You said it so yourself. Having a PhD in Statistics, I look at significant trends. The activity prior to 2002 was 'noise' compared to what is happening now. In this larger context, Colonel North is right.
As for me, I had lived in California for more than 25 years, have property there still, family and grown children and grandchildren there. I have been and am still in tune with events on the ground there. So your assumption that because I live in Washington State presently, that I don't know what is happening on the southern border, is completely out of whack. Furthermore, my fiance is from a political family in Mexico City, I have two siblings both Christian conservatives living in liberal Austin, TX, another sibling in San Diego County, a mother in Tucson, AZ, a sibling in South Carolina, yet another sibling and my father in Florida. I have yet another sibling who is a reporter for the WSJ. I have a daughter and grand children in California. My family goes back to before there was a USA and boasts a number of dignitaries, military generals, successful farmers, etc. So I think I am qualified to speak on the subject.
As for your assertion that the drug trade has been a major factor in Northern Mexico since the 1970s, you are wrong. No one is saying that there was no drug trade. or that the drug trade was small. It was indeed a 'factor' and there have always been northern region federales that are susceptible to bribes and corruption, that are willilng to look the other way as to drug trading. And since the 1070s the drug trade in northern Mexico certainly was at a level that most Americans do not see locally.
But the characteristics of the present trade have changed from the that of the 1970s with the relatively recent influence of the Cali and Medellin cartels.
Before the drug trade was run by individuals who were mostly Mexican and they kept it largely away and out of sight of the indigent poor that make up a large fraction of the illegal migrants of today.
In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s there were never reports of a mass slaughter of 72 illegal migrants transiting from Central America because they refused to participate in carrying the drugs across the border.
As for good relations with Mexico, yes we have had good relations often in our history. In the 1950s and 1960s especially there were legal migrant workers that worked for cash and returned to their farms and communities in Mexico and Central America where they returned with their earnings to live at a higher standard of living because their cost of living was so low. My own grandfather in Tucson had migrant workers every year work for him and then return south where they could buy their own land, farm and have a family. These people never desired to be US Citizens because life for them was better back home if they had dollars in their pockets. It wasn't until the entitlement burden here and the vote buying efforts by Pols here that Mexicans became sought after placeholders for political purposes.
But what the hell, for the benefit of the readers:
The activity prior to 2002 was 'noise' compared to what is happening now
Since youza big fud in Statistics you should be able to do better than that. You find me some credible data that would lead to the conclusion that it was just "noise" prior to say, 3 weeks ago when the Guatemalan massacre was publicized.
Know what? There is no credible data out of Mexico, because it's a Third World Narcocracy where there are no records, the "press" is comical (as in, "comic books"), the police = the criminals, and it's been that way for 500 years.
So there's no way to make much of conclusion...unless you have personal experience.
Like me, for instance. I recall being in firefights with illegals on ranches in Southeastern Arizona in the early 1970's. We had to be armed back then just to out riding morning stray cow hunting. More then once, we escorted - at gunpoint - groups of 10 or 15 off the property...and virtually all of them turned out to be Mexican criminals.
And since being from Tucson (born and raised, Grandpa was the Poleece Chief in the 1940's), my dear old daddy was also a prosecutor: so I got to hear all the wonderful stories back then about what was really happening EVERY DAY on the border. Make your hair stand up. You think there were ANY "politicians" in Sonora or Sinaloa who weren't on the take, or part of the Mafia's?
The Sheriff of Nogales. The state Gobernadors. The Federal Judicial Police ("Los Federales"). ALL OF THEM.
If you believe anything other than that, you're a Beaming Simpleton.
My family goes back to before there was a USA and boasts a number of dignitaries, military generals, successful farmers, etc. So I think I am qualified to speak on the subject
Groovy. So does mine, on both sides of my family. At last count, I'm SAR in 13 lines of descendancy. If you really knew Revolutionary history, you'd recognize my screen name.
Maybe it's California. I noticed that, moving here 25 years ago FROM Arizona, that the people here were weak, dissolute, deracinated, CORRUPT, in ways you just don't see in Arizona. I think the current state of affairs in Arizona sorta proves that, doncha think?
And the California kids don't seem to be too bright. For instance, a lot of them actually believe that this is Mexico. Maybe a bit of that rubbed off on you. Tolerance taken too far....
Now here's the original twinkie statement:
As for your assertion that the drug trade has been a major factor in Northern Mexico since the 1970s, you are wrong
Now THAT is laughable. It was massive and violent then and now it is more violent not just because of South Americans, but because coastline control in Florida is far better and because, as I said, the wall in San Diego. And the wall in Arizona: it's getting harder and harder to cross as easily as it was then.
But that isn't stopping the Narcos. It means that there's more money in it, because the prices are higher. So the stakes are higher, and that leads to...more violence.
run by individuals who were mostly Mexican and they kept it largely away and out of sight of the indigent poor that make up a large fraction of the illegal migrants of today
Bunk. The illegals had backpacks with bricks then, they just didn't have to have guys with machine guns like they do now: the border was open. Ask anyone from the old Border Counties Narcotics Strike Force, which Pima, Santa Cruz and Pinal County used to run and of course Customs and the BP.
Back then I was a Tucson based pilot. We had gun battles on our airport between airplane thieves / smugglers over stolen aircraft. I spent more time with Customs guys one summer then I did with clients. It was a friggin' circus. To this day, I'm shocked that none of us got wasted. Certainly not because they didn't try: one morning our security guard ended up doing 60 in reverse because they opened up on him. They were so mad, they burned the airplane rather then flying it. As usual, Customs showed up and they knew who it was.
Y'all just weren't payin' attention then. We were, it was in our faces.
The story about your Grandfather is charming. It's also unusual. In 1960, Tucson was 90% white ethnic American: I was there. Spanish was unheard, and I remember seeing the first sign in Spanish...in 1976. On the South side. Remember Operation Wetback in 1954? It was really, really effective. About the only places I know that employed "migrants" were the big lettuce farms in Marana. Your last name Wong???
There was one basic underlying premise. The violence would not come North, not in any big way.
But that was then, and this is now. And now is the time of the Baby Boomers to take responsibility for America.
And they have not. It takes a codger like Arpaio - he's almost 80 - to keep up the old attitude.
When guys like him are gone, the tidal wave of Brown Hate will roll over us all, like what has happened in Los Angeles.
Washington State won't be far enough North.
Just a warning. Fuzzy rationalizations won't save you then. Or political bamboozlers like Ollie North.