, or a package of food and dry socks.  Unless the U.S. State Department has advertised against U.S. persons visiting a particular country, then any American citizen unlawfully detained in a foreign country should be assisted by the U.S. Department of State.

For many years, if a U.S. citizen was unjustifiably incarcerated overseas, and the U.S. government was unable to secure their release, it made the news on all three networks and CNN.  The instances of this occurring were so few and far between, it was naturally a big story.  If an American ended up in a foreign jail, the State Department was usually able to obtain their release, even when the person had committed a minor local offense (driving drunk, bar fighting, etc.).  Our government, and by projection the United States Department of State, carried such gravitas that foreign governments welcomed the opportunity to resolve an issue of this type, as part of efforts to build a strong diplomatic relationship with the United States.  If an American committed a serious offense, such as murder or narcotics possession/smuggling, The United States Department of State would assure that the U.S. citizen had adequate counsel and a fair trail (to some extent).  Things have changed.  The number of countries that I would visit as a tourist has diminished lately, because of the fear that I might get railroaded into something and then be left in a foreign jail to rot.  The first link details the experience of an American veterinarian who was

traveling in East Timor.  She shared a cab with a stranger who was arrested for narcotics possession.  She is currently in jail and has no clue when her case will be adjudicated.  EAST EFFING TIMOR, PEOPLE.  That's have far we've fallen.  The legal system of East Timor gives its finger to the people of the United States.  In the "good ol' days", our Ambassador would make a phone call and the issue would be resolved.  In 2009, President Obama conducted his "Apology Tour", which announced to the Third World that for four, maybe eight years, they would have the opportunity to screw with the United States with NO repercussions.  And a number of countries are taking flu advantage of that opportunity, without risking their aid from the U.S. Government.  The government of East Timor should at least be concerned about the aid they receive.  Get ready for this, folks: Between 2001 and 2008, USAID gave $2,215,997 to the East Timor International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), $3,619,134 to the East Timor International Republican Institute (IRI), and $3,728,490 to the East Timor National Democratic Institute (NDI).  Almost $10 million, and an innocent American woman rots in an East Timorese jail.    Why haven't we DEMANDED her release?

Per the second link, we also have an American sitting in jail in Cuba.  Alan Gross made the mistake of accepting a contract with USAID which required his presence in Cuba.  To the Cuban government, that means they get to accuse him of being with the CIA, which most of Latin America will accept as fact without a shred of evidence.  Lets throw them some more money as well.  Gross is not a young man, and he has health issues.  And he sits in a Cuban jail solely because he is an American.  I won't spend too much time revisiting the case of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tamooressi.  He was finally released from a Mexican jail after nine months of confinement and episodes of torture.  Some questions remain about the exact circumstances of Tamooressi's attempted entry into Mexico and lies he initially told to the Mexican court.  But Tamooressi is a decorated veteran, and he earned my benefit of the doubt.  How about you, President Obama?  Why didn't the Administration instruct Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry to travel to Mexico City and ORDER the Mexicans to release our Marine?  Any response besides "yes, sir" should have been met with a disruption of relations and an end to all aid for Mexico.  Also, all Mexican nationals in U.S. prisons should have been treated exactly as Tamooressi until his release.  Instead, we did nothing but wait until the broken Mexican penal system decided that Tamooressi had served enough time for his crime.  The last link details the release of two American citizens from North Korean jails.  I was not the only person surprised at this decision on behalf of North Korea, and out of instinct I wondered which U.S. diplomat had negotiated their release.  I was wrong.  It was not a U.S. diplomat, but Chief of U.S. Intelligence James Clapper who secured their release;  No U.S. Department of State involvement whatsoever.

So the message is clear.  If you are planning an overseas vacation, be very careful of your

Stacey Addison

intended destination.  Do not visit a country where someone may plant something in your luggage.  Do not get touristy in a location with an anti-American segment to the populace.  If you end up in jail, you're on your own, although the State Department will undoubtedly send someone around with a two year old list of phone numbers for local attorneys.  This puzzling, disturbing and infuriating development started in 2009, when Hillary Clinton was doing such a grand job as Secretary of State, giving $5 billion to the Palestinian Authority and signing away our last nuclear deterrent to Vladimir Putin.  I'm glad that Tamooressi and the two Americans stuck in North Korea are back home, but I worry about Stacy Addison in East Timor and Alan Gross in Cuba.  Yes, folks, we live in a world where being an American can be crime enough to get you incarcerated with no due process.  How far we have fallen.

