Guest Commentary – Open Border with Mexico

Thursday Night comes (well actually Friday morning, but who is keeping track?) and with it comes the ever popular guest commentary article for the week. As was alluded to earlier, this week’s submission comes to us from D13, and deals with the problems we are facing on our southern border. I have not talked a lot about the problems with illegal immigration in the United States thus far. I imagine that this will start some of that. I will weigh in with an article discussing the issue form my perspective soon. What the good Colonel offers us for tonight is a wealth of information that he has collected on the border problems. This is part one. Part Two will instead have more of a focus on what he has actually witnessed and found in his work on the border. You can expect the second part to this article within a week or two as another guest commentary. I have to say that I have been looking forward to this article ever since D13 told me that he was working on it.

My anticipation was related to the fact that there is perhaps no one that regularly visits SUFA that has more of a focus on the illegal immigration problems we face on the southern border, and there is certainly no one who is spending more time actually working in this arena… actual boots on the ground. In the article that I am working on, we will discuss this in a different way. I will be presenting illegal immigration as one of the “Let’s Fix It” articles where we entertain all the ways that we can deal with the problem, like we did with unemployment insurance. I look forward to that, but first we needed to get a look into what the realities are on the border, and that is what the Colonel has provided for us.

Open Border with Mexico
A Study in Contrast
by D13

There has been much said about the “open border” concept along the Mexico border. Some have the opinion that there should be no control and some are of the opinion that there should be closed borders and some fall in the middle. The purpose of this article is to lay out some facts and figures and you decide what the best procedure would be. Since I am on the “front lines” so to speak, I feel that I can speak authoritatively. I will do my best to present both sides of the concern and then present my analysis and opinion. The issue is not to look at this in an emotional state but rather look at it in the form of reality….what is…and not what we wish it would be. Never should a decision be made from emotion but rather, it is my belief that all decisions should be made from fact and from realism.

First, let me begin by saying that this article is not anti immigration. I have absolutely no problems with immigration. I have all sorts of problems with illegal immigration; consequently, this article will be aimed at the illegal immigration that takes place, its effects on the economy, both local and federal, its effects on health issues, and its criminal element. So, in order to proceed with the article, please accept the fact (as it is fact) that we are a nation of laws. Some of those laws directly affect immigration. It matters not whether you agree with those laws. If you disagree with our laws, I will be the first to say…great…you have an inherent right to disagree but change them if you do not like them. To break the law in order to change the law is wrong… legally, morally, and philosophically. So, deal with the fact that we have laws and the laws should be obeyed until changed.

The popular perception of illegal aliens crossing our southern border is that they are merely poor Mexicans trying to find a better life here. But increasingly, the border is being crossed by hardened, often violent criminals. During the past five months, more than 54,000 of the illegal aliens caught at the border were convicted criminals or people being sought in connection with crimes, according to federal officials. About 139,000 of the illegal aliens arrested last year fell into the same category. The main stream media has been instructed to not write articles about the issue of the criminal elements that have consistently been coming into this country disguised as poor immigrants. Yes…. instructed and the hammer is that they will not have a seat on Air Force One if they do not follow that rule. The criminal element knows that we are not actively engaged in stopping the immigrants because it is known that the liberal (progressive) establishment wants the votes and wants a voting block, therefore, it is a well known among those of us that patrol and fight on the border that the law is deliberately avoided and sanctioned by the progressive faction in this country. The first thing that I will deal with in the article is the gang influence and the criminal element that is prevalent on the border and in our cities.

Mexican Drug Cartels

Mexico’s drug gangs have been highly successful in the past two decades, gradually replacing Colombian gangs in the United States to control the profitable distribution of cocaine from coast to coast. Colombia remains the world’s largest producer, but Larry Holifield, the DEA’s past director for Mexico and Central America, says Mexican cartels are now the most powerful in the world. In 2003, Mexican traffickers supplied 77 percent of the cocaine that entered the US. Last year, 2009, it was 95 percent, a top DEA intelligence official, told a congressional panel. Now, in 2010, Mexican Drug Cartel trafficking has increased to 96% according to acting administrator Ms. Michelle Leonhart in a circular sent to all border agencies in February, 2010.

Mexican gangs have also dominated the growing methamphetamine trade, producing 53 percent of the drugs on the market in “super-labs” in Mexico as the U.S. tightens its laws. Much of the rest is made in clandestine labs mostly in amnesty safe California, also run by Mexicans, according to U.S. officials. And as has been the case for nearly 100 years, Mexico is the biggest marijuana supplier to the United States and produces nearly half the heroin consumed north of the border, behind only Colombia.

The drug trade permeates life in Mexico. In Ciudad Miguel Aleman, drug traffickers boost the local economy and rule with a combination of fear and awe, threatening or bribing anyone who dares to try to stop them. In this city of 35,000 across from Roma, Texas, hit men are easily identified by their bulletproof pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. The traffickers have lookouts at every entrance to the city and informants on bicycles looking for anyone suspicious, townspeople say. They will photograph newcomers, including reporters, and question strangers. This can be further verified by the local National Guard Units that help patrol the border and by Department of Defense officials that are in observance. Quite often, these bullet proof pickup trucks and SUV’s, come across the border and are involved in shoot outs on the US side and it goes unreported….yes, that is UNREPORTED on a consistent basis. Again, it is not reported through heavy handed intimidation by the current administration. (Let me add a side note. It was also unreported in the Bush Administration as well but I have not seen written instructions from the Bush Administration as I have seen from the present administration.)

Armed gangs dressed in military uniforms often illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border, providing cover for the trafficking of drugs and illegal aliens into the United States. U.S. government officials and sheriffs from border areas told a Senate panel of U.S. lawmakers these intruders were becoming more sophisticated and ruthless, often clashed with U.S. Border Patrol agents and committed crimes in the United States.

“We are indeed aware of criminal organizations that wear military-style uniforms, use military-style equipment and weapons and employ military-style vehicles and tactics while conducting illegal activity in border areas,” Border Patrol chief David Aguilar told a joint hearing of the Senate subcommittees on immigration and terrorism.”

The Border Patrol has intercepted over 400,000 aliens trying to cross the border in the first two months of this year, compared to around 100,000 a month – 1.2 million — last year. About 120,000 or 10% of those caught had criminal records. That’s 40,000 with criminal records caught so far this year!!!!! How many have not been caught?

One other NON REPORTED ITEM that has happened from the Mexico side. Mexican President Felipe Calderon tacitly turned his head as Mexican prisons officials “released” over 52,000 known felons and drug traffickers, rapists, murderers, and a variety on the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California borders over a period of 6 months in 2008/2009. These “released” inmates were driven to remote areas outside of Piedras Negras, Ojinaga, Juarez, Monument 67, Nogales, and Tijuana, Mexico and told to not come back. They were given back packs of food, water, maps of sanctuary locations, and money. In January of 2010, three bodies, now identified as drug cartel members, were found in the Big Bend area of Southwest Texas. All three had walked off a cliff in the middle of the night trying to find their way through. All three had brand new Mountain West backpacks, three sets of clothes, 7 weapons (3 US, 2 Russian, and 2 Chinese origins), over $4,000 cash (collectively), maps of the region, and pick up points.

Terrorist Ties

It is common knowledge that Criminal Gangs and Al Qaeda are also merging along the Mexican Border

A Bangladeshi Muslim man named Fakhrul Islam was among a group of 13 illegal aliens arrested near Brownsville, Texas, just across the border from Mexico. Border Patrol agents have said that one of the men detained along with Islam was a member of Mara Salvatrucha, a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with more than 300,000 members across Central and North America, including powerful enterprises in several major U.S. cities. Adnan El-Shukrijumah, a high-ranking Al-Qaeda leader and one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, was spotted in Honduras meeting with members of MS-13. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that El-Shukrijumah, who he has described as a ‘clear and present danger to America,’ is seeking ways to infiltrate the U.S. via the Mexican border, and is willing to pay top dollar in order to do so. Erik Holder, the current attorney General, disavows any knowledge of said meetings.

In the last 6 months, we have captured several immigrants that are linked to Muslim factions in Europe and South America. Everyone knows that our borders are porous and that it is easy to get into the United States and get on our welfare roles and actually get jobs often times in federally classified areas because of the lack of background security checks. In November of 2009, a security sweep of the Federal Border Patrol personnel in Laredo, Texas resulted in 23 firings of US Border Patrol agents that were NOT US Citizens and not on work visas or in the US legally. They were hired with fake birth certificates and social security numbers and the lack of background checks allowed them to work almost unrestricted. One of the “fired” agents was a three time convicted felon in the United States and released on treaty with Mexico only to have him come back and get hired.

Drug gangs could be acquiring weapons from contacts in drug rings operating on U.S. military bases near the border. Ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have made fighting drug use by soldiers a lower priority within the military. In addition, the constant flow of material back and forth between the U S and combat theaters has made it increasingly difficult to account for every piece of ordnance. With pressure to recruit more troops, standards have been lowered, which has opened the door to recruits with prior drug convictions. The Mexican gangs, then, could be involving in-house dealers in weapons-for-drugs schemes.

Laredo is increasingly becoming a sanctuary for members of Mexico’s various drug cartels. Nuevo Laredo drug gangs use Texas the same way the Taliban and al Qaeda use Pakistan: as a refuge from the fighting; a place where they- theoretically can rest, regroup and plan further operations. The gangs also use Laredo as a transshipment point for drugs going north and weapons coming south.

Economic Cost to Texas

A new report is out that shows the costs imposed on Texas taxpayers by illegal aliens. The report was released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The current estimates show there are 1.5 million illegal aliens in Texas. The costs, when broken down, come to a total of $725 a year per taxpaying household to cover the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens throughout the state.

The more than $4.7 billion in costs incurred by Texas taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:

Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Texas and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Texans spend more than $4 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 11.9 percent of the K-12 public school students in Texas are children of illegal aliens.

Health Care. Taxpayer-funded medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $520 million a year.

Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas’s state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).

The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.

Media Coverage

An award winning reporter has detailed an ongoing media blackout concerning a major issue of national security on the southern border.

Sara A. Carter, National Security and Pentagon reporter for the Washington Times, spoke to the Alex Jones show today regarding consistent incursions into the U.S. by armed Mexican troops aiding illegal smugglers.

Ms. Carter has won several national prestigious awards for her coverage of border issues north and south, including the 2006 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration, presented annually by the Center for Immigration Studies.

“There are a lot of people who don’t realize how serious the situation is on the southern border.” Ms. Carter said. “Even to the extent when sometimes some of our own government officials choose to ignore it, even though they know it’s going on.”

“This is a very serious national security issue in many respects and it deals with an array from smuggling humans, to smuggling narcotics, and the whole mix up is that there’s many people within the Mexican government and military that have already been bought and sold out to the drug cartels.”

“It’s very difficult to distinguish between those that are really trying to do the job, and those that are sell outs to the drug cartels. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, I’ve been down in many of the same border cities, I’ve spent an enormous amount of time in Mexico working with intelligence officials and others, and I have many Mexican sources who had said ‘please get the truth out’.” Ms. Carter continued.

Ms. Carter pointed out that although such activity has been ongoing for years, there has essentially been a news blackout in America.

“It is a huge story. It is bigger than most of us even know, and people are afraid of covering the story. We hear reports but we don’t see in depth detail.” Carter said.

Aside from Carter herself it has been left entirely to the alternative media to expose the reality of the situation on the border. The mainstream media cautiously began reporting on the issue two years ago when Sara Carter uncovered Department of Homeland Security documents and maps showing that Mexican military has crossed into the United States 216 times in the past nine years. In the documents U.S. officials claimed the incursions are being made to help foreign drug and human smugglers into the United States. Those of us that work the border know that this is a crock of 24 carat BS. The efforts at strengthening the border and the efforts at getting the word out are, once again, being completely stifled. Any United States Military officer risks his career when voicing his thoughts and letting out information that is not “cleared” through Erik Holder and the Justice Department……………in violation of military protocol and rules. There is no freedom of speech and there is no right for the public to know in the minds of our current administration.

Many incidents have seen Mexican troops fire on U.S. border agents and our rules of engagement do not allow us to fire back. (That is as the rules of engagement for FEDERAL troops.) The State National Guard is under the command of the Governor until activated by Federal Order. President Obama is not the Commander in Chief of National Guard units exercising under state authority. Texas is the ONLY independent National Guard Unit in the United States (meaning that it does not “round out” active duty units. It stands alone) and the Texas Governor does not give up jurisdiction. The rules of engagement are completely different for the Texas National Guard. The Governor has the right to declare a State Emergency and, hence, National Guard Units can defend themselves in open combat….even when fired upon by Mexican Military Units. The state of Texas now employs armed drones, infra red detection equipment, ground patrols (utilizing ranchers with night vision support), intelligence operatives in Mexico, and armored units allowed by private land owners to patrol the more rugged areas.

Human Trafficking

This is, by far, the most despicable event that is happening on the entire Mexican border, but the El Paso area is the roughest so far. Most people think of human trafficking in terms of “coyotes” infiltrating the United States with hordes of illegal immigrants. It used to be this way….not anymore. A seldom reported fact are the abductions for ransom, prostitution, drug running, and slave trade from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, and even the border areas on the United States side. The worst of the areas on our border is Juarez, across from El Paso. Known as the city of “Femicides”, from 2005 through 2009, it is estimated that over 5,000 female deaths (ages 12-22) have occurred. The latest find was on a ranch 12 kilometers outside of Juarez in Northern Chihuahua province, wherein one mass grave, 612 female bodies were discovered….tortured, burned, sexually abused, and dismembered. Average age…..16 years old.

It is common knowledge that families “sell” their off spring to human cartels for food money. Scores of children are abducted from immigrants traveling to the United States seeking work and hooking up with “coyotes” who, in turn sell them at the border. Open borders are an invitation to “take a chance” to travel to Norte America and play into the hands of the criminal element.

The latest personal observation was July, 2009 on a remote stretch of road outside of Del Rio, Texas. A refrigerated van was stopped at a remote unmarked check point. After a shoot out with the drive and its escorting vehicle, the 18 wheeler was transporting 32 young girls to Chicago, Illinois and New York City. Their ages ranged from 8 years to 16 years for use in prostitution and sweat shops. Despicable!!!! (For the record, the driver of the truck and the escort did not survive the gun fight).


Today, our great American nation is being invaded by millions of illegal immigrants who are fundamentally changing American society. Notably, a massive influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America is changing the face of the American Southwest. For some Mexicans, the motivations in this migration are pure – to secure a better life in a better place. However, not only is this illegal immigration illegal to begin with, it is also precipitating a host of problems for the United States of America. This influx is bankrupting state and local governments, hospitals, school districts, prisons, and social services across the Southwest. The influx is also fueling a wide range of criminal activities in the United States, from the simple, such as the hiring of illegal aliens by American companies, to the serious, such as drug running, human trafficking, organized criminal activity, gang activity, weapons violations, burglaries, auto thefts, etc., etc. In addition, terrorists from overseas nations are gaining entry to the United States through our porous borders.

“William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, states that this is “the end of America as we know it. At least 10 million illegal immigrants are in the U.S. now, and that’ll double in five years.” (Dallas Morning News, Rancher in border case backs Minuteman, 04/03/2005) reports that “public health care in Los Angeles is on life support, where sixty percent of the county’s uninsured patients are not U.S. citizens. More than half are here illegally. About 2 million undocumented aliens in Los Angeles County alone are crowding emergency rooms because they can’t afford to see a doctor.” (L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal Immigrants, 03/17/2005). The National Research Council estimates that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with state and local governments bearing most of the costs. California’s tab is estimated at $3 billion alone. Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, writes in the Denver Post that “illegal immigration today isn’t cheap labor, except to the employer. The average family of illegal immigrants has two to four school-age kids. It costs U.S. taxpayers more than $7,000 a child just to educate them in our public schools.” (There’s nothing cheap about immigrant labor, 04/03/05) In the end, the American taxpayer pays many times the amount the cheap hourly wage was worth to a vagabond American company.”

But one has to figure that these costs are just a drop in the bucket. The Arizona Automobile Theft Authority for example reports that there were 56,222 stolen vehicles in Arizona in 2003. These thefts in many cases are tied to a host of other problems, including smuggling, illegal drug trafficking, human trafficking, burglaries, fraud, and drive-by shootings. The costs to these associated problems are immeasurable, both in dollar amounts (auto insurance, law enforcement costs, etc.) and in terms of general personal security.

In Dallas, Texas, we are witness firsthand to some of the problems associated with illegal immigration. Business owners in predominantly Hispanic areas are scared for their safety. Recently, a member of a family that owns several local restaurants was kidnapped in broad daylight, held for ransom, and then killed. The perpetrator fled back to Mexico. Mexican graffiti covers everything from houses and fences to businesses and highway signs. The City of Dallas, at great costs – up to $2,000 per sign, is currently either cleaning or replacing graffiti-marred highway signs across the area. One bridge overpass colorfully says it all: “Welcome to the Barrio, Bitches.” For Dallas Public Schools, Spanish proficiency for teachers is almost mandatory in many sections of the city. The enormous cultural and budgetary problems associated with educating children of illegal aliens denigrate the education of our American children.

Fed up by the deluge of trespassers and the lack of attention by the U.S. Government, ordinary Americans are now fighting back. A host of organizations, some listed on this page, are sprouting to deliver information about this travesty. Other organizations, such as Ranch Rescue, and the Minuteman Project, are taking a more proactive approach such as patrolling ranches and borders.

As wide-ranging as the problem of illegal immigration is, the solutions are simple.

First, we as Americans have to make it where it is not worth coming to America. We can do this by legally requiring proof of citizenship or legal residency for jobs, education and benefits. Unable to obtain jobs and services in America, many if not most immigrants would stay at home. As part of this effort, penalties would be more severe for American companies and organizations that knowingly provide jobs and services to illegal immigrants. In a way, providing jobs to illegal immigrants is treasonous.

Second, America needs a comprehensive guest worker program. This program would be funded primarily by Mexicans wishing to work in America and by American companies who can prove they need foreign workers because American workers are not available. In such a program, Mexicans (or American companies) would pay a processing fee to the federal government, instead of a smuggling fee to the Coyotes (human smugglers).

Third, America needs to physically secure its borders. We must get the Southwest region of the United States under control. Either we need a beefed-up Border Patrol, or we need the military to patrol the border in sufficient numbers, or both.

And fourth, eliminate the automatic United States Citizenry to children of undocumented and illegal immigrants,

The time to act is now. Each day, 5,000 to 10,000 new illegal immigrants enter the United States along the Mexican border. Each day, the costs associated with this influx escalate.

Lastly, do not play the race card on this one. It matters not what nationality these illegal immigrants are….it only matters that they are here in violation of our laws. There is no “natural right” or no “natural law” that justifies such illegal activity.

This Map was too big for me to put in text and making it smaller made unreadable so I put it down here. It shows the different gangs that are problems in different border areas. USW


  1. Very enlightening article D13!

    The subject falls inline with the upcoming amnesty bill being presented in D.C.. I’m sure if the media were not hushed and the truth came out, most Americans would be against the bill.

    Fight the good fight Colonel, and stay safe!


  2. I’m not really sure where I stand on this issue. This, like most big issues, is too polarized in its present state. I feel like both sides villainize the other in order to gain political points or else because they don’t know the facts.

    On one hand, I believe that we are a nation of immigrants (“bring me your huddled masses”) and should not discourage immigration of those who are searching for a better life. On the other, we have a right to control our borders. No one can demand citizenship if they came here illegally.

    I agree with expanding the workers program. I also agree with trying to enforce a law prohibiting businesses from hiring illegals. I think immigration should be made easier and faster, but I don’t think this will solve the problem. I think those here illegally should pay a fine and get in line for immigration, but should be granted a temporary residency, except for criminals.

    I believe that in order to sign up for entitlement programs, one must show proof of citizenship. While it would be great to help everyone who needs it, it is totally infeasible. We are already going to annihilate ourselves with debt, we simply can’t afford to give welfare to anyone who walks (runs) across the border.

  3. Mathius says:

    Haven’t read it. I’m all by myself today at work, so I’m sure I’ll find time sooner or later. But I just want to throw out a question in advance. I apologize if this has been addressed in the article.

    If we were to legalize drug use in the United States, would this not rob the gangs of their revenue source and virtually eliminate the whole problem of drug cartels?

    I’m just remembering back in the day how the end of prohibition was a massive blow to the mobs..

    • Mathius

      Let me try to address the question.

      Pot, I absolutely think would dry up this traffic. The U.S. and more friendly neighbors in Canada do quite well at growing the stuff.

      Cocaine, a different matter. I am not sure we could grow enough here to meet demand. So the reality is the cartels would probably continue to dominate production through corruption in the central and south American countries. Even if legalized, how could regular folks begin growing, manufacturing and shipping without being shot by the cartel? And the govt folks would continue to get bribed.

      Again this depends on where the plants can be grown to produce the cocaine. If the US has suitable habitat, including our territories, then it will work. Otherwise I don’t think legalizing cocaine would eliminate the mob rule.

      Meth: Obviously this can be produced domestically, although I am still not sure this drug should be legalized. But perhaps if the others were legal this drug would dry up.

      Human Trafficking: Would this continue to fund the mob rule on its own? I have no idea but would guess not to the extent they could purchase the police, army and govt in total.

      Work extra hard today and make lots of money Matt. I need you to boost the Soc Sec fund as much as possible. 🙂


      • Perhaps we could impose a ban on unethical foreign drugs. That is, if it is grown by a cartel, it cannot be imported, but it can be imported by recognized and authorized companies. The added expense of having to buy off police and smuggle it across borders should make it more expensive that it’s legal counterpart. Likewise, if you could only sell it on street corners, who is going to buy that versus what you can get in a legitimate store?

        As for Meth et al.. I see where you’re coming from on this (you statist, you), but I just can’t agree. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else what you put in your body, I can’t allow for government to tell you what you can and can’t consume. HOWEVER, I recognize that given the extremely addictive nature of the drug, there are attendant social concerns. First among them is that an addicted person will spend his life-savings and then start to rob people to buy more. To that end, I have to consider it a medical problem. Crimes should be prosecuted as crimes, and addicts should be treated. But foremost, we should do a better job of educating the public of the dangers. And, given those dangers and a legalized cocaine and marijuana alternative, I expect usage would drop dramatically.

        I’m not working extra hard today. I’m catching up on my backlog of work (backed up because I spend so much damned time here). But I’m salaried, so nothing I do today will boost Social Security – sorry.

        • How about getting a second job, then….JAC and I wish to elevate our status and not have to work for it. 🙂 Hello to Dread Pirate in basement.

      • A recent TV report in Sacramento noted that they are now extracting the active ingredient in pot using butane. It is extremely dangerous because the vapors are explosive. The extracted material is much stronger and proving to be addictive. I am undecided about decriminalizing drugs. I know the only way to defeat the criminal part is to take the money out of it. The only way to take the money out is to make drugs legal and to tax them. However, the devistation they cause to individuals is criminal.

        • Consider this: if you had the choice between legal marijuana and legal meth, which would you choose to use? Given that you know or are told at the point of sale that meth is highly addictive, you would probably choose weed, no? Even if it’s not exactly what you would want, I think a rational person will generally opt for the safer alternative.

          I am not a huge drug user, but I understand that there are certain drugs that fit certain peoples’ life-styles. That is, there are stoners and there are coke-head and they may not consider their drugs to be interchangeable. But I think the people who opt for the most dangerous and addictive of drugs are the ones who have little choice due to market availability and cost and legal barriers.

          And remember: alcohol consumption actually went down after the end of prohibition. Think about that.

          • deciding what drugs should be made legal really should be determined by what % of people will become addicted if they used the drug combined with what effect the drug has on the person both mentally and physically. We can certainly talk about the balance of what problems would be alleviated if they are legal with what problems will be caused by them being legal and come up with a logical answer but the issue of what kind of society you want your children to grow up in really needs to be part of the debate-giving into evil simply because it is easier isn’t in my opinion the right way to go.

            • You had me nodding along right up until the word “evil.”

              There is nothing inherently evil about drugs.

              If I wish to poison myself, that is my right. If I wish to addict myself, that is my right.

              The only evil comes when I have to pay violent criminals to provide me the things I want because someone has decided that I shouldn’t be able to exercise my rights. If I get hopped up on something and decide to commit a crime, that has to be handled as a separate issue – the same way that it is legal to drink, but not to drink and drive.

              • As a human being you can certainly kill yourself if you please(even if it’s illegal) but as a fellow human being I don’t particularly want to encourage your doing so-I don’t believe society should help you to make that decision by handing you a drug that effects your mental ability to make a decision and is almost assured to addict all who take it. Helping to do this to me is evil.

              • One other thing-I am confused by your statements-On one hand you say you agree with what I said about how to determine what should be legal but on the other hand you say people have the right to destroy themselves if they please and any problems they cause society should be taken care of through the legal system, which is it-should everything just be legal or not.

                • Mathius says:

                  I’m somewhat torn.. if I had to choose, I’d say soft drugs like marijuana should be completely legal. Maybe make the hardest of drugs available within certain bounds – prescription maybe? It’s a tough call.

                  But I just can’t get my head around the government telling me what I can and can’t do with my body unless I pose a serious risk to society. That’s why I can support some control over hard and addictive drugs – but I think there should still be a legal avenue for getting to them if you are not a threat to society.

                  Imagine that you are independently wealthy and, sitting alone in your mansion, you want to use some crystal meth. Why shouldn’t you be able to? You could kill yourself, you could break something, but you will never rob a liquor store for money to feed your addiction. What if you’re just a responsible adult who wants to try it once?

                  • Mathius-IMO you simply cannot take away a freedom and protect freedom at the same time-you either believe that the reasons are important enough to do so or not-please don’t fool yourself that you can do both at the same time

                  • I could argue that since these dangerous drugs takes away a persons ability to reason-that the drug its self is what takes away their real freedom. 🙂

      • Dread Pirate Mathius (from the basement via iPad):

        Declaring something illegal – aside from the moral implications – where there is a sustained demand will only create a black market for that good or service and drive up prices. In imposing upon the suppliers, you force them to move to a black market mentality where they act in violent ways. Given the freedom to sell their goods, the incentive to violence is not substantively lessened. Note that Microsoft has never hired a hitman to take out Steve Jobs.

        • I think the Dread Pirate meant to say that the incentive to violence is substantively lessened.

      • I don’t think its just about where the stuff can be grown. IF it were legalized, then it would be fine. The Cartels would not be the primary growers, and they would not have the high profit levels because there would be other sources. IF the cartels intimidated other growers in their area to keep a lock on the supply, then we could import from another country entirely in a similar climate. It really is not an issue, the market would fix it, just as Matt says. I think the human trafficking and so forth might increase at first as cartels try to maintain their income, but they would begin to lose power rapidly, and thus their resources to continue would falter.

  4. All kidding from yesterday aside-D13 this is an excellant article.I knew the situation was bad just from the news reports that we do get. But I didnt realize that the word came from on high to actually not report the real seriousness of it. Kudos to Sean Hannity for giving it serious attention though.

    There are so many angles on this. Our own security being paramount. It’s in serious danger for what amounts to votes. Nobody is going to tell me these are all just humble Mexicans seeking work. And anyone who actually believes this is naive to say the least if not dnagerous to us themselves.

    Why, oh why, is this such a problem to just stand up to and resist? Votes vs Security ! It is simple.
    A few million votes cost millions if not billions of dollars to the US.

    All you folks in the boarder states need to demand your candidate’s platforms include boarder security. And not just lip service.

    • Side note: This is our country we’re talking about. Not us helping with someone else’s war.

  5. naten53 says:

    Thanks for your insight on the issue D13. I can’t wait for round two.

  6. Keep your eyes open his weekend. This together with todays article is not very re-assuring.

    • “this” weekend.

      And Everyone have a nice weekend. Happy Easter. I’m out for the day.

  7. D13, Wow.

    I’m with you: immigration is great – illegal is illegal.

    Very discouraging that the border states’ governments don’t take a stronger stance and instead let their states get eaten up by this.

    The human trafficing element is very disturbing. That politicians, especially Washington, would choose to ignore for this reason alone is beyond belief.

    Thank you for getting the word out (ummm, can you release that written directive you’ve seen to the local newspaper? – nah, they won’t do anything with it – go to FOX with it) and for all you and your co-patriots are doing in this area.

    • D13,

      EXCELLENT!!! So far, hope part two is soon available.

      Kathy, “– illegal is illegal”.

      Agree, so could we not state a child born of a alien here illegally, would not be automatically granted citizenship?

  8. Col. Thanks for your article. It paints a much worse picture than is painted by th MSM and one that many of us would believe. Currently there are 3 people running for CA govenor, Jerry “Moon Beam” Brown (D), Meg “ebay” Whitman (R) and Steve Poinzner (R). Steve is running on an anti-illegal immigation platform. Meg is much softer on immigration although talks a good fiscal plan for this bankrupt state. Her ads went negative a couple of months ago so I lost some respect for her. Her negative ads far out number her positive ones. Steve has countered with negative ads. In the mean time Jerry is keeping his powder dry. If the national debate on immigration comes up and any of the information you present gets out to the general public, I think Steve would walk away with the nomination.

    I am beginning to think we need to rename the MSM — “Pravda”. The do spead so much pelosi. (Note – spreadable pelosi should be lower case unless it is all upper case.)

    • T-Ray..the issue is purely political. No one wants to admit what is going on but the news will get out in bits and pieces. The interesting part of all of this is Fort Hancock is NOT the first city….but it is the first to make this kind of news. Once the seriousness gets out, then they (msm) will pick it up but will only pick it up from the standpoint of this ONE issue. No one will delve into the entire problem. It is a political hotbed and the coals are in full glow. In the meantime, innocent AMERICAN civilians and ranchers and farmers….die. Civil rights groups and amnesty international set up water stations and hide the illegals thinking they are helping and they are actually hurting.

      Part two will actually deal with the impact on the border ranchers and cities and the personal experiences of what I have seen and handled.

    • Is Spreadable Pelosi similar to I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter?

  9. Excellent article, D13! NC has a huge problem with illegals as the Triad (central NC) is considered a “safe zone” for illegals.

    There are federally-mandated reporting practices in place to prevent illegals from being hired; however, the real problem in our area lies with agri-businesses, construction companies, lawn care (and the like), that pay cash under the table to keep their payroll taxes low, the illegals employed, and all of this off the federal radar.

    There’s a street in a town close by where anyone can get drive-by illegal labor any day of the week, and our law enforcement allows it.

    Agree with you totally – enforce the law and send them back home. Do not automatically grant “citizen” status to children of illegals.

    My question is how to get our own sheriff dept./police on board with deportation? They constantly turn a blind eye. In the meantime, crime escalates, healthcare costs are ridiculous and the dumbing down of our students continues because NC caters to this group.

    • The local authority is powerless right now because I.C.E. is not taking anyone and is not picking them up and the the local authorities have no place to transfer them.

    • USWeapon says:


      Are you in the Triangle?


  10. Judy Sabatini says:

    Arizona murder prompts calls to tighten security

    By Tim Gaynor Tim Gaynor – Thu Apr 1, 11:58 pm ET

    DOUGLAS, Arizona (Reuters) – The murder of a prominent Arizona rancher near the Mexican border is spurring charges that Washington is doing too little to stop Mexico’s raging drug war from spilling over into the United States.

    Robert Krentz was shot last Saturday while working at his remote cattle ranch some 30 miles northeast of this city on the Arizona-Mexico border.

    Investigators tracked the footprints of the suspected gunman about 20 miles south to the border with Mexico, prompting some authorities to blame smugglers or illegal immigrants for the killing.

    “The ranchers have feared for their lives for a long time and they’ve told the people from Washington, but they don’t pay attention to us,” Michael Gomez, the mayor of Douglas, told Reuters.

    “This continues to be a hot area for illegal crossings and they have to do something to stop it.”

    Krentz, 58, was well liked and respected in southeastern Arizona, where his family’s ranch sprawled over 35,000 acres.

    No arrests have been made and there is no clear motive or any named suspect, the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office said.

    The killing comes amid ever-more brazen and brutal attacks by cartels in northern Mexico that are fighting for control of lucrative drug smuggling routes into the United States.

    Last month, gunmen killed two Americans in Ciudad Juarez, south of El Paso, Texas, renewing fears in the United States that escalating violence may spill north over the border.

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security expressed “outrage” on Thursday at Krentz’s murder and posted a $25,000 reward for “information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the individual or individuals responsible.”

    A day earlier, Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of the neighboring state of New Mexico, ordered National Guard troops to patrol the border with Mexico to “ensure the safety of New Mexico citizens.”

    Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Senator John McCain, both Republicans, have urged President Barack Obama’s administration to send National Guard troops to boost efforts to secure the border with Mexico in the wake of the killing.


    Obama has pledged support for Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s battle against the drug cartels. Calderon has deployed tens of thousands of troops to try to halt the violence that has killed more than 19,000 people since he took office in late 2006.

    The area in southern Arizona where Krentz was murdered lies on the edge of a furiously trafficked corridor for both drug and human smugglers.

    Last year Border Patrol agents made more than 241,000 arrests in the sector south of Tucson, Arizona, and seized more than 60 tonnes of marijuana.

    In the wake of the murder, authorities in Douglas — a ranching town of 15,000 people over the border from Agua Prieta, Mexico — have added to calls on Washington to beef up security to protect isolated residents.

    Gomez wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week, urging her to send National Guard troops to tighten security along the border.

    Without additional security, residents in Douglas said Krentz’s murder left many angry and fearful for their own safety.

    “Rob was very highly respected and well thought of throughout the county, especially by his neighbors,” said Lynn Kartchner, the owner of a gun store that has done brisk business in the five days since the killing. “If they can get Rob, they can get anyone.” (Editing by John O’Callaghan)

  11. Judy Sabatini says:
  12. The idea of turning people away who are asking for help makes me feel a little sick but I must ask why these people should be allowed to walk this way instead of walking to another part of their own country and demanding help from their own government. If the answer lies in all the people being abused coming here than the problem isn’t being solved -it’s being encouraged.

    • V.H…………….. turning people away from wanting to make a better life is not where I come from….just do it legally.

      But you do pose a great question….what about their own government?

      It is my opinion that we are exacerbating the problem with open borders. Not following strict guidelines encourages this violence…not the other way around. This problem would not stop if nothing were done, it would just escalate into the US more than it is now.

      • Never thought you were against helping people just acknowledging my aversion to the chooses having to be made. As you noted our government is sending mixed messages to the people of Mexico and I personally think the first step is to stop doing that-they have to be convinced that coming here illegally isn’t their right, and isn’t worth the trouble-standard guidelines need to be enforced in order to stop their feelings of justification for their illegal acts.

  13. PapaDawg says:

    Well, I haven’t read all of your article. I did skim through some of the major points, I think. I have thought for quite some time now that having an open border is akin to inviting disaster, especially with as corrupt and unstable a country as Mexico actually is.

    I am a resident of Arizona, and this last weekend one of the ranchers in southern Arizona was murdered by an illegal border crosser, quite possibly a drug runner which most of them are, I think.

    I do not understand the so-called argument for blanket amnesty, as I did not understand the blanket amnesty in the 1980’s, or the draft dodger amnesty in the 1970’s. To me, if a law is broken you do not remedy the problem by declaring all law breakers home free – that only promotes breaking all laws.

    My question is this – Why would not our government officials want to secure our borders after our country has been attacked? Now do not give me the lame excuse that it was not a country that attacked us. It makes no difference, and attack is an attack.

    The same question applies to the drugs coming across our border. So, I ask, just who are the Mexican drug cartels paying in the American government to keep our borders open? If you can answer that question then I think that you have 90% of the problem solved – both in drug running and illegal border crossing (I refuse to call them immigrants).

    • Sorry, it was a long article. Part two will be much simpler and deal with life on the American side of the border in Texas, primarily.

  14. In 1960, you could drive across Mexico and back with a little more than a wave.

    Now, the US wants to wall it off.

    The problem is not Mexico – it is the US wall. The higher it gets, the worse the violence will get too.

    • Is your stand that “the wall” is the only cause for the current problems or do you think that there are other factors that come into play. If not what do you think is a logical answer based on the current situation

      • Oh, it is complex.

        Escalation is like that – once you go up it, going back down is incredibly difficult.

        I hit you with my fist,
        you pick up a stick,
        I pick up a rock,
        you make a spear,
        I make an axe,
        you make an arrow,
        I make a pistol,
        you make a rifle,
        I brink a bazooka
        you bring 500lb bombs
        I fire cruise missiles,
        you launch a nuke.

        So, say we want to deescalate at a rifle – and want me to disarm my bazooka – but why would I want to lower my advantage? Thus the problem, once up the spiral, coming down is really hard.

        So what does D13 do? Open the borders and magnify the problems that he presented? So the answer is to tighten the borders, which will escalate the problem and make it worse!

        Unfortunately, the US public allowed the escalation. Now, its stuck in a quicksand of choices.

        I don’t have a quick answer other than saying that making it worse won’t help either.

        • BF…I gave a four step process how I would do it. I would be curious for you to break down, in your words, why that process, (a) would not work, and (b) how would it make anything worse?

        • I really want to understand your positions BF-I know that you believe individual freedoms are #1 in importance. Don’t you feel that it is reasonable, considering that our world is divided into different countries, considering that we live under a government, that as a country we also have rights. Or does your stance that government is evil in your opinion strip our country from any right to make decisions based on what is determined to be best for our country.

          • V.,

            Any group of People can organize themselves voluntarily and create whatever abstraction they see fit to support themselves.

            This group has the right to defend itself and their property.

            This is not a government.

            A government takes the right (by force) to attack non-violent people.

            This group that I speak of does not have that right.

            So in this Group, if one member wished to hire an outsider, that is his right and no one in the group has a right to attack this non-violent person.

            Now, the US has an evil government and we’re suffering under it.

            It has created huge negative consequences, one being D13’s post.

            See below for my opinions on “what to do”.

            • “However, making the US less attractive to foreign squatters is a good strategy. Just better tactics are needed.” Unless I missed something this is the only thing I read that was about what to do -Did I miss something because this doesn’t tell me enough 🙂 From your above answer the only answer I see that you would consider based on freedom would be for the land owners on the border to rise up together and protect themselves seems like the government which you may not acknowledge as having rights might just stop these people from fighting for themselves.

            • Question for you BF….

              You said: “So in this Group, if one member wished to hire an outsider, that is his right and no one in the group has a right to attack this non-violent person.”

              Would you define the word “attack” in this scenario you provided. You have always stated or used the words violent attack and sometimes attack. If I am understanding you correctly, any rule or boundary is wrong. Therefore, to enforce a rule or boundary, you see that as an attack. Am I correct or incorrect?

              So, if my neighbor hires a person and that person is a non-violent person, meaning he does not inflict emotional or physical harm to ME, you deem this an appropriate and correct issue between my neighbor and this person. Ok. You and I are (shock) in agreement here. But if this non-violent person comes onto my property and steals an ear of corn from me, then that person, simply by the virtue of crossing to my land and stealing an ear of corn, just created a violent act. He is guilty of theft and trespassing. ( Much like the definition of violence in “natural law” which uses fraud and embezzlement, as an example of violence. ) Therefore, since violence has been perpetrated against me, then, under natural law and your example, I can take whatever action, including violence, to protect my property and livelihood, correct? ( Your example has always been violence is justified to protect yourself and your “property” and/or family. ) This person, if he was hungry, should come and knock on my door and ask for an ear of corn. Even if I say no, and he is starving to death, are you saying that my “NO” answer then is an act of violence and not free choice? And, by my answer, does that then justify this man, to feed himself, the “right” to commit violence against me to eat and steal my corn?

              So, we, as a country, haav borders. Every country in the world has borders. It will NEVER be a border less world…Never. If I do not want you walking into my country and I have rules….does that constitute violence in your viewpoint? I think that it does because you are saying that it is violence on our part to use whatever means we have to “protect” our property…government to protect its lands, or you, to protect your front porch?

              This is how I see your approach.

            • Furthering D13s thoughts: no country should have borders? If you can’t go anywhere without having any rules except “no violence” then the whole world should just be a land mass with no rules. Why even have countries then?

              • That is exactly his position as I understand it and it would be cool….no borders…open commerce, free trade…take care of your own…great concept…but simply a concept and no basis in reality at all.

                Unfortunately, the world is real. BF’s world would be great if EVERYONE subscribed…but with our different customs and beliefs….we are not a one world and never will be. That is the sad part.

                • D13,

                  The problem is that “your world” does require everyone to be the same – and that is why it fails so badly.

                  One group of people say that “those people over there aren’t allowed to take that (blank)” – and those over there say they can.

                  It is your system that creates the conflicts – and FAILS TO RESOLVE THEM.

                  “My world” easily can exist – as soon as people start demanding their governments obey the same law as the person.

                  You’re no different a man 500 years ago who would have been aghast at someone claiming an individual could pray to God without a Pope.

                  Like the men 500 years ago who simply started putting their palms together and prayed, achieving freedom and peace -without the violence of government- will happen the same way; you just do it.

    • Actually, BF, it is still quite simple to cross the border takes from one to three hours, depending on traffic and clearing Mexican customs. you may or may not get red lighted. Coming back to the United States is just as simple. Simply drive across the bridge, declare US citizen and you may or may not get checked. The border is wide open. It does not require a passport or drivers license….nothing. even Mexicans driving their own vehicle with Mexican plates are not even checked for insurance or drivers license. You are just asked why you are coming to the United States. We do it all the time when we travel to San Miguel Allende, where we have property. You are stopped at the 15km check point going into Mexico and they check your car papers and permit that is required.

      However, with you, it is always the problem of the United States, you are predictable that way but you have not said how you would handle the border and the deaths and the killings and the drugs and the kidnappings, etc. How would you do it? Law enforcement is certainly not the answer or has not been….so how would you do it? Or perhaps you would not.

  15. I liked your article D13, and it raises a lot of good points. I do think that our laws are bad. Most of the bad part is the prohibition, the lack of enforcement on legal status for things in this country other than employment, and, most importantly, the “gifts” of our social safety nets. The other part is the restriction on how many immigrants can come from a certain place, and the process and expense to do so. We need to make it easier, less bureaucratic, and less biased to have a healthy immigration policy. If people want to come here and work for cheaper or work harder, then so be it.

