Border Control Past and Present

IllegalAlienby Timothy Lane   7/1/14
I had a column (literally; the first of 8 in the article) on the issue of immigration in FOSFAX 214 in 2007 which I was checking out this evening after listening to some of the discussion of the issue on Fox News. I noticed that what I wrote then was still pretty much applicable today (and also that my opinions on the matter are probably still about the same). So I decided to include it here in its entirety as an excerpt from the “Contagious Clintonosis” article. So here it is:

On the subject of illegal immigration in all its aspects, Bush can reasonably be called George Worthless Bush. For example, when a group of well-armed coyotes invaded the US a while back, the ill-armed National Guardsmen retreated without making any attempt at resistance. (Apparently they thought they were British seamen.) In view of the arms disparity this may have been reasonable, but then we should up-arm the border guards to stop such invasions. Why have both a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security if we refuse to defend our borders?

Even worse is the administration vendetta against border guards who actually do protect the border. The most notorious case was in Texas, where a federal prosecutor, Bush crony Johnny Sutton (who already had gone after a local officer for the crime of protecting the border), chose to give a drug smuggler immunity in order to try a pair of border guards on dubious charges. To be fair, most of what I’ve read on the case comes from the defense, but it’s clear that the guards were hardly alone when they acted and that a supervisor was soon on the scene, making the key accusation of failure to report the incident extremely doubtful. The charges rely heavily on the notion that a man smuggling hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs was unarmed. As Judge Trenchard would say, do you believe that? Also, it seems that Sutton illegally hid from the defense his star witness’s continued drug smuggling.

This leads to the matter of Bush’s determination to combine with other political aristocrats to craft a palpable fraud and sell out the national interest on behalf of Mexico. Charles Krauthammer pointed out that they carefully gave the liberals what they wanted immediately, while conservatives would have to wait for the provisions they want to kick in (which would never really happen). The promise of improved security (as fraudulent as the identical one in 1986 proved to be) was based solely on completing a part of the already-mandated border fence and hiring additional border guards (who will be discouraged anything lest they too become the target of corrupt prosecutions).

The basic problem is simple: the majority of Mexicans want to come here (and plenty of other Latin Americans as well) despite a strong anti-American tendency (as a number of recent events have shown), and liberals and YBRs are unwilling to say no either to the illegals themselves (vote-pandering) or to the aristocrats who benefit from the cheap labor. (Recent studies have shown that illegal immigrants overall cost the government far more than they pay in taxes, and that only the immigrants and the aristocrats receive an economic benefit from them. That explains a great deal.)

There are several things that can be done. In the first place, the Social Security people could turn over to the IRS the names of employers with massive numbers of workers with names not matching their Social Security numbers. But the Worthless administration has no desire to enforce the law. They could also complete the fence, instead of just pretending. (After reading John Mosier’s description of passive-aggressive behavior, I understood administration behavior better on border issues. Preferring a totally open border without admitting it to ordinary people, they deliberately make a farcical effort at enforcement and border control.) They should get rid of all bilingualism requirements and insist on assimilation (which a lot of immigrants themselves want, though not identity groups such as La Raza, which helped write the immigration bill.) Finally, they must allow border guards to do their job. When there is a genuine, serious effort to do all this, then we can what to do about the remaining illegals (whose numbers would be far more manageable, especially with a much smaller influx of new ones).

The patent insincerity of those who pretended that their amnesty bill was intended to control the border was demonstrated by a number of provisions. For one thing, all illegals who applied would get a provisional visa, amounting to pure amnesty, at least for those not seeking citizenship. To add insult to injury, they provided for a 24-hour background check, which was deliberately far too little to find anything. Meanwhile, in various votes the pro-amnesty crowd refused to exclude felons or those who had violated deportation orders from the amnesty.

Black economist (and occasional Limbaugh guest host) Walter E. Williams of George Mason University asked a simple question: “Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration? , , , If a ‘yes’ answer is given, then why should there be any immigration requirements, such as visas, passports, and green cards, for anyone who wishes to visit or reside in our country?” But if no . . .

Timothy Lane writes from Louisville, Kentucky and publishes the FOSFAX fanzine.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (949 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Border Control Past and Present

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I have always believed the Tea Party arose during the second Worthless Bush administration. It was given a dose of vitamins when the useful idiots Bush and McCain tried to push through amnesty in 2007.

    While the sobriquet Tea Party was chosen after Barackula came into power, the movement was really an awakening of constitutional conservatives who had decided they were “mad and not going to take it anymore”, to quote Howard Beale.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      In fact, the anger at Bush’s too-frequent liberal actions goes back further. In 2004, Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative ran articles on why conservatives should support each candidate — including Kerry, as a rebuke to Bush. (He deserved the rebuke, but voting for the far worse Kerry was hardly the way to expect it to be heard as such.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *