Pat Buchanan.......

[fudge tunnel]

.....while a bit xenophobic, certainly knows his sh!t........


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpjb.htm

[Tom Araya]

Did you see him on the Sunday morning talk shows yesterday morning talking about "reconquista?" The man is insane.

But I do agree with this statement:

“Concerned about his legacy, George W. Bush may yet live to see his name entered into the history of his country as the president who lost the American Southwest that James K. Polk won for the United States."

Though I think that will be the result of all of this immigration, not the reason for it.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

These are good ideas, IMO.

• An Eisenhower-type deportation program, beginning with all illegal aliens convicted of felonies and every gang member not a U.S. citizen.

• A ten-year moratorium on all legal immigration, at the level JFK favored in 1958 -- 150,000 to 250,000 a year.

• A $10-billion, 2000-mile double-line security fence between the United States and Mexico, built with no apologies to Mexico City.

[Tom Araya]

While I agree with the first two items you selected, I question the wisdom of the third. Would it not make more sense to help the Mexican government reduce the amount of graft in their political system & help them achieve prosperity on par with what Canada & the U.S. currently enjoys? Simply building a wall would only have the effect of exacerbating the problem. Remember Berlin? Have you looked at Gaza lately? History confirms that walls only make the problems worse.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

While I agree with the first two items you selected, I question the wisdom of the third. Would it not make more sense to help the Mexican government reduce the amount of graft in their political system & help them achieve prosperity on par with what Canada & the U.S. currently enjoys? Simply building a wall would only have the effect of exacerbating the problem. Remember Berlin? Have you looked at Gaza lately? History confirms that walls only make the problems worse.

The Berlin wall was intended to keep people in. A wall to secure a nation and to protect our country from unlwful entry is a different story.

If we spent $10 Billion on helping Mexico become prosperous, their prosperity would end as soon as the $10 billion was gone.

[fudge tunnel]

Would it not make more sense to help the Mexican government reduce the amount of graft in their political system & help them achieve prosperity on par with what Canada & the U.S. currently enjoys?

Would it make sense? Yes, of course.

Will it happen? Doubtful (bordering on impossible).

I don't mean to sound so negative, but we all have to live in the real world here.

[Tom Araya]

The Berlin wall was intended to keep people in. A wall to secure a nation and to protect our country from unlwful entry is a different story.



And a wall on the Mexican border would have the same effect. Mexicans would be kept in Mexico. No difference whatsoever. Same story with Gaza & anywhere else you build a wall.

It's a horrible idea.

[Tom Araya]

If we spent $10 Billion on helping Mexico become prosperous, their prosperity would end as soon as the $10 billion was gone.


You handily omitted step one of my solution. Why are people opposed to things that have worked in the past? Do you not remember the Marshall Plan?

[RP-in-Nebraska]

You handily omitted step one of my solution. Why are people opposed to things that have worked in the past? Do you not remember the Marshall Plan?

Remove the graft? Of course it's a good idea in theory, but how do you do it without force?

Yes, the Marshall Plan worked but the only reason that it worked well is because those countries were broken by war or USSR oppression and desperately needed help after WW2.

Haven't we attempted to do this sort of thing with Mexico in the past - not to the extent of the Marshall Plan but we have tried to help them improve and set up their economy. What would fuel the Mexico economy? Currently, oil is their most valuable resource and export and they have a lot of it. Yet they can't seem to reach the prosperity levels of mid-east oil rich countries.

I don't know what the best long-term solution is but I do know that illegal entry to our country needs to be eliminated for the sake of our safety.

[fudge tunnel]

I say we just buy Mexico.....

-Then we get all of that oil
-We control the tourism
-We can set up water treatment plants, so Gringos can drink the water w/o getting sick
-It would be a lot easier to control that small stretch of land/border w/ Guatemala (and a little bit w/ Belize)
-We could have all of our auto factories down there
-The standard of living would be much higher in that "state"
-The drug cartels would be dealt a serious blow
-no more Mexican prisons
-The US soccer team would automatically become much better
-it would bring down the murderous, corrupt political machine

.....as I see it, it's a win-win for both sides.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

Okay, sounds good. Who owns it now and how much will he take for it?