Dios Ayuda Mexico.........(Part 2)

Links: A. What Is Happening In Mexico
           B. Mexico's Own Black Widow?

We all have certain phrases that really touch a nerve.  One that really gets my eggs boiling is, "if it weren't for Americans taking drugs, then poor farmers in South America would be growing something else."  Bullshit.  The next time someone gives you that crap, ask them if they've ever seen an addict.  Addicts in America keep the drug trade alive, not the swinging 1970's Studio 54 crowd.  They're all dead.  I prefer to reverse that particular argument.  If narco-traffickers and drug growers in Afghanistan and South America were all dead, our children wouldn't have the temptation of easy drugs, and early addicts would find it easier to quit than to find another hit.  A ready supply of cheap drugs makes it too easy to become an addict in America, and difficult to stop.  I'm not a junkie, and you probably aren't either, so if we disagree, that's fine.  Either way, the reality is that illegal narcotics remains big business and is a powerful force in the corrupt society that is modern Mexico.

In yesterday's post, we were discussing how the discovery of oil in Mexico led to an economic boom that created a true middle class for the first time in the country's history.  Interestingly enough, at about the same time the middle-class was on the rise, and the nacro-traffickers were establishing a presence, the Mexicans decided to experiment with multi-party Democracy.  They elected as President, the business-friendly Partido Accion Nacional: National Action Party (PAN) candidate, Vicente Fox.  Both Fox and his PAN

Vicente Fox
55th President of Mexico

successor Felipe Calderon made very public attempts at combating the presence of narco-traffickers in Mexico.  But the government was impotent.  The local police, the state police, the Mexican FBI, the Mexican DEA, all became poisoned with corruption.  Most people in Mexico, including law enforcement officers, don't make a heck of a lot of money.  It is hard to turn down cash; especially when you know that everyone else is on the take.  Eventually the narcotics gangs began to fight with each other over territory (the Sinaloa Cartel, the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel are a few nasty examples).  If it weren't so tragic and the human cost so high, it would be ironically amusing.  One Law Enforcement Agency that was on the narco-gang payroll would attack another law Enforcement Agency that was being bribed by the competition.  This type of warfare ended up shutting down the large tourist district of Nuevo Laredo.  And the military was certainly no exception, as numerous Army Generals ended up on the take as well.  No joke: an Army General ordered his troops to disrupt the smuggling of a large shipment of marijuana across the river by a rival organization.  This organization had the Federal Police on the payroll, so before the night was up, the cops were shooting at the soldiers!  But just as it appeared that the situation was about to explode, everything seemed to die down.  The shootings in border cities became less frequent, the tossing of bags of heads into wedding parties seldom occurred, and the PRI retook control of the Presidency.

The current PRI president of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, was elected on a platform of reform.  Unless the NY Times or Washington Post were in the room, he seldom discussed

Current President of Mexico,
Enrique Peña Nieto

the issue of the narco-trafficking gangs that veined throughout Mexico, and instead he addressed the never-ending issue of sharing the resources of Mexico with all Mexicans.  This message resonated with many Mexicans, who began to see the problem with the drug traffickers as a Norteño or Gringo headache.  Nieto tells a good story, and he promised the Mexican people that the PRI crooks of the past had been reformed.  The people of Mexico, longing for the peace and consistency of the past, bought it hook, line and sinker.  Although stories like the one detailed in the links continue to happen, they do seem to be less frequent.  An elderly Mexican woman told me last month that, "all the drug smugglers are in Sinaloa, Guerrero and the Distrito Federal", and that traveling in Mexico was safe again.  I'm from South Texas; I speak border Spanish, know good Mexican food when I smell it, and know the value of a hard day's work to the average Mexican.  I'm forced to agree with the elderly lady.  I don't know if its because the Mexican police finally caught the worst of the bad guys (I thought he was caught last week, or the month before, or last May, or.......) or its because all the blood-letting was bad for business.  I'm not stupid enough to believe for a second that the narcotics gangs are leaving town.  I could never understand why the 10 to 15 percent (and the new and growing middle class) did not come to some arrangement with the cartels: you do your work at night, and we'll keep the trains running on time during the day.  Nieto has promised all sorts of reforms that no doubt will cut into the profits for the 10 to 15 percent, but maybe they've decided to share a bit more than usual.  It's human nature to find resolution when everyone's paycheck is on the line.  I'm going to give real consideration to the idea that the 10 to 15 percent, the middle class as represented by Nieto, and the narcotics gangs have come to some understanding.  If it means peace, most Mexicans won't ask any questions.  Hell, at this point, neither will I.            