    I will say this, the idea of a wall scares me. It is expensive, and I don’t want to live in a walled country. The guns in the towers are far too easy to turn the other direction. I think better enforcement while here, and less non-work related motivation to come here. As for the work related stuff, I don’t know where I stand on that. I am not sure I want to tell a company who they can hire, I certainly don’t like the idea of minimum wages, etc. If that means we have people here, I don’t have so much an issue with that. They cannot drive, etc., however, without work visas at a minimum, which should not be hard to get. The whole point is to allow some sort of background check and so forth, but not have a motivation for border crossing for nefarious means or in a way that drains our society. As for crimes committed, if you are here, you live by our rules, we have jurisdiction. Period.

    • Jon…I, for one, am against any type of hard wall except to channel immigrants to a specific point in congested areas. But the Texas border cannot erect a physical wall.

      • I noticed it was not on your list of solutions. 🙂

        Congress approved building one tho, and granted all sorts of powers to the people in charge. Only government incompetence has prevented its construction. I fear that it will still be done by brute force if the right people get in power. The political use of the border can be a sword that cuts on all sides.

        • Yes sir….I have seen the fences first hand. The only place they work is in congested population areas….and that just channels people. It is not a solution at all.

          Politically….hoo boy….on both sides of the spectrum…repubs and dems alike. It sucks….in the meantime….our citizens die. Mexican citizens die. That is the reality.

  16. First, we as Americans have to make it where it is not worth coming to America.


    If the product has no value, no one will buy it. No buyers, no middlemen.

    We can do this by legally requiring proof of citizenship or legal residency for jobs, education and benefits.

    Impossible. The economic impact would dwarf the banking problem.

    You are forcing citizens to become suspicious of their neighbors, every citizen required to violate the right to be free of search and seizure.

    In a way, providing jobs to illegal immigrants is treasonous.

    Unemployment would skyrocket as you would make providing jobs treasonous. No one would dare offer anyone a job.

    You would wreck society.

    Second, America needs a comprehensive guest worker program. This program would be funded primarily by Mexicans wishing to work in America and by American companies who can prove they need foreign workers because American workers are not available. In such a program, Mexicans (or American companies) would pay a processing fee to the federal government, instead of a smuggling fee to the Coyotes (human smugglers).

    More red tape – increase unemployment.

    Why would a guy, whose job is low pay, put up with the red tape and government snooping to fill it?

    The only jobs worth the effort – the valuable ones – are already oversupplied by Americans.

    Third, America needs to physically secure its borders. We must get the Southwest region of the United States under control. Either we need a beefed-up Border Patrol, or we need the military to patrol the border in sufficient numbers, or both.

    Escalation. There will be war.

    And fourth, eliminate the automatic United States Citizenry to children of undocumented and illegal immigrants

    They are here already, they ain’t going back, and there is no way to force them.

    Sorry, this plan will increase unemployment and violence.

    However, making the US less attractive to foreign squatters is a good strategy. Just better tactics are needed.

    • BF says: “Impossible. The economic impact would dwarf the banking problem.

      You are forcing citizens to become suspicious of their neighbors, every citizen required to violate the right to be free of search and seizure.

      D13 responds: I disagree with the economic impact statement. Could you enlighten me on this approach, please.

      What would be wrong with a certified copy of a birth certificate to be added to an employment packet where you already provide social security #’s, addresses, next of kin and alternate addresses be a violation of the right to be free of search an seizure and cause neighbors to turn on neighbors? And then make it an employer responsibility to check out the packet, as they do already?

      BF says: “More red tape – increase unemployment.”

      D13 asks: How would it increase unemployment if they are not hired before hand? Or do you mean, so many jobs would remain unfilled?

      BF says: “Escalation. There will be war.”

      D13 asks: With whom? The druggies and the kidnappers? We are already at war. You cannot mean Mexico as a country. It has no standing Army that is worth a damn. I know…I deal with them and know their Army intimately…in the knowledge sense of course.

      BF surmises: “They are here already, they ain’t going back, and there is no way to force them. Sorry, this plan will increase unemployment and violence.”

      D13 agrees in part: Yes, they are here already and we have to deal with that problem. That part can be done. BUT….we can start now with the other…today. Not offering citizenship to those born here will not create violence in the streets at all. And, what gives any non citizen any right to create violence on our territory with a law change that we make? None.

      BF says: “However, making the US less attractive to foreign squatters is a good strategy. Just better tactics are needed.”

      D13 concurs: Yessir….we clean up our backyard at the same time.

      • I disagree with the economic impact statement. Could you enlighten me on this approach, please.

        What would be wrong with a certified copy of a birth certificate

        Do you know what I valid B/C looks like? I’ve seen B/C from dozens of countries and dozens of places in the same country all looking different.

        How could I tell one is fake?

        Then what you’ve done is put the burden of this one the employer – so that if he accepts a fake, which he has no reasonable way of discerning, you made it his fault and an act of treason.

        He will not bother. There will be no job, no company, no employment, no economy.

        D13 asks: How would it increase unemployment if they are not hired before hand? Or do you mean, so many jobs would remain unfilled?

        The job will not be offered.

        D13 asks: With whom? The druggies and the kidnappers? We are already at war. You cannot mean Mexico as a country. It has no standing Army that is worth a damn. I know…I deal with them and know their Army intimately…in the knowledge sense of course.

        You must already realize that the lack of an army does not prevent war.

        If the US begins killing Mexican citizens, Mexico will respond within their capability.

        And, what gives any non citizen any right to create violence on our territory with a law change that we make? None.

        You go right ahead and wave the piece of paper in front of their hungry faces and see if that stops them from ripping you to shreds.

        That joke of the Government officer with a badge, saying with this badge I can go anywhere – then being chased by a bull, with the farmer yelling “SHOW HIM YOUR BADGE!” – comes to mind.

        • USWeapon says:


          I disagree that if you make it a portion of the hiring process that the employers simply won’t offer the jobs any longer. It doesn’t have to be a birth certificate. It could be a legal identification card. It could be whatever we want it to be. The point is that we could use some form of identification that showed employers that this person is legally employable in the United States. As it stands, the I-9 form requires some of this, such as a passport, government issued ID, Social Security Card.

          Additionally you seem to feel that it is too much of a burden on the employer and they simply will do without the workers. Patently false. I can give the example of my company. Every potential employee has a background check done on them. We pay $65 per background check. In that check, we do a criminal search, previous employment references, and a full credit check. The process takes about a week or two. So the company pays $65 and fills out a bunch of paperwork, and pays another company to conduct the check. See, the market produced a solution! A company that does the job for us for a fee. It is done every day in this country. Saying that it couldn’t be done for all employers is simply untrue. As you say, the market provides solutions.


  17. Ray Hawkins says:

    D13 – greetings – been a while for me here.

    Really enjoyed your article. I am a former resident of Sierra Vista – was 30+ yrs ago so times have certainly changed.

    Is a complex problem and little easy solutions. The solution I have always thought is not in a bigger wall or more troops and guns. They will always find a way in.



    • Yo Ray…..Not in favor of a physical wall at all…..we have enough of them and they do not work.

      More troops and guns is simply a deterrent. I do not specifically like that either but there is no other approach right now given the fact that our citizens are being burned out, killed, and taken over on the border. Part two of my article will outline what is happening in the real world of the border.

      Yes, they will always find a way in….the criminal element…. I think that most of the hard working immigrants that simply want a better life will actually apply for the work programs….provided we make it easier for them to do so and get employment sponsors…paid for by employers and immigrants…and not tax dollars. It can be done.

      How are you sir? Missed you.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        D13 – I’ve been buried with work, school and family – the young one is so close to walking so I spend as much free time as I can with him.

        I do look forward to part two. You ought to write a book – its experiences such as yours that I always find intriguing, educational and tangible in that you’ve walked in your own shoes.

        Just be safe sir – I know those are some crazy f&#kers down there.

  18. Email I received in 07

    Denver Traffic Court

    I am hoping you have the opportunity to read this email regarding the utter
    frustration we as English-speaking Americans experience on a daily basis.
    Hopefully, this will go beyond just an e-mail.

    This is an experience that happened to my wife today.

    Denver County Traffic Court , Denver , Colorado

    She had to appear in traffic court as a result of a speeding ticket. She
    was speeding and knew she would have a fine to pay. We have no problem with
    that. The rest of the court experience, however, is something we should all
    stand up and take exception to and ask what is happening to the United
    States ?

    She was asked to be in court by 4:30PM today, with which she complied.
    However, when she got there, it was announced that all non-English speaking
    persons with traffic violations would be taken care of first. The reasoning
    being that the interpreter leaves every day at the same time and does not
    stay late. So a reward for not speaking English is one gets to go the front
    of the line.

    Next, the non-English speaking individuals do not have driver’s licenses
    or insurance. Never was it asked why they did not have licenses, what they
    were doing to get licenses or insurance. What they were given for driving
    without a license was a $35 fine. Since many of them did not have $35 they
    were also given payment terms. So, they are granted another reward for not
    having the money to pay the fines.

    My wife, who was born in Denver, Colorado, raised here, and lived here all
    her life, was given a $249 fine for her speeding ticket, was not given
    payment terms, and had to wait until all the non-English speaking aliens
    were treated first.

    If I understand this correctly:
    * Let’s never require the non-English speaking individuals who live in
    this country to learn English.
    * Let’s never require they become citizens of this United States of
    America .
    * Let’s never require them to ever get driver’s licenses and pray they
    never kill someone on the road with their driving.
    * Let’s never require they get automobile insurance, so that all of us who
    do will pay higher and higher premiums.
    * Let’s make sure that those of us who do get injured by these individuals
    pay higher and higher health insurance premiums
    * Let’s make sure those who can pay their fines, pay big ones to subsidize
    all those $35 fines on payment plans.
    * Let’s make sure we never inconvenience them and let’s never
    inconvenience the interpreters in this country who may have to work late.

    Our Country is eroding every day right before our eyes.
    No country in the world has ever survived having 2 major languages. We are
    heading down that path.

    John DiNardo
    14476 East Caley Ave.
    Aurora, Colorado 80016

    • Legislators from Mexican State Angry at Influx of…Mexicans

      Posted by Kim Priestap

      Published: Jan 20, 08 01:39 PM

      Can you believe the nerve of these people? Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona ‘s new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico . It seems many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked:

      A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona ‘s new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora – Arizona’s southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns – cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money. The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don’t have valid legal documents to work in the United States . Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

      They’re pissed off because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a huge burden on their state government. This lady has some serious balls: They want to tell them how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border ‘How can they pass a law like this?’ asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano- Gamez, who represents Nogales. ‘There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,’ she said in Spanish.

      ‘Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems’ it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said. ‘We are one family, socially and economically,’ she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona .

      Wrong. The United States is a sovereign nation and its states and its citizens are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico ‘s citizens. It’s time for the Mexican government to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and start taking care of its own citizens.

  19. So, D13 did an honorable job explaining the issue, and bravely offered his solutions – of which all them I shot down.

    But he is on the right track. The country needs to remove the motives of the criminal element.

    So here is my opinion, within the context of US and its governments.

    (1) Revoke any law that makes working illegal.

    We want economically viable people. They create an economy with their effort. More the better. It doesn’t matter where they come from, if they want to work.

    (2) Stringent laws that say welfare can only be offered to citizens and landed immigrants. All others will be denied – no, ifs, ands or buts.

    • BF

      You completely ignored the REAL issue presented by the Colonel.

      His ideas you most certainly did attack but shoot down is reaching.

      The issue is the massive build up of criminal activity related to drugs and human trafficking, not getting workers across the border.

      Your proposals fit the “immigration” issue but have no effect on the “criminal” element that has been building at the border and within our country.

      Is the solution as simple as legalizing all drugs? I somehow don’t think that will turn out to be the case. Criminals who run syndicates aren’t going to turn honest for far less money. They will simply expand into the next area, just as the mob did in this country.

      • JAC,

        (1) Eliminate one problem will reduce these problems.

        (2) Think about it. Why is there a criminal element in an area which is nothing more than a line on a map, and not criminal elements in other places where there is lines on a map?

        It has nothing to do with Mexico.

        It has to do with the line on the map.

        Is the solution as simple as legalizing all drugs?

        It would be a great start, middle game and finish.

        There is money – big money – in contraband. Don’t make it contraband, and its not big money any more. Literally over night – as happened in Prohibition Era.

        As far as the mob, you’re right – which is why there is no purpose in making immorals illegal.

        So, if you don’t like the mob, stop making immoral behavior illegal.

        • BF

          Did you forget that the mob was very involved in immoral but very legal behavior in Nevada?

          You know, back when there was very little “regulation” of the gaming and prostitution industries.

          If it were not for those lines on a map, all the crap on the Mexican side would be deep within the USA. Reducing barriers to immigration will do nothing to reduce the current criminal activity on the border.

          Remember, the immigration issue has been pretty much the same for decades. A lot of talk with no action to really stop. So that little line did not affect that issue any differently in the past three to five years.

          It is the drug cartels and criminal gang groups that has changed in that time.

          • The War on Drugs creates consequences.

            These are them.

            If you don’t like Mafia massacres, allow the beer.

            They did, and it worked.

            Bet you know what I think the answer is now.

        • USWeapon says:


          You said:

          (2) Think about it. Why is there a criminal element in an area which is nothing more than a line on a map, and not criminal elements in other places where there is lines on a map?

          It has nothing to do with Mexico.

          It has to do with the line on the map.

          This might be one of the more bizarre statements I have heard from you. Equate this to you on a personal level. You have your land. There are people who would like to come in and live on your land on a space where you want to plant corn. So you put up a fence, to keep the people from moving into your field and trampling your corn. Now they are all huddled up along your fence, wanting to come into your field.

          And your answer is….. take down the fence. They won’t huddle at the fence if it isn’t there. You are correct. They will simply trample your corn.

          It is a border of a sovereign nation. What baffles the mind is the contradiction you pose when you look at the imaginary line on the map for any other country. Iran’s imaginary line is valid. How dare we operate our troops surrounding a country, without even crossing their imaginary line I might add. Yet when it comes to the US imaginary line, it is no longer valid. It should be eliminated and the people should come and go as they please.

          I have to tell you, D13 hit it right on the head when he said the appearance is certainly that you are simply going to always come down on the side opposing the US. I have yet to see a US action that you don’t find wrong. Yet those who oppose the US, you have the uncanny ability to morally justify any action they take. Think about what you are saying here. You even found a way to state that something as despicable as human trafficking was caused by the US enforcing its own borders. Do you know how bizarre that sounds?


          • Murphy's Law says:


            Boy did you hit it on the head here… is interesting that there has been no mention of Iran’s border being invalid, just the US.

            Not to mention that D13’s article is the best I have ever read on this issue. He always packs more information into his posts than most people, and from a firsthand perspective at that, so it is not surprising that the article does the same. Looking forward to part 2….

      • JAC, I take no offense at BF at all. He did not shoot down anything at all…he attacked and his attacks always assume that he is correct. He offered no solutions other than philosophical….but that is what I expect from him. But sometimes he has pretty good points and I am interested in his opinions but his assumptions are just that….assumptions.

        There will be no war with Mexico if we concreted the border tomorrow and cut off all trade. We are not Greece and we will not end up in the streets like Greece. But, I like to hear his opinions and his conclusions.

        Part two will be first hand observations of the killing of cattle, the burning of homes, the assassinations, etc…all of which would still take place if all drugs were legalized and we said…come on in. Those are my assumptions, but I will be able to offer concrete evaluations and examples of same utilizing facts and not conjecture.

        The proof is already there. Mexico has far more restrictive rules as we do….FAR more but the problem is still extending North where there is little or no enforcement. But, read part two and then decide.

  20. Bitter Laugh

    • USWeapon says:

      Anything that makes the US look bad, you seem to latch onto. It ends up hurting your credibility in the end. Just a thought.

      • USW

        I often think the same, when not thinking hard. Then I remember that it is the US we are talking about with respect to having or at least restoring the moral high ground.

        And the fact remains that the USA has been involved in a lot of bad stuff over the past 150 years. I think we underestimate at times the negative long term effects of our actions that now show up in the behavior of others.

        The old saying that sometimes “we are harder on ourselves” comes to mind.

        Hope all is well and your weekend filled with fun.

        • USWeapon says:


          Oh I am thinking hard. But the reality is that when anything having to do with the US is brought up, BF is very quick to point out where we are wrong. In fact, I struggle to recall a single time where he agreed with or supported a single action that the US government has ever taken. Recall the discussion about the military last year when I gave several examples of some of the good things the military has done, and he refused to acknowledge any of the good, going as far as to say that the military has never done anything good. I have watched for a couple of months now, and looked to see if I saw it, and I did. He will take the side of any other country versus the US. He will fight to justify an action that another country does while lambasting the US for a similar action. In fact, he justifies suicide bombers as just doing what they need to do, but has yet to ever see any justification for an action of the US government. I am not asking for him to like the US government, I just wish he had the ability to look at them as objectively and with as much benefit of the doubt as he does for everyone else. I merely suggest that he hurts his credibility because of this bias against the US.

          I readily acknowledge that the US has done an incredible amount of bad things over the last 150 years. And I denounce those things. But I am also able to see the incredible amount of good that the US has done as well.

          Working today. Going in at 1:00 until 10:00. Wishing I was just enjoying the holiday weekend with the Mrs. and the puppy. At least tomorrow is a day off.

          • USWep

            BF is very quick to point out where we are wrong. In fact, I struggle to recall a single time where he agreed with or supported a single action that the US government has ever taken.

            Pretty much.

            Out of the gate – one of the first actions of the brand new US government was …. to gun down its own people – because of taxation.

            Shays Rebellion

            Shays’s Rebellion was an armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts (mainly Springfield) from 1786 to 1787. The rebellion is named after Daniel Shays, a veteran of the American Revolution

            Most of Shays’s compatriots were poor farmers angered by crushing debt and taxes.

            Seeking debt relief through the issuance of paper currency and lower taxes, they attempted to prevent the courts from seizing property from indebted farmers by forcing the closure of courts in western Massachusetts.

            When Shays and his forces neared the armory, they found Shepard’s militia waiting for them. Shepard ordered a warning shot; the two cannon present were fired directly into Shays’s men. Four of the Shaysites were killed, twenty wounded. There was no musket fire from either side. Crying “Murder!”, for they never thought that their neighbors and fellow veterans would fire at them

            And it just gets worse from there.

            So, yeah – all government is evil and if you see a “good” come of it, it is by accident or worse, temporary – worse because it makes you believe the action was actually good “while it lasted” when it was really “evil yet to manifest.”

            Recall the discussion about the military last year when I gave several examples of some of the good things the military has done, and he refused to acknowledge any of the good, going as far as to say that the military has never done anything good.

            That’s not completely true.

            I resisted your attempt to rationalize the existence of a standing army because of its use in civilian rescue operations.

            They are not needed to do such operations – simply because they are “standing around doing nothing better” does not make it the REASON they must exist or should be supported as an institution.

            I have watched for a couple of months now, and looked to see if I saw it, and I did. He will take the side of any other country versus the US. He will fight to justify an action that another country does while lambasting the US for a similar action. In fact, he justifies suicide bombers as just doing what they need to do, but has yet to ever see any justification for an action of the US government.

            If we were Swiss, my attitude would be different, because -as Swiss- we would NOT be the hegemonic power.

            Every action of any nation (except perhaps Russia and China, though that could be debated) is a REACTION to the hegemonic power ACTION.

            Every action the US does (or does not) ripples like a tidal wave through the geopolitical landscape.

            Therefore, the most critical eye must be placed – always – on the hegemonic action for its consequences are huge.

            The Congolese killed 400 people in a village. This is terrible. But what does it effect me? Zero.

            The US kills 400 innocent people in Iraq. This is terrible. But what does it effect me? Massive.

            “Great power, great responsibility ” thing – so when the action is irresponsible it must be aggressively and decisively impugned.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Interesting that the Shay’s Rebellion was just before the Constitution was written. I wonder how much effect it had on the final product.


                It was one of the reasons the convention was called. For the record, it was the state and local militias that suppressed the rebellion. The roots of the rebellion were the state and national debts owed to other countries and the resultant high taxes and inflated script to pay them off. Sound familiar?

                It is interesting that after the formation of the new government under the Constitution, that Sec. of Treasury Hamiltion lowered to taxes, promised to pay off all the debt and did so. His reason for lower taxes was to increase the velocity of money as described in Adam Smith’s book. Sound familiar?

            • BF,
              I can understand your resistance to all things US government, not just because of its laundry list of bad stuff, but because of your personal anti-government philosophy. To be consistent, you would have to be anti-US government. I do not necessarily agree that all government action is evil or unnecessary, but I do understand that based upon your ideal and the view of the world that said ideal gives you, I see why you resist government action.

              I do not, however understand nor find consistent your comparative “pass” for other governments. If you were Swiss, you would need to be just as anti-Swiss as you are anti-US or else your philosophy is not consistent and your credibility is shot. I also find it both preposterous and arrogant that you would say that other government actions are simply a reaction to our governments actions. Thats just silly. There are vast examples of other countries’ governments doing evil things on their own without pressure or influence from us or China or Russia. There are many examples of cases where the government action taken by those nations was reprehensible even if it was a “reaction”. It is still the fault of the people in power. Maybe their ripples in the pond are smaller, but they are still disturbing the tranquility of your utopia, why go lightly on them? Are you so Americanized that you fail to even clearly see the attrocities of other places and assume the grass is greener? I thought you better informed than that.