[oldtimer]

I say we just buy Mexico.....

-Then we get all of that oil
-We control the tourism
-We can set up water treatment plants, so Gringos can drink the water w/o getting sick
-It would be a lot easier to control that small stretch of land/border w/ Guatemala (and a little bit w/ Belize)
-We could have all of our auto factories down there
-The standard of living would be much higher in that "state"
-The drug cartels would be dealt a serious blow
-no more Mexican prisons
-The US soccer team would automatically become much better
-it would bring down the murderous, corrupt political machine

.....as I see it, it's a win-win for both sides.

I vote for a wall. I'm not against immigration; but, at some point the US will not be able to handle all the additional social stresses.

I not about buying Mexico,,,,,,I would hate to see original Mexican food start tasting "TEX-MEX".

The world issues could be reduced to food. That could be our Foreign Policy Trigger Point:

Is the food better before the US helps or after?

[Tom Araya]

Remove the graft? Of course it's a good idea in theory, but how do you do it without force?


While opposed to a wall, I am not opposed to using force. After all, instability in Mexico is a national security threat for the U.S. The drug cartels are likewise, as is the porous border.

As a longtime student of Latin American history, I can state with certainty that the majority of U.S. aid to Mexico has been to arm & equip a military & political leadership that is aligned with U.S. interests. This American policy is as old as the Monroe Doctrine (actually written by then-Sec. of State John Q. Adams) and certainly in action since the Roosevelt Corrolary to this doctine in the early 20th century. As under-secretary of the navy in 1898, Roosevelt clamored loudly for war with Spain over Cuba. And during his presidency, he essentially supported a coup in Panama to overthrow the government of Colombia in that region so that he could build his canal. And in the aftermath of the Roosevelt administration, we've now seen over 100 years of intervention & American-style imperialism in Latin America. The nations south of the border are our own version of Africa.

You want to know the biggest problem with Latin America? Fort Benning, Georgia & its School of the Americas. More Latin American dictators & military leaders have been trained here than anywhere else in the world. The list of graduates is impressive. I would suggest, as a first step toward stability in Latin America, that this dictator-training-ground be shut down, though we all know this will never happen. Instability is good for business.

But getting back to my original point. While opposed to a wall, I am not at all opposed to force. It would not be unprecedented in U.S. history for us to intervene in Mexico's affairs. Let our military go into Juarez, Tijuana, Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and other border cities & destroy the drug cartels. Work with Mexican officials to develop better trained & paid police to end the well-known graft. Annotate NAFTA to help Mexico raise its standard of living (esp. wages & safety) much quicker than will ever occur under the current agreement.

Suddenly, the drug trade becomes diminished. And I mean stage an all-out war, wipe the slate clean. With better (and more) police and a better standard of living, suddenly the illegal immigration problem becomes diminished. Working to resolve these issues improves U.S. security. Simply building a wall does nothing but to leave the current problems in place. There are other ways into the U.S. Tunnels, oceans, airplanes, smuggling on trains & trucks, etc. Eventually, walls crumble under their own weight & we are still forced to deal with the problems we were trying to block out. As Reagan once said, "Tear down that wall." Or in this case, don't build it at all.

[oldtimer]

While opposed to a wall, I am not at all opposed to force. It would not be unprecedented in U.S. history for us to intervene in Mexico's affairs. Let our military go into Juarez, Tijuana, Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and other border cities & destroy the drug cartels.

Work with Mexican officials to develop better trained & paid police to end the well-known graft.

Working to resolve these issues improves U.S. security.

Tom,

This sounds a like like what Bush did (not very well) in Iraq. Change the Drug Cartels to Terrorist groups. Then change Mexican officials to new Iraq government on the training of a better police.

Bush would tell you that the US being in Iraq is working to resolve..issues to improve U.S. Security.

[Tom Araya]

With the difference being that the threat from Iraq was exaggerated & bogus, while the threat of a porous & crime-ridden border is real.

But we know the real reason Congress won't act to rectify this, don't we? The cheap labor benefits the businesses who write campaign checks. And the drugs help in the quest of eugenics. Dumb down &/or kill the proletariat, make them complacent & complicit.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

But getting back to my original point. While opposed to a wall, I am not at all opposed to force. It would not be unprecedented in U.S. history for us to intervene in Mexico's affairs. Let our military go into Juarez, Tijuana, Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and other border cities & destroy the drug cartels.

The U.S. entering Mexico to destroy the drug cartels in border cities is the military and moral equivalent of Israel going into Lebanon to take out Hezbollah - an action which you so adamantly rebuke.

I'm not saying that you are wrong or that a wall is a better answer because there is no way of knowing. However, the military solution you proposes perplexes me considering your other viewpoints that contradict this. If I had suggested this plan of action, my guess is that you would have dismissed it as another attempt at fascist imperialism by the Bush regime. I know your not a pacifist but the military solution surprises me.

[oldtimer]

What would the legalization of certain drugs do to the southern border problem?

Would there be more or less illegal border crossings.

[Tom Araya]

An even better idea. I fully support the legalization of drugs. That would eliminate the black market & the violence associated with it. But because this seems a solution that will never be broached in my lifetime, then a military solution is likely the best.

RP, I don't understand where you see inconsistencies. I fully supported & continue to support the war in Afghanistan. I only abhor the methods by which the administration has chosen to wage this war & the fact that Osama bin Hidin is no longer on their radar screen.

The only war I have spoken against with passion & zeal is the fiasco in Iraq. I've delineated the reasons why so many times I don't think I need to go into them again.

Afghanistan = threat to U.S. national security (see 9/11)

Mexico = threat to U.S. national security (see drug cartels, illegal immigration, porous borders that could allow terrorists into the country)

Iraq = no imminent threat whatsoever until Shrub's policy of pre-emption based upon false evidence created a new group of terrorists (which are probably better labeled freedom fighters as most of the captured, killed, or wounded enemy combatants are, surprise, Iraqis!; remember, King George labeled George Washington a terrorist too)

[fudge tunnel]

a new group of terrorists (which are probably better labeled freedom fighters)

Since when do "Freedom Fighters" slaughter/butcher/massacre their own people with impunity........?

For some reason, I can't see George Washington sending in someone into a market filled with American colonists (including women and children) and blowing them to pieces.....

[RP-in-Nebraska]

An even better idea. I fully support the legalization of drugs. That would eliminate the black market & the violence associated with it. But because this seems a solution that will never be broached in my lifetime, then a military solution is likely the best.

RP, I don't understand where you see inconsistencies. I fully supported & continue to support the war in Afghanistan. I only abhor the methods by which the administration has chosen to wage this war & the fact that Osama bin Hidin is no longer on their radar screen.

The only war I have spoken against with passion & zeal is the fiasco in Iraq. I've delineated the reasons why so many times I don't think I need to go into them again.

Afghanistan = threat to U.S. national security (see 9/11)

Mexico = threat to U.S. national security (see drug cartels, illegal immigration, porous borders that could allow terrorists into the country)

Iraq = no imminent threat whatsoever until Shrub's policy of pre-emption based upon false evidence created a new group of terrorists (which are probably better labeled freedom fighters as most of the captured, killed, or wounded enemy combatants are, surprise, Iraqis!; remember, King George labeled George Washington a terrorist too)

Read my post again. I know how you feel about Iraq. I drew the analogy with Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanon - Not Iraq.

[oldtimer]

If drugs were legalized, I would expect illegal immigration would go up. For many low income folks in Mexico (Rural Area), the growth of plants for the production of illegal drugs is the difference between starving or not.

The difference between the separation of east and west (cold war days) with USSR's wall (Most of it was a fence!) and the proposed fence with Mexico is dramatic.

First, the USSR did not allow for the normal (legal) transit of people across their border. Nor, did they want trade relations with anyone.

Second, a wall (fence) on the Mexican border will not impede normal relations, free trade, or legal transit.

I think it would force Mexico to deal with their problems and stabilize our situation.