U.S., Mexican legislators discuss border vigilantes
Posted on 11/24/2002 2:06:29 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
U.S., Mexican legislators discuss border vigilantes
States may take action against groups that target migrants
11/24/2002
NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico - U.S. and Mexican lawmakers expressed concern Saturday about a growing number of American vigilante groups that capture and sometimes hurt or kill Mexican migrants who cross into the United States illegally.
The fringe groups have sprung up in several border towns in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, where residents frustrated by U.S. border agents' inability to stop illegal migration have taken matters into their own hands, said Arizona state Rep. Robert Cannell.
Mr. Cannell said Arizona legislators will likely take up the issue of vigilante groups during the state's next legislative session. The Democrat said he was "strongly opposed" to the groups.
Mr. Cannell was one of eight U.S. state legislators - three from New Mexico, two from California, two from Arizona, and one from Texas - who joined 38 lawmakers from the six Mexican border states at the third annual legislative border forum in Nuevo Laredo.
In separate Binational Commission meetings on Monday and Tuesday in Mexico City, high-ranking U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, will hold talks with their Mexican counterparts on what to do about the estimated 3 million Mexicans working illegally in the United States.
New Mexico state Sen. Mary Jane Garcia said vigilante groups appeal to undereducated young men who feel that state and federal governments haven't done enough to protect towns along the border. The Democrat said the issue also needed urgent attention in the New Mexico legislature.
Also on Saturday, Chihuahua state lawmaker Cesar Castro Lopez called on investigators from the FBI and Britain's Scotland Yard to help solve the brutal slayings of women in Ciudad Juarez.
More than 75 women have been raped and killed since 1993 in Ciudad Juarez, the border's largest city. Dozens of suspects have been arrested, but bodies have continued to turn up in the desert.
Mr. Castro Lopez said that Mexican state and federal commissions assigned to investigate the crimes have failed to produce any concrete leads.
"It has become a financial issue of vital importance for those who do business on the border," he said, adding that violence in Juarez has begun to affect U.S. commercial interests, thus ensuring that the killings fall under U.S. jurisdiction.
The killings have "ruined the reputation of Ciudad Juarez in the eyes of the world," Mr. Castro Lopez said.
Not only has Bush suggested opening the borders....but by turning his back to illegal immigration, he has been condoning these illegal acts. Your position has merit. Maybe the government should pass new laws....give these people work visas and ID. And let them work in jobs that Americans don't want to do (Bush administration's words). But here's a fact. At this time, the bulk of Mexican immigration is illegal. The Bush administration apparently thinks the present laws are bad. So they choose to do nothing. Well pot laws are bad too. But I don't see the government letting pot peddlers and users slide. A law is a law. Until it is changed. This administration's selectivity in deciding which laws to enforce is hipocracy. Plain and simple.
What? The government wants to aid and abet illegal alien invaders and interfere with the rights of Americans because the corrupt Mexican government is whining again? Preposterous.
Earth to Washington.... DO YOUR JOBS AND STOP THE ONSLAUGHT! MILITARIZE THE BORDERS NOW!
Out the door in 2004
|
  |
"Your planted axiom is that the murderers are ranchers rather than unemployable drunks, druggies, and half-wits out to vindicate their imagined superiority."
Interesting. You seem to have an agenda in your posts. I am interested in factual information regarding this issue, and realistic discussion of the results of the continued situation on our borders, and the proposed policies of "Amnesty" and "Guest Worker" programs. Your agenda falls in line with those who wish to demonize and shout down those who want to call the Federal Government to account for its failure to defend our nation's borders, its single most important constitutional mandate. Your protestations of conservative motivations not withstanding, I find your token throwaway Hillary bashing disturbingly ingenuine, and basically beside the point. If you mean to characterize honest citizens as "half-wits out to vindicate their imagined superiority", then I would suggest that other members of FR regard you as basically a dishonest disrupter, as you seem to fit the profile. Clearly, you have been here for a while... but your choice of rhetoric is quite disturbing and unfortunate. If my post is responded to with vituperation and ad-hominem attacks, I would point to that as proof of my suspicions.
My planted axiom?
The Associated Press is clear in its intent to smear ranchers and farmers as psychotic rapists and murderers. The original posted article is still there for all to read and comprehend.
You do realize that you're posting on Free Republic, don't you?
Rush did a great job of countering Daschel's comments yesterday on the Russert program. I was about to pass on it, but I'm going to develop the audio for that program later this afternoon and post it here where everyone can hear it.
Folks right here on this forum are all too willing to damn these patrols as racist Nazi efforts, giving the illegals a free pass. I find them much more disgusting, for they should know better.
You and I are on the same page on this. I agree that the activity down there on the border could be classified as vigilantiism, but I think we are playing into the government and media's hands if we use that phrase to describe the activity down there. Vigilanti is a very powerfull and negatively charged word. We need to develop this debate around "patrols" and let the other side explain why folks can't protect their own land by utilizing them. I think we should avoid using the term vigilanti.
I read your post and it was quite good. I hardly hate to diminish it with a simple matter such as this, but would you kindly post your messages in black, not in blue.
If everyone were to start posting in multi color (throwing in smily faces even, arrggghh) this board will get real messed up and hard to read. You know, like those kiddie boards.
Thanks.
59 posted on 11/24/2002 8:29 AM PST by BJungNan
I do use mutliple colors. I know some folks don't like it. I generally do it when I know I'm going to be copying a lot from the orginal text. I find it desirable to make my comments right next to the comments I'm responding to.
Take a look at that post again. In that instance I used one color for my response, for the most part. At a glance it makes it much more difficult to distinguish between my comments and the original text, even though I used quotes extensively.
The post you addressed should have been written in black, since I didn't follow the model I had intended to from the start. If everyone were to start posting in multi color (throwing in smily faces even, arrggghh) this board will get real messed up and hard to read. Yes, I suppose that's somewhat true. Then again, utilizing different colors can actually make posts much easier to follow.
At times I will use multiple colors and other times I'll use all black. I don't mind your raising the issue. It's actually a debate I have with myself too. Thanks.
You can say the same thing about the majority of the population of the world.
Well it most likely is druggies and the number of women murdered takes time and probably an organized effort. This has been going longer than the "militia groups" have been around.
see post 52 . Look at all the little wackjob commies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.