THINKING ABOUT THE MEXICAN INVASION A BIT MORE

Nealz Nuze ^ | 05/11/2006 | Neal Boortz

[VOA]

Eight out of ten Americans want the borders closed. Nothing is being done.
There has to be a reason.

I DON'T think this is happening.
But after the bru-ha-ha of the Border Patrol news report (correct or not)...
I couldn't help thinking that the RNC isn't worried about losing
donations for "their base".
They must be getting replacement donations from grateful "coyotes"
and southern-border drug smugglers.
Via their legal relatives in the USA.

[tertiary01]

Yeah, our elected officials see how easily manipulated the uneducated illegal alien population is and they salivate. The state of affairs in Mexico with the protected ruling elite class is the goal they have for the US.

[Vaduz]

BINGO

[P-40]

Oh, ok, thanks. sorry I misunderstood. :-)

No problem at all. :)

[kabar]

Generally, politicians don't want to tackle the hard issue of securing our borders with Mexico. They view the invasion of illegal aliens as the lessor of two evils, i.e., an adversarial relationship with Mexico and bottling up Mexican dissent and dissatisfaction within Mexico that could lead to a politically unstable situation south of the border in a country of over 100 million.

Others (Dems) see the influx of illegals as a current and future political asset and guarantee of permanent political power. If they can paint the GOP as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic, then the Dems will lock up the biggest and fastest growing minority in the country. Currrently, one out every three Dem voters is either black or hispanic.

Some (GOP) see the influx of illegals as a source of cheap labor that can be exploited and controlled and without any real leverage in terms of worker rights and benefits. It also dampens wages paid to American citizens at the lower end of the wage scale.

Finally, there are Dem and GOP politicians who represent states/districts that have a substantial hispanic population. They want to stay in office and the way to do that is to pander to the hispanic groups. It is interesting to note that some of the GOP reps who voted against the House bill included JD Hayworth, Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Heather Wilson, and Chris Smith.

When you have such a large coalition of Dems and Reps who don't do anything about illegal aliens except to make them legal, then they can ignore 80% of the American public.

[ctdonath2]

The question is: why are our leaders not doing anything about illegal immigration, Mexicans (to the tune of 10,000,000 here and 10,000 arriving daily) in particular?

May I suggest the answer is: on the whole, they don't know what the he11 to do about it. While money & votes & power play some role in the answer, fact is that ten million (maybe 30M) people are not easily located and deported without severe impact on society. Illegal immigrants believe they have a right to be here, have a need to be here (as the Mexican economy sucks rocks), and are now binding into a unified force he11-bent on staying. Removal won't be pretty, to say the least.

Witness the consequences of trying to eradicate enemies from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. - when the enemy is entrenched in an otherwise (and more-or-less) friendly population, eradication is extremely dangerous, tedious, exhausting, and destructive. The "Reconquista" crowd and their hangers-on is large, and largely indistinguishable from the general population. Actively arresting and seriously deporting illegal immigrants may very well result in active resistance amidst a sympathetic populace. This will escalate into a concerted, protracted, and violent hunting of the "he11 no we won't go" invaders. Active border sealing and deportations will polarize the political spectrum, galvanize those supporting the presence of illegal immigrants, go from "fighting for rights" to actual fighting, and start a hybrid civil and international war.

Our leaders don't take well to noncombatant casualties in overseas conflicts. They are far less willing to risk collateral damage and casualties on our own turf and among our own people. The recent Reconquista demonstrations ("A Day Without Immigrants" et al) make it clear that illegal immigrants are serious about staying here, and taking "here" by force if necessary (the "Aztlan" movement). Even if most illegal immigrants are just here to labor for a buck, threatening what they perceive as their own meager existance strikes a dangerous chord in the human psyche, and being human they will ultimately fight for access to the sources of providence they consider theirs. Threaten their source of income, paltry as it may be, and you threaten their existence and that of their families - that's a huge motivator for war. Tell ten million people that they are going to leave, by choice or by force, and a serious percentage is going to physically fight deportation.

War is about making life so unpleasant (or nonexistant) for your opponent that he will comply. The face-off is rapidly becoming: national soveriegnty & rule of law & rights of citizens, vs. making a living (mundane as it may be, it's better than untenable Mexico). The two sides are, from their own perspective, vital. If one is pushed too far, the other will fight back. The latter is pushing, and pushing hard; the former is trying desperately to avoid the unavoidable: war.

Our leaders do nothing because doing something will lead to American soldiers in American cities destroying American property and killing people of both nationalities (deliberately or not is irrelevant). Sealing the borders and deporting the invaders will, considering the huge numbers involved, result in lots of casualties and collateral damage. Law only exists because of cooperation to avoid violence; the invaders are not cooperating, so violence is the only route - and our leaders desperately want to avoid violence, lest they not be re-elected.

[hosepipe]

[ 1. His long and apparently positive experience with the large hispanic population in Texas is largely responsible for his inaction on this alien invasion. And why wouldn't HIS experience with them be positive as he traveled in the highest, best-educated circles among them, not the M13 bangers and pine-straw spreaders... ]

Interesting take on George Bush and the.. WHY?..

I am thru giving him the benefit of the doubt however..
Theres just too many things he does that benefits the democrats.. and plays by their playbook.. Sure he could be stupid like John Kennedy but I don't think so..

The insurgents from the border(by means not the only vector of illegals).. are and will be democrats.. THIS fact makes it hard to concieve of why a republican is for massive importation of democrats.. UNless you would be a RINO which is basically a democrat anyway.. and in most cases more than basically.. they ARE stealth democrats, like Sens.. Chaffe, Snow and Jeffords.. and by the way BOOOSH.... ALL OF THEM..

[Dick Bachert]

The post to which you just responded was the "SPECIFIC WHY" of Bush behavior.

Below please find what I believe to be an accurate statement of the "ABSTRACT WHY" of the matter.

---

The current alien invasion from the south serves BOTH the elites who run Mexico – and many of the OTHER states of Central and South America -- and the political ruling class who increasingly run the United States:

· It takes pressure off the 25 families who control approximately 80% of the wealth in Mexico. Without the northern “safety valve” (the United States) for their poor, those poor MIGHT be inclined to do what America’s early colonists found it necessary to do: Revolt! Parenthetically, that would be MY suggestion for them: Instead of fleeing here – and converting “here” to a larger, more poverty infested version of “there,” they ought to stay there and make “there” into their version of “here,” whatever that would be. Revolutions ARE messy and there are no guarantees that they will produce the desired result. But – according to one T. Jefferson – they are often necessary. Never forget that THIS country was born in revolution!

· For the NAFTA/CAFTA coveting US national ruling class – especially those who, in varying degrees, quest after some sort of One-World utopia run by guess who? – it provides yet another level of insecurity and tension among the indigenous populace which can be used to justify new and more draconian limits to freedom here. Instead of securing the borders, allow millions of illegals to come in and when the natives become alarmed, require a national ID card. “Your papers, please!” will soon become a phrase familiar to all. It’s Mr. Franklin’s trade of freedom for (false) security. It’s also the time-tested Hegelian Dialectic the One-Worlders have successfully worked like a rented mule.

While they occasionally squabble among themselves, the elites of history have ALL had one thing in common: They will do ANYTHING to remain in charge. And throughout that history, except for the 230 year-old experiment in freedom called “America,” most of the men who have walked the earth have lived as slaves to these elites whether they call themselves kings, emperors, potentates, sultans, czars – or presidents.

Get ready, folks. Unless some SERIOUS changes are made and the handful of Americans who CARE about liberty get involved, that history will almost certainly repeat here.

[hosepipe]

I read that anaylsis in other posts.. and agree that that it is/a factor(s).. My attention is on George Bush and Free Republic.. and RINOs and Bushbots.. there is a difference.. although the result of their actions blend.. Bushbots are dupes of Bush and RINOs are dupes of the democrat party..

There is an incestous relationship between RINOs, Bushbots and the democrat party.. Alter egos of the same globalist agenda..

Bush IS a Globalist AND a RINO(which are democrats)..
Republicans generally want to believe its simply democrats vs. republicans, liberal vs conservative.. Us vs Them.. When the Us and the Them has not been defined.. Its not so easy as liberal vs conservative.. It takes a radical like me to see that.. I think.. Because I don't want conservative change I want radical change in the Status Quo..

[Bonaparte]

"I would argue that it probably boils down to money."

I agree that's part of it. The question is whose money? The businesses who employ illegals and make campaign contributions? Or the Americans who have to pay illegals' way for health care, schooling and all the rest?

But I also believe Boortz oversimplifies. For example, there is the problem of electoral demographics. The GOP has no chance of capturing more than 15% of the black vote or 20% of the jewish vote (and campaign contributions). But they have a very good chance of winning a clear majority of the rapidly expanding hispanic vote. Understandably, the GOP is averse to doing anything that might alienate this group.

And I believe there are other considerations such as NAFTA, the stability of Mexico, southern hemisphere petroleum, etc.

[Constantine XIII]

Heck, we did win it. South Vietnam was saved. Where we went wrong is that there was no Vietnam II, even though we promised them we'd help.

THAT really made us look good to our smaller, weaker allies.

[Bonaparte]

"Revolt! Parenthetically, that would be MY suggestion for them."

The problem with these south-of-the-border "revolutions" is that they generally just exchange one form of tyranny for another. Mexicans, especially the lower class, know this. They have watched for generations as "revolutions" have resulted in nothing but business as usual. For them, Fox's election changed nothing -- and his political viability has depended on getting rid of these masses of poor people. That's why he gives rousing speeches (up here) to the "reconquista" crowd.

[Old_Mil]

An interesting theory. I don't know that it is possible to point to any single reason why nothing is getting done. Clearly, on the Democratic side of the fence, politicians are salivating at the prospect of another class of victims for whom they can serve as professional representatives. On the Republican side of the fence a percentage of politicians want to see lower wages regardless of the consequences to America or her people. I suspect that there are politicians on both sides who would be motivated by the theory you set forth.

Finally, who knows. Maybe when George Bush was talking up social security reform, this is what he had in mind.

[gondramB]

>>Eight out of ten Americans want the borders closed. Nothing is being done. There has to be a reason.<<

Yes but its tough politically - before the protests 70% of Americans viewed illegal immigrants positively and still 54% did after the protests

It also doesn't help to use extremist language and talk about it like an armed invasion. Its more akin to drug smuggling - the guns and violence are key but not the main point - the main point is economic.

We need border security, the Minutemen are doing a good job of non-violently raising awareness and we beat back the first amnesty efforts - what we need is continued rational work on this issue - not inflammatory and/or a violent approach.

[Dixie Yooper]

We tiptoed our way through that entire war. Everyone who had a button for a nuke had their finger on it. I can remember at least on time during Nixon's Term that all the b-52's were scrambled. I believe we were on DEFCON 2 when that happened.

[Dixie Yooper]

Have you ever noticed how nobody ever talks about what a great president Ford was?

[Constantine XIII]

O_O Yikes!

[zeugma]

You, I and many other see things similarly. it will get messier before it gets better. I expect things to get really "interesting" after the next major domestic terrorist attack.

[skeeter]

The keywords going up are funny.

Childish is a more accurate description. Whoever put them up isn't nearly as clever as they suppose they are.