Dios Ayuda Mexico...........

Links: A. What Is Happening In Mexico
           B. Mexico's Own Black Widow?

The links above refer to 43 missing male students from Ayotzinapa rural teachers college in Igualpa, Guerrero, Mexico.  The platform of the school was decidedly leftist, which probably didn't endear the students to the corrupt capitalist gangsters that actually ran the city of Iguala.

A few hours south of Mexico City, Iguala is situated in the state of Guerrero, which is much more famous as the home of Acapulco.  On the night of Friday, September 26, a group of the students rode into Iguala with the intention to demonstrate against discriminatory hiring practices and also to solicit funds for a protest march.  Something went badly wrong, the police got involved, and six people were killed.  Some of the students made it back to the school, but 43 did not, and have not been seen since.  Accusations have been made against the mayor of Iguala and his wife, who have conveniently disappeared.  And the search for evidence near Iguala yielded at least twelve mass graves of unidentified bodies, none of whom turn out to be the missing students (so then, who are these poor souls?).  Interestingly enough, the mayor and his wife were members of the political party in control of Iguala and Guerrero: the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica - the Revolutionary Democratic Party (PRD), which is the decidedly leftist force in Mexican politics.  You would think that they would have embraced these young men, not erased them in the prime of their lives.

This is a heartbreaking story, but Mexico has heartbreaking stories around every bend.  During my CIA days, I had reason to be in El Paso for a meeting with the local FBI and various Mexican Law

Maquiladora workers

Enforcement Agencies (Mexico used to have only the State Police, the local Police, and their version of the FBI.  It didn't take long for Mexico to copy her big brother up north, and now we have Mexican Law Enforcement for every little thing you can imagine...not that it makes a damn bit of difference).  The meeting in El Paso had to do with the seemingly-endless tragedy of the missing young girls of Juarez, most of them workers from the Maquiladoras (assembly-line type factories set in the industrial sectors of the community).  To this day, I don't believe that the case has been solved, and I imagine the number of murdered or missing girls must be over a thousand.  Its difficult to fathom that this unimaginable carnage is taking place on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Today is not the day for me to tackle the complex issue of the entirety of Mexico.  In fact, if I wanted to do the subject justice, I would need to take at least five years away from all other obligations, and be left alone in a cabin somewhere so no one could interrupt.  When necessary, I can usually simplify the issue by saying, "Young Mexicans need to stay in Mexico, band together, butcher the narco-traffickers and thieving politicians, and take control of their country, which happens to be blessed with tremendous wealth and bounty."  This is usually the argument I drag out when discussing the issue of illegal immigration.  My suggestion makes complete sense, if you forget to take into account that the Mexican revolutionaries of today would be facing not one, not two, but a dozen or so heavily armed organizations: the narco-traffickers.

How does the modern state of Mexico function?  In the past, before the arrival of the narco-trafficking virus, one party, representing roughly 10 to 15 percent of the population, kept things going.  The Partido Revolucionario Institucional: the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) made sure that the trains ran on time, that the parks were kept clean, and that rich got richer and the poor stayed poor.  That 10 to 15 percent live a very enviable lifestyle. This includes many families from the Monterrey and Mexico City areas who can trace their roots directly to Spain, with no creole "branches".  When I was in junior high school in Texas, I remember hearing about wealthy Mexican families who would send their children to schools in the United States.  Some of the more popular choices of my era included Central Catholic High School in San Antonio, the Marine Military Academy in Harlingen (MMA), the Texas Military Institute (TMI), St. Mary's Hall, and Alamo Heights High School in San Antonio (go Mules!).  The chosen few, the 10 to 15 percent, could be found directing Mexico's telephone company, or possibly the national bank.

Then two events changed everything: Jose Lopez Portillo, PRI President from 1976 to 1982, single-handedly discovered Mexico's oil wealth one day while playing golf (at least

Jose Lopez Portillo
51st Pres. of Mexico

that's how he remembered it).  The wealth that was generated from oil income was too much for even the covetous and stingy 10 to 15 percent, and the Mexican economy took off.  Some of the wealth that was generated found its way to average Mexicans and a real middle-class was born.  This middle class enjoyed living in the modern ages, and demanded the latest in electronics, communication, and transportation.  Sorry to bring everyone down, but we must add the last ingredient into our Mexico historical smoothie: narco-traffickers.  The Colombian narco-traffickers decided that it would be much more profitable to establish a presence in Mexico as opposed to coordinating the flow of cocaine and marijuana from Cali, Medellin, and Cartagena.  This effort at relocation quickly got out of hand because the Cali and Medellin Cartels weren't the only players in the game and soon everyone wanted to monitor the flow of their valuable merchandise as it made its way to American nostrils.

These two events, the birth of the middle class and the arrival of the narco-traffickers, coincided with a rise in multi-party democracy in Mexico.  The resulting socio-political cocktail left the country reeling in chaos like an angry drunk and even today it is still in a bit of a hang over.   But that's a topic for mañana . . .

Immigration....The Most Important issue Facing Americans in 2014

Links: DC Prepares For A Flood Of Resident Aliens
            Thousands Of Undocumented Felons Released

Full fathom five thy father lies:
Of his bones are coral made:
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
    -From William Shakespeare's "The Tempest"

Any issue regarding the safety of U.S. citizens belongs in the realm of national security.  Immigration is and always has been part of the national security discussion.  I could also argue that the stampeding herd of elephants that is our national debt is an issue of national security, but today we will focus on immigration.  When Barrack Obama ran for President in 2008, he did not disguise his determination to reform the immigration system.  I assume other priorities, including Obamacare, took precedence during his first term, and so Obama has decided to fight the immigration battle in 2014 (following the Nov 2 midterm elections, mind you).  Actually, we won't get to observe a battle, or a debate, or even a vote in Congress.  President Obama has openly declared his intention to use Executive Action to address immigration reform.  Obama's intended Executive Action will be primarily focused on the thirty million undocumented persons living in the U.S. (there are many guesses as to how many people live in the United States illegally. . .thirty million seems a bit conservative, but let's give the benefit of the doubt).  We've had this conversation before.  During the Bush Administration, the decision was made to build a fence along the southern land border.  Not a white-washed picket fence like the one Tom Sawyer was supposed to paint, but an electrified fence that was intended to be part of a broader monitoring system.  Although a few stretches of fence were constructed, the effort never got close to completion.  From the get-go, the fence was opposed by Democrats in Congress, and a variety of legal challenges really killed the effort.  If you've read my blog more than a few times, you should know that I always appreciate keeping things simple, so this is my simple question:
 If the United States has an international border with Mexico, why is it wrong to demarcate that border with a fence?

We never got the fence.  But Congress has paid for a steady increase in Border Patrol, Customs and Inspections personnel.  I understand this issue because in a former life I was a Federal Agent working on the International Ports of Entry in Laredo, Texas.  Any honest Border Patrol or Homeland Security Officer will tell you that we probably only interdict five to ten percent of those who are trying to enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico.  The percentage of drugs that we stop is probably close to five percent as well.  Should the average American be concerned about undocumented persons living in the United States?  The answer is yes.  No hospital emergency room is going to refuse service to a sick person because of lack of identification or documentation.   When the bill does not get paid, the physician/hospital system has to absorb the loss and the difference is passed on to the taxpayer.  And it happens all the time.  I'm not saying that emergency rooms should deny treatment, I'm only dissecting the issue.  Every public school system in the United States is required by law to teach the children of undocumented persons.  This has become a tremendous liability for the respective school districts.  Undocumented persons don't pay school or property taxes, so the district has to come up with the additional funds (not just to teach undocumented children, but to pay for bilingual teachers, create bilingual education programs, books, etc.) by raising the school tax rate.  Our prison systems have become heavily burdened with gang members from Mexico, Central and South America.   Gangs like Mara Salvatrucha 13 and the 18th Street Gang originated in Central America and are deeply involved in drug smuggling both inside prisons and on the outside.  We can only guess at the depth of the involvement that various Central and South American gangs have in the importation and distribution of drugs on the streets of America.  The smuggling of both people and narcotics used to be exclusively controlled on the south side of the border in Mexico.  That has changed: the gangs that run the coyotes (a smuggler of people) and the mules (an undocumented person smuggling narcotics) have established themselves in U.S. locations like El Paso, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Tijuana, Yuma, Douglas, Nogales, McAllen, Laredo, and Brownsville.  A Border Patrol Chief who has been a close friend for decades told me that he believes at least five of the homes purchased and built in the exclusive, gated community in which is lives, belong to narco-traffickers.