              Watch your consistency!

  21. PapaDawg says:

    I have been reading some of the comments, and to no surprise I think most of you miss what is really happening here.

    Immigration is NOT – I repeat NOT – the problem. Drug running IS!

    Until all of you look at and understand the real problem, all you are doing is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by discussing the philosophical issues of the wrong idea.

    With all due respect to those who have much more book learning than I have, but the longer you swallow all this garbage about open borders the more we will lose. It is my humble and not so popular opinion that any country that has open borders will lose its sovereignty in a very short time.

    We are now at that threshold in more ways than one. It is long past the time for discussion. It is now the time for action, so get off your lazy butts and get to D.C. and get the changes made that are long overdue.

    We can start with getting back to the Constitutional Republic that we were originally intended to be.

    • PapaDawg

      OK you have convinced me. I am going to D.C. to lobby for the legalization of all drugs, gambling and prostitution.

      Also increased funding for State Dept to handle the influx of Work Visa requests that will be forthcoming.

      By the way, you do realize that our borders were OPEN for a hundred years after that Constitution was signed don’t you.

      And how are we to make needed changes when a) we don’t know what changes are needed and b) we are in a minority?

      • PapaDawg says:

        Okay JAC, just get out your white flag and surrender to Mexico, Iran, and Cuba . . .

        • Papa,

          Surrender …. what?

          • PapaDawg says:

            You needed to wait until I got back on the Internet, BF, I got cut off in mid sentence.

            I think these cable guys just might be anarchists . . . 😉

            • Yes, we are everywhere

              We have infiltrated every corner of your life and society – a society so corrupt it completely ignored us.

              But now we sit, in command, of your telecommunications and your banking systems.

              Yours was a test – and a warning.

              The League of Shadows is watching….for exactly the right moment to topple another Empire, as we did to the Greeks, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Czars and the Kings…

              …and now its your turn!


      • PapaDawg says:

        Here is another thought for you, JAC . . .

        Just because our borders were open in the past is no reason for them to be open now. from 1791 to approximately 1900 this country was expanding and to have open borders catered to those expansionist plans of this country. Now we need to protect and preserve what we have, therefore having secured borders would be to our advantage.

        Surrendering our national identity is just not conscionable. Not in the past, nor is it now. Leaving our borders open to infiltration by drug running and other criminal activities just doesn’t make any sense. And extending the so-called “workers program” only invites illegal activities. Oh, and don’t tell me that foreign nationals are willing to do the jobs that Americans refuse to do because that is nothing but bulldookey to the max.

        Finally, maybe YOU want to legalize all those drugs. If you do, then move to California. I hear that they would welcome that sort of thing with open arms up in Berkeley so you would be among many friends there.

        Sorry about all the delays in answering, cable internet is just for the birds . . . I’ll be back home in a week or so, then all I’ll have to worry about is the Honeydo’s.

        • We did not surrender our national identity when we had our borders open before. We also did not need to worry about “losing” what we have. We only need worry about that now because we are not the land of the free, and we cannot support the population increase in our current system because we are not free. We no longer have a free market, we no longer live and let live, we no longer allow risk. We no longer leave the fates of people up to the people, with only their friends and neighbors to depend on. If we were still that country, it would not matter our population. We are still very low on population density, its not as though we cannot grow. We just cant afford the influx because of our system. We don’t need to close the borders, we need to fix our country so that it remains solid and strong and full of opportunity, and so that it is sovereign based on the actions and will of the people, not on some government edict and military action. Americans used to love this country. Now there are many who don’t because there is much to hate, and many who don’t because they take for granted the much that remains to love. We don’t need to fix this with more restrictions than we used to have, the world has changed, but not philosophically. People are still people, and people still need to be free. This border issue will be fixed best with more freedom.

          • PapaDawg says:

            Jon, I will try to explain this although I do not believe that you will comprehend or even understand it.

            The time you speak of was not as great as you might think. We were expanding westward and as we expanded we declared vast areas as “Territories” of the United States and the territories were later divided into states. My state, Arizona, was not admitted to the Union until 1909, and in a few years its borders were altered to accommodate the political landscape of the era.

            It really wasn’t until the late 1870’s that we even had a controllable national currency that was recognizable as our own.

            From about 1910 on there have been those who have worked all their lives to destroy any national identity that this country might be acquiring.

            We do not even now have a national language, and there have been recent lawsuits challenging the pledge of allegiance and protection our national ensign.

            Not securing our borders will only ensure that we never accept or retain any semblance of a national identity. If we continue on the present course, we will never regain any semblance of freedom or liberty.

            Nuff said.

            • I understand what you are saying. That does not mean I agree. You are not the only one who has studied history and knows what was going on at various periods of our history.

              1) Neither of us were around in 1910, so I am sure we could both have the wrong impression of how great or bad it was. Depending on your environment and resources, you might have completely different ideas of how things were 10 years ago than I do as well. So the argument that the time “was not as great as you might think” is a bit irrelevant.

              2) We needed a national currency, but not the way we got it. There were many things about our currency and national identity that were better before we went with a private bank, the Federal Reserve, to control our currency and began getting corrupted by progressives and even had our “national identity” created by a means that violated our constitution (remember the civil war? Honest Abe wasn’t exactly honest about everything he did). There are aspects of our national identity that make it very hard to comply with the constitution because the power of the states has been reduced and the federal government has continually consolidated power. This is the key of many of our issues.

              3) When the borders were open and we had huge numbers of immigrants, they were not all headed west. Most of them got off the boat and stayed on the east coast until there was infrastructure in the west and demand for work. The open border was not just the part that was expanding, and it was not just to fill the new empty spaces to the west. The open border was on the East Coast. Furthermore, we did not lose land at that time. We gained land. Our existing borders expanded but never shrank. We did not, more importantly, lose sections of America to the immigrating populations, even when they flocked together to certain areas and had numbers who did not speak English.

              4) I agree that there have been people working to destroy this country for decades, some starting before the 1910 date you give. That does not mean that the fix is to lock the border. We do still have an official national currency. The problem is that we have government enforcement of PC policies pushing for all government offices and businesses to support multiple languages, etc. That is a problem with who is running the country and the bs propaganda that has permeated our culture and changed us from a melting pot to a cobb salad.

              5) I love this country, but nationalism has been used as a manipulation tool far too much throughout history, including our own, for me to be very trusting of it or of people who are too nationalistic. Nationalism is a lot like religion, everyone has a different take on what “America” means, but to support anything America does simply because its our boys is a dangerous road to go down. Manipulation of the pledge has been going on for some time. The “under God” part that people are pissed about is a comparatively recent development if you recall. I am not going to take changes like that as an attack on the country when adding it might have been an attack as well.

              6) I don’t have a huge problem with border security, it would be better for our troops to be doing that than to be overseas securing other countries borders. I just don’t think it is the final answer to the problems, nor do I think it is even remotely the answer to saving our national identity. The attacks on freedom are far more a danger to America than an influx of illegals. As far as I can see, the border, while it has its set of problems, is a distraction from the real cancer in this country. Additionally, most of the problems we are seeing, are caused by our current laws and leadership, by the corrupted socialist/fascist state we now have. Was everything great when we were more free? No. But it was better based on the performance of this country. Our cohesiveness as a nation, our productivity, our economic growth, our accomplishments, etc. are all indicators that we were doing things right. All those same signs point to the fact that we are not doing well now, and it is not because our borders are open, in fact they are more closed. The problem is that we have bad leaders and lazy people with no appreciation for the nation they live in, even those who say they love it often don’t really get it, understand it, or comprehend it.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone

    I want to take this time, to wish each and every one of you a very Happy Easter weekend. Hope you all will have good fun, good food and relaxation.

    Take Care


    • PapaDawg says:

      MamaDawgs Pizza . . . Made from scratch!

      And a River Rat Mug full of Coca-Cola Classic!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Papa

        I make my pizza from scratch as well, and that includes the crust. Got a special recipe I use, but add mu own little touch to it.

  23. Here is a little something fun to read for everyone. The Gov of Montana is slippery devil but may have overstepped this time.

    Wondering how our representatives on the left here at SUFA feel about such behavior. I know many think this is just fine. Somehow rationalized as forcing them to admit they got money they didn’t want.

    What I love is the dose of reality that these funds are viewed as some kind of personal fund by the Dem leadership. To be handed out only to those who do as they are told.

  24. Buck the Wala and others

    An editorial from Professor Natleson explaining why it is the duty of a STATE Att. Gen to challenge the health care bill.

    Note the brief summary of the commerce clause and the supposed “general welfare” provision in the taxation clause.

    • Thanks for this article JAC. Our (Rep) AG, wants to join AG’s in challenge to health care bill. Apparently needs OK, approval, or authorization of some sort from either Gov. or a State Rep. body to do this (not sure of exactly what this entails). So far, Gov and no state body will authorize even though AG has been getting “lot” of requests from citizens.

      No doubt Washington is putting (major) heat on states to refuse to participate in any challenges; once again even at the risk of going against their citizens’ desires. I’ve seen PA Gov and AG are in quite the battle of words over this as well.

      • As is Jennifer Granholm and our AG Mike Cox. Cox has led us to believe that he can’t sue for the state without the governor’s blessing. But he can represent the people of the state. Granholm isn’t buying it but sounds like Cox is going forward with his plan.

  25. I wonder what the Medicaid and Medicare charts look like. Oh and of course the new Health Care bill should be included, over the same time frame.

    Wonder why they stopped at 2020? We need to see the long term picture for the younguns here at SUFA.

  26. Happy Easter everyone!

    May you find all the hidden eggs tomorrow and not a week from tomorrow; may your chocolate bunnies not be hollow; and don’t get carried away with the Peeps!

  27. A different view on what contributes to deficit spending in Congress.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    Journals of Texas Students Reveal Horrors Across the Border

    By Joshua Rhett Miller


    Journals of elementary school students reveals the violence near a Texas border town.

    Students at this Texas school reveal horrors of drug violence in their journals.

    The journals of second-grade students in a tiny Texas border town reveal the very real horrors just across the Rio Grande River, a teacher told

    Duvy Torres, a teacher at Benito Martinez Elementary in Fort Hancock, Texas, said her students “constantly” recount tales of murder, fear and intimidation suffered by their relatives in El Porvenir, Mexico, a town of roughly 10,000 just across the border.

    One student recently recalled a murdered relative who was buried in a shallow grave, she said. Other journal entries vividly describe burned homes in El Porvenir and orders from the drug cartel operating in the area that residents leave the town by Sunday or face kidnapping or death.