These are only a few of the reasons why immigration is a national security issue.  We haven't even touched on the issue of terrorists sneaking across the porous border pretending to be Latino.  Special Interest Aliens (persons from countries with known terrorist connections, for instance Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan) having been pulling the "just pretend to be Mexican" trick for years.  Now that we no longer deport undocumented Mexican nationals, you can bet that a few bad guys are presently holed up in cheap hotels in Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, practicing a few words in Spanish.  No doubt at least a few readers have decided that I harbor some racist tendencies, a charge that often seems a futile effort to continue to refute.  Except to state the obvious; nothing in the above paragraph can be construed as applying to solely to one particular ethnicity.  More importantly, nothing I have stated applies to every person of a particular ethnic group.  I love Mexico, I love the Hispanic culture, and I speak fluent Spanish.  Whenever I return home from a long trip abroad, I never feel "at home" until I hear someone speaking Spanish.  So lets cut the crap and leave all that "racist" bullshit at the door.  We have a problem, and I'm beginning to fear that it may be out of control.  On top of everything that we have previously discussed, we must consider the fact that President Obama intends to issue an Executive Order that provides a path to citizenship for most of the nation's undocumented persons.  It's true that many of these people have been living in the United States for decades and certainly in their own way have contributed to the growth of the nation.  While it's been argued that providing a Social Security number for persons who were previously undocumented will increase the tax base, hold your horses, folks: it won't make that much difference.  Filthy rich Americans still constitute the great majority of the nation's tax base.

The piece of this issue which really gives me the red-ass has nothing to do with taxes or narco-trafficking.  What really pisses me off is that EVERYONE realizes that this fast-lane to citizenship is meant to create as many as twenty million additional Democratic voters.  Even Democratic talking heads on television admit this shameful fact.  The vast majority of persons affected by the impending Executive Action (forgive me for making assumptions, but see me in November and call me a liar) will be persons of Hispanic heritage (this proportion may possibly even as high as ninety-nine percent as not very many Austrians or Sri Lankans are hiding out from La Migra).  When this is taken together with the fact that in 2012, seventy-five percent of Hispanic voters cast their vote for Barrack Obama (stated in National Review magazine) the impact becomes clear. Every statistic I found echoed this kind of political dominance not just for Obama, but for Democratic candidates in general.  So, no "rocket science" here:  if President Obama signs an Executive Order fast-tracking citizenship for millions and millions of undocumented Hispanics in the United States, we will be staring a "one-party state" right in the face.  Why don't Hispanic Americans (documented or not) vote Republican?  On occasion, it happens.  The Cuban-American community in the Miami area have been staunch Republicans, mostly because of the Castro issue.  And a Hispanic Republican Governor (Martinez in New Mexico) and Republican Senator (Cruz in Texas) have been  recently elected, which seems to give some conservatives hope. I don't buy it.  Hispanic Americans have been loyal Democrats since the days of John F. Kennedy, and I do see a Sea-Change on the horizon (I love the phrase Sea Change; it comes from a song Shakespeare wrote as part of "The Tempest").

I don't have a problem with providing rights to persons who have been part of the fabric of our nation for decades.  I believe that, instead of creating a fast-track to citizenship, it would be preferable to provide an avenue for persons to obtain Resident Alien status (Green Card), and require that they utilize the system in place for adjusting to U.S. citizen.  Its terribly unfair for individuals who have followed the existing law and been waiting for years to become Americans, to be pushed to the back of the line by persons who entered illegally.  As tough as it may be for some people, we must remember that we are dealing with persons whose entire presence in this country is predicated on an illegal act.  I realize that Mexico can be a difficult country for young people with hopes and aspirations, and I don't judge anyone who is trying to provide for their family, but this issue is beginning to impact OUR families, especially those with children and grandchildren.  I had hoped for some form of political compromise, something that did not include a fast-track to citizenship.  I just can't see why that part of the equation is so important.  If someone entered the United States illegally in 1989, they should have the opportunity to apply for a Green Card.  Once that process is complete, if they are interested in becoming citizens, they can follow the law that is already in place.  IMPORTANT: Don't believe the Democrat narrative that Congress has been AWOL on this issue.  The House of Representatives has approved a number of Immigration Reform Bills that were not allowed to even reach committee.  Sometime in 2012, Harry Reid decided that President Obama should rule by decree. So for all practical purposes, he ended the functions of the U.S. Senate as of October 21. At that time, three hundred fifty-two Bills that had passed the House were languishing in Harry Reid's personal purgatory.  With Congress unable to act, Obama can say (without the hint of a smile) that the do-nothing Republicans won't act on immigration, and he is therefore obliged by his responsibilities as President of the United States to utilize Executive Authority.  Once he signs the Executive Order, no one knows how many formerly undocumented people will follow through with the process, but if they do, they get to be the latest addition to a rapidly expanding Democratic voter roll.