    “They draw the pictures and they’re so graphic,” Torres told on Saturday. “These are 7-year-old kids talking like this. I’m at the point where the less I know, the better off I am.”

    Torres said three new students were enrolled in the school’s second grade just last week alone. Their relatives came into Fort Hancock seeking asylum and refuge from the ongoing drug cartel-related in the Mexican town.

    “They know their kids are safe here,” Torres said. “That’s why they’re kids are here. There is no more law in El Porvenir.”

    Despite the ongoing threats, Torres said the safest place for the school’s 190 students is the classroom.

    “There’s no doubt,” she said. “If there’s going to be violence [in Fort Hancock], it’s going to be at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning.”

    Still, Torres said contingency plans need to be established in case something does go horribly wrong, such as a kidnapping. She called for a color-coded alert system, much like the one utilized by the Department of Homeland Security.

    “There needs to be a plan in the scenario that something does go wrong,” she said. “There is no plan. Get something in place.”

    Fort Hancock Schools Superintendent Jose Franco said increased patrols have been instituted in the district’s three schools, including Benito Martinez Elementary. Security cameras have also been added.

    “Pretty much the whole perimeter is covered,” Franco told, adding that the increased surveillance will continue when schools return from Easter break on Tuesday. And he sees no end in sight.

    “Is this thing going to be over in a year? I don’t think so,” he said. “But our staff is on really, really high alert.”

    Reports of the worsening situation in Fort Hancock have reached neighboring school districts, including Fort Davis Independent School District. Officials there, Franco said, did not want one of its baseball teams traveling to Fort Hancock due to safety concerns.

    Instead of those life and death worries, Franco said students should be focused instead on adolescent matters like their prom, extracurricular activities and their coursework.

    “We’re trying to keep it business as usual,” he said. “But parents are concerned. Parents are calling to see what we’re doing to keep our community safe.”

    Franco called for additional federal aid to help offset the ever-growing costs of providing extra security at the town’s schools.

    “[The federal government] helped create it,” Franco said, referring to the pervasive fear throughout the community. “And we’re pumping all this money into Mexico to fight this war.”

    Torres, meanwhile, said she’s confident her students will be able to overcome the climate of fear.

    “Our kids are smart,” she said. “And they’re going to be successful – if they make it.”

  29. Butler!

  30. D13,

    An article that highlights what I said above =between your system of demand of similarity vs. a system of freedom.



    Conflict or Cooperation

    Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services.

    Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference — strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer.

    Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans.

    When’s the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans?

    It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another.

    It would be easy to create conflict among these people.

    Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena.

    In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed.

    Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena.

    Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it’s a zero-sum game.

    One person’s gain is of necessity another person’s loss.

    That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose.

    As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.

    Take the issue of prayers in school as an example. I think that everyone, except a maniacal tyrant, would agree that a parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school.

    Similarly, a parent has a right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer.

    Conflict arises because schools are government owned.

    That means it is a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not.

    A win for one parent means a loss for another parent.

    The losing parent, in order to get what he wants, would have to muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use.

    If education were only government financed, as opposed to being government financed and produced, say through education vouchers, the conflict would be reduced.

    Both parents could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice and instead of being enemies, they could be friends.

    Conflict in education is just one minor example of how government allocation can raise the potential for conflict.

    Others would include government-backed allocation of jobs and education slots by race and sex, plus the current large conflict over government allocation of health services.

    Interestingly enough, the very people in our society who protest the loudest against human conflict and violence are the very ones calling for increased government resource allocation. These people fail to recognize or even wonder why our nation, with people of every race, ethnic group and religious group, has managed to live together relatively harmoniously.

    In their countries of origin, the same ethnic, racial and religious groups have been trying to slaughter one another for centuries.

    A good part of the answer is that in the United States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there’s significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race, ethnicity, religion and region.

    As our nation forsakes our founders’ wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict.

    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

  31. Birdman says:

    Good article, Black Flag. I like Walter Williams.

  32. Buck the Wala and others

    Another good editorial by Proff. Natelson on use and abuse of the founders real view on govt.


    • Hi JAC. Happy Easter. I was just scrolling around and I think Kathy left me a note. Now I see you trolling. Hope its a beautiful Big Sky day for you. Sure is here.

      • Anita

        Thanks for the good wishes. It was a most beautiful Big Sky day. Morning sun reflecting orange from the snow capped peaks and then a day filled with sun, but still a little chilly.

        I assume you bolted for the lake place friday. Did you have fun?

        Happy Easter back at you my dear.


  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    Please watch this video and make sure you listen to the music.


    Pray for our nation

  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    Pray for our nation

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Don’t know why it isn’t working, went up with no problem on face book.

  35. Judy Sabatini says:
  36. Ok, despite my disagreement with BF on several things and my joining in criticism of his anti-US stance (or more specifically, his being tougher on the US than on other countries which are just as bad or worse), I have to get his back on one thing.

    After a lot more thought, I do not think I can support positive ID for employment being enforced. It requires something akin to a national ID card, something I and many here oppose vehemently, except when we are talking about illegal immigration. I have actually found the illegal immigration issue to be the source of a great many inconsistencies, the conservatives change stances on a variety of freedoms and issues to more efficiently enforce immigration law, liberals change stances in order to be more soft on illegal aliens. (Politicians just try to do whatever they think will get them elected and they flip-flop all the time, so I am not even including them in this criticism).

    I find the idea of citizenship verification before employment is a slippery slope to “Let me see your papers please comrade!”, which is not something I want to see here. It is not, as BF said, cost prohibitive, I do not think it would be an economic crippler or increase unemployment, I just think it is none of the governments business who works for you or who you work for. I think we need to make certain that we are not paying for non-citizens who are not working. If you are working, good for you, it is a free market transaction.

    As for the drug thing, I support legalization. I don’t care if “you dont want that to happen”. I am not supporting legalization because I want to get high. I support it because it is a matter of freedom. It is up to the individual to run their own life. If you disagree and think that the government should be running it for you, then maybe you are not a supporter of freedom. Drugs are a victimless crime. If they are leading to other issues, i.e. negligence of children, DUI, violent trips, etc. then those issues can be addressed under the laws against those action, regardless of the reason for the crimes committed, they are still crimes, and they will be crimes whether drugs are legal or not.

    I know that the cartels will not disappear overnight when drugs are legalized. The mob in NY did not disappear either. But they did get hurt badly. It was not Eliot Ness that brought don the mob, he took down one guy through questionable means only to have others pop up in his place. What killed the mob and reduced its power was the repeal of prohibition. It is very clear that the mob was created by prohibition, and it is clear that they lost much of their power when it was taken away. Most of what is left in organized crime still survives on vices. If we stop making vices illegal, then we fix the issue. Not overnight, but in a short time.

    • Jon

      Good one my friend.

      If we want to stand on the point of govt not needing to know who works for us then we need to also get rid of paycheck witholdings for income and FICA. That is the foot that allows the request for documentation.

      Now, if we do not use the employer as a point of control for illegal immigrants, where do we put the choke point?

      Is it the requirement to get across the border gate?

      • Well, the employer is not a total pass for illegal employment. One way to reduce the motivation to hire illegals is to drop the minimum wage requirement, thus making it so that employers will hire whoever is willing, no restrictions on the transaction. The other thing to do is to enforce disclosure on businesses, or at least, enforce truth in advertising. If you way American made, or that you employ citizens, in a world where people know you do that by your own choice, then you look good to a lot of people. If you claim it and it is false, then you are committing fraud. Thus, a great many employers would prefer to hire American, and will have their own requirements for proof of ID.

        Most importantly, the employers that hire illegals usually do so because they are avoiding government regulation and restriction on hiring and paying above the table. Essentially, government pressure on businesses is the catalyst for the high level of job opportunities for illegals. We move taxation to the individual, where the cost ultimately lies anyway, and businesses don’t give employment preference to under the table workers.

        The “choke point” is the motivation to come here. We remove the free rides, and we remove the reasons to seek out under the table employees, and we cut the motivation to cross the border. If there is still more opportunity to a foreigner to come here, then we should welcome them. We simplify naturalization, and we cut down on the motivation for those coming here to do so illegally. As has been said, the problem is not immigration, its illegal immigration, and the criminal element that comes with it. When you are already breaking a law, and you need to depend on persons experienced in illegal stuff, then you end up with a crime cesspool.

        That said, all that will not remove the criminal element, it just takes its power. There will still be illegal aliens committing crimes. For that we have police and border guards, etc. But they are not stretched thin by sweating the small stuff. We don’t need to waste resources on hundreds of thousands crossing the border illegally when we have a process for legal crossing and a reduced demand for people to cross. What is left is more manageable.

        • Jon

          I am with you so far but still question the income tax collection. Not focusing on the person but do we replace payroll deductions in your opinion.

          It is the payroll deduction that requires a Soc Sec number be given to the employer to tie to tax reporting. Your thoughts on how we collect the personal tax?

          Employers that hire illegals also hire them because they don’t want to know and it is not the wages that drives the decision. It is the lack of BS that comes with an immigrant worker compared to a US worker. Minimum wage elimination only touches this. But I think supply/demand may address the rest if everyone is on an equal playing field.

          • Sales tax. I am no fan of income tax, and I certainly don’t think it should be deducted automatically. In the ideal world, taxation would be based mostly on which services you were willing to pay for. That means that for some things sales tax would apply, universally paid items, such as court systems, police, and a few other key services that people benefit from whether they intend to or not.

            The rest could be payroll taxes, but they would be based on the voluntary decisions of the payee, not the actions of the employer.

            Either way, I agree that automatic forced payroll deductions would have to be removed to avoid the forced documentation.

            • I’ve seen proposals for taxes that are essentially income taxes, but borne completely by the individual. Wrapped up in those is that there is NO enforcement by the government, except that you will not receive ANY governement service if you don’t pay your taxes. Want to take a vacation out of the country? No valid passport unless your taxes are paid. Want to register a car? Not unless your taxes are paid. Want to sue somebody? Not until your taxes are paid, etc. I believe that MOST people are honest and would pay their taxes, because its the right thing to do, just like most people will register with selective services because its the right thing to do.


  1. […] Guest Commentary – Open Border With Mexico … articles where we entertain all the ways that we can deal with the problem, like we did with unemployment insurance…. Tags: guest commentary, unemployment insurance, open border, mexico, insurance Categories: Social Security Life Insurance Comments are closed. Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. Adds Michael A. Pietrangelo To RSS feed […]

  2. […] Manuals | Kotaku …» Re: Arizona, Mother Jones's MoJo Not Working So Well – Big …Guest Commentary – Open Border with Mexico « Stand Up For AmericaSkepticblog » How I Became a LibertarianIt's Time For Food! – 6. Honey Mustard Roasted […]

%d bloggers like this: