home

Obama Yields to Demands for National Guard Along Border

After meeting with Republicans toay, President Obama will ask Congress to fund sending 1,200 National Guard troops to secure the Mexico border in a greater effort to crack down on illegal trafficking organizations.

McCain says it's not enough. He wants 6,000 deployed.

The cost of the 1,200 troops: $500 million. What's it for?

[I]ntelligence and intelligence analysis, surveillance and reconnaissance support.

We already authorized $1.3 billion in Merida funds for the war on drugs in Mexico. Even though it hasn't been fully distributed , Obama is planning on asking for another $390 million.

Throwing more money into the failed policies of the past 40 years will do no good. The cartels will become stronger.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Lori Berenson Freed in Peru After 15 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    1969 Miles 1200 Troops (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    That works out to one Guard every 1.6 miles.

    This gesture may help to stop the complaints of politicians pandering for votes, but will do nothing to stop trafficking, imo.

    It is like trying to stop the rain by throwing money up in the air.

    The last time the feds. deployed (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    National Guard troops to help "secure" the border, the check point in Orange County re-opened, personed by--ta ta--National Guard troops.  Now it is closed except for weigh station.  Apparently National Guard can't actually do the same jobs as ICE personnel, so the former seem useless at the border.

    Parent
    The real problem, it seems to me, is (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    a country - Mexico - that cannot provide its people with living-wage jobs, or education, and has shown little interest in doing so, despite the bazillions of dollars in "economic aid" we throw them.

    The drug "problem" south of the border is the same problem north of that border: easy money for people whose other choices are minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough to support one person, much less a family, or no job at all.

    Are there never any strings attached to the money we send to Mexico?  Shouldn't there be benchmarks, or definable goals or something upon which the funds are contingent?

    I'm sick of wasting - as in "throwing away" - money the way we're wasting it here, thinking that we just need enforcement, or the military or walls or some such thing.  Do people even understand that the supply of under-employed, uneducated, unsupportable-in-their-own-country people that will continue to make their way here is endless, and that they will keep coming even if it means they have to resort to drugs or human trafficking?

    Obama just hosted the Mexican president - was there any discussion about what Mexico is doing to provide its people with educational and economic opportunities that don't come in the form of multi-billion dollar checks that never "trickle down" to where they are most needed?

    I'm guessing not.  But I hear the State Dinner was a rousing success - no party crashers and great food!

    Walls? Drones Too? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    Do people even understand that the supply of under-employed, uneducated, unsupportable-in-their-own-country people that will continue to make their way here is endless...

    The scarcity mentality has always bothered me. From where I stand the "endless" influx of ambitious people can only make us a stronger and better country.

    Do you think that talent only runs among the well to do and educated classes?

    Parent

    Not sure (none / 0) (#42)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    how you take this

    Do you think that talent only runs among the well to do and educated classes?

    from Anne's comment (my bold):

    The drug "problem" south of the border is the same problem north of that border: easy money for people whose other choices are minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough to support one person, much less a family, or no job at all.

    I agree on immigrants as a source of strength and improvement for the country, as immigrants have so often been.

    Anyway, can we discuss Mexico at all without discussing NAFTA?

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:23:45 PM EST
     Do people even understand that the supply of under-employed, uneducated, unsupportable-in-their-own-country people that will continue to make their way here is endless, and that they will keep coming even if it means they have to resort to drugs or human trafficking?

    The commenter and quote I responded to, appears to voicing a general anti-immigrant sentiment targeting mexicans who cannot find work in Mexico. That some of them may resort to drug or human trafficking, appears to be incidental.

    Parent

    NAFTA (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:34:00 PM EST
    Can't discuss this without discussing NAFTA, imo.

    I do not agree with your characterization of the commenter's attitude toward Mexican immigrants and undocumented residents.

    Parent

    Wrong. You are so, so wrong. (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:29:50 PM EST
    But that doesn't surprise me, since you love, love, love to put people in little boxes of your own peculiar construction, so that you can then, essentially, have an argument with yourself.

    I don't blame the Mexicans for wanting to come here, to escape the hopeless futures they will have if they don't.  I blame the government of Mexico, in this case, for failing to provide a sustainable economic enviroment for its people, when there is no excuse for not doing so.

    What they are running into when they get here is a growing underclass of Americans who are finding it harder and harder to sustain themselves, as a result of this government's economic policies; if the economy here were booming, if the classified sections of the papers were inches thick, we would be welcoming the influx of people from other countries looking for jobs.

    I don't know whether you have a reading comprehension problem, are just an essentially disingenuous and argumentative person, or what, but all your comments EVER seem to be designed for is to create unnecessary conflict for no intelligent or intelligible purpose.

    Parent

    At least (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    she didn't find a way to work some jeering at Hillary Clinton into this one.  Be thankful for small blessings.

    Parent
    No Mistaking This (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:19:37 PM EST
    thinking that we just need enforcement, or the military or walls or some such thing.

    Simpatico con Arizona, imo.

    Parent

    Major BS and distortion (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:35:36 PM EST
    Here are the quoted words in their complete context:

    I'm sick of wasting - as in "throwing away" - money the way we're wasting it here, thinking that we just need enforcement, or the military or walls or some such thing.

    The comment is a critique of such thinking. Are your reading comprehension skills really that poor? I don't think so. I think this is just a selective quote, intended to stir sh!t up. Stop it, please.


    Parent

    No BS (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:39:15 PM EST
    But refreshing if your interpretation is correct.

    Parent
    Then please take the pause that refreshes (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:50:12 PM EST
    Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:06:31 AM EST
    Maybe it is about reading comprehension after all.

    Parent
    SOP for some (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Yman on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    Could be just more of the usual stirring, but I think it's a weak attempt at putting words/thoughts in the OP's mouth/mind, despite the fact that Anne clearly explained her thoughts on the subject.  Clipping a quote to distort its meaning is not only a poor/completely transparent effort to prop up a failed argument, but also a sure sign of desperation.

    Kinda like when Hannity does it ...

    Parent

    So, what is it? Is it the (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Wed May 26, 2010 at 07:20:15 AM EST
    words of more than one ayllable? Is it difficulty processing anything more than the simplest of concepts?  Is it that you just like to pick fights?

    Or all of the above?

    I don't write in code.  If I were anti-immigrant, I would make that crystal clear by just saying so.

    I am not anti-immigrant.  Did you get that?  "not" means just that: not.  "Anti" - it means "against."  An "immigrant" is a person from another country, who comes to this country.  Some come legally - that means they follow the law - and some come illegally, which means they break the law in order to come into this country.  Taken all together that means "not against people from other countries coming here."  

    The problem I have is not - remember what that means, now - with those coming here illegally.  Okay, here it comes; are you ready?  The problem is NOT the people who are coming here, but the countries from which they come which cannot and do not provide a sustainable economic environment that would eliminate - or at least mitigate - the reasons why people come here.

    Okay, let's break that down.  A "sustainable economic environment" means an economy that provides jobs at living wages, so that people do not have to live in poverty, and can feed, clothe house and educate themselves and their families.  

    Pretty basic stuff.

    What I would like is for this government to get to the causes of illegal immigration, to have a policy that works for all involved, that does not involve the National Guard on the borders, does not involve building walls, does not involve state laws that target and profile people who live in border states - or any other state.

    Did you get that?  I think our immigration policy is about as backwards as it is possible to be, but every day, it seems, someone proposes something that tells me the backward movement isn't over.

    And why do I think this?  Why do I feel this way?  Because I don't see illegal immigrants, or any other kind of immigrant, as the enemy.  I don't see them as people looking to lower our quality of life, but to improve their own.  I don't see them as draining our resources, but trying to find some place, some way, to obtain basic necessities for themselves.  Which all peoples deserve.

    So, let's review:  I am not a small-minded, prejudiced, anti-immigrant person.  I am not a send-'em-all-back-where-they-came-from person.  I am not a throw-them-all-in-the-can person.

    I have, however, a significantly low tolerance for stupidity and ignorance, especially in the face of careful and clear explanations of what I think and why I think it; in some corners of the blogosphere, they call that kind of behavior "trolling," and I frankly do not care how long you have been here, or how bitter you are that you have been burdened with, um, immigrants to the TL commenting community - it needs to stop.

    Parent

    Don't bother (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Yman on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    I don't think it's stupidity and ignorance.  It's just a weak attempt at trying to justify her original attacks, which are based on nothing more than speculation and an imagined ability to read the minds and motives of others with whom she disagrees.

    Using logic and clearly explaining your thoughts on the subject will have no effect.  It's like trying to have a logical discussion with a toddler who believes she can read your mind and keeps putting words in your mouth.

    Parent

    More work needed, "evidentially" (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#137)
        by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:10:31 PM EST
        Thanks [to Jeralyn] for pointing that out [that a previous comment was a personal insult directed at another commenter]. I will work on responding only to comments and not commenters.  

        Ultimately it is clearly a more effective approach, imo



    Parent
    OK Sybil (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:54:21 AM EST
    At least I do not have multiple personality disorder... like some here.. lol

    Parent
    My former screen name (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    is not a party to this exchange, has gone fishing, and wishes to remain undisturbed. Thank you.

    Parent
    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    Squeak's sig line should be The call is coming fron inside the house.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    I think some here (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    Are poster children of why drugs are bad for you, even as they advocate for legalization.  

    Can't take them seriously.

    Parent

    I think we should decriminalize (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    drugs.....but I think they are very, very bad for you.

    My Grand Compromise would include signficant education and treatment efforts.  That would mean some things that some here might not like.  I would make a significant effort to make the use of certain drugs socially unacceptable.....I would try to de-glamorize the use of drugs and alcohol.....

    I would consider expanding drug and alcohol testing by schools and employers--pretty far.....

    Alcohol and drug abuse are horrible scourges that afflict us.  The War on Drugs only monetizes that scourge for those who sell them.  And puts too many people in jail.

    Now, I will be shunned by kdog.  

    Parent

    They should be legal.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    regardless of how good/bad are they are for ya.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    When they kill brain cells and make someone illogical, paranoid, and argumentative.

    Not speaking of you, of course, kdog!  :)

    Parent

    Speaking of Rush Limbaugh? (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    I think his brain was rotted long before he became a pill-popper:)

    Parent
    Rush is another one (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    But no, I was speaking of others a little "closer to home".

    Parent
    I'm Switzerland... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    in that cold war...I like the lot of ya.

    The Swiss advice is for everybody not to take themselves so seriously.

    Parent

    Have they started (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    including roach clips on those Army knives yet?

    Parent
    For some time... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    isn't that the intended use of the little tweezers?

    Parent
    Come to think of it.. (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    Lets hear it for the delights of Swiss neutrality!

    Parent
    Segue is "ya." (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    Tutoree challenged "ya."  Which was not in the out-of-date dictionary available.  I had explained it means "yes."  But, on line Scrabble dictionary says it means "you."

    Parent
    Yeah means yes... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    ya means you...common mix-up, don't be too hard on yourself teach:)

    Parent
    Do you sincerely hold this opinion (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    re meth?  So distructive to the user.

    Parent
    Yes I do... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    and I'll never touch meth with a ten-foot pole..it is as nasty as drugs come.  I just think the prohibition adds more problems than it solves.

    Interesting theory...there is a school of thought that the WOD actually caused the popularity of meth to rise...when cocaine got so expensive, especially in rural areas, users sought cheaper alternatives that could be produced domestically...and a meth "epidemic" was born.

    Parent

    Ha. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    Congrats on that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:44:34 PM EST
    You must be proud, indeed.

    BTW - You know what's funny?  Several of your recent comments have several "5" ratings from someone who's never posted a single comment of their own.  What's particularly funny is their screen name ....

    "pipsqueak".

    Parent

    Just registered (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    with another screen name. Kind of like sher.

    Parent
    Interestingly enough (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    I think the ability to rate other commenters is automatically taken away if the average ratings given to you fall below a certain number.

    I suppose there are ways to artificially "pump-up" your own average rating number if such things matter enough to you...

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    Disabled at TL.

    Parent
    What is disabled at TL? (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    Trusted User Feature (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    You can rate 1000 comments with a 1 and it will have no automatic function in the TL system, other than get you banned by Jeralyn if it is brought to her attention.

    Parent
    Well, there you go. Thanks. (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    OK, but then (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    why are you going around rating yourself?

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:50:17 PM EST
    Rating myself?

    How do you do that? It is not an option with my browser...  

    Parent

    I'm popping some popcorn so I can be (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:53:46 PM EST
    ready for pipsqueak's first defense of his/her heroine's trenchant comments.

    Parent
    I Get It Now (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:59:19 PM EST
    Well, at least someone is paying attention to my ratings... Anne as TL social secretary, how fitting.

    Keep me posted if there are any new developments.

    Parent

    lol (2.00 / 4) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:30:25 AM EST
    Glad to hear that you have progressive views on immigration.

    As for the rest of your tripe, well stuff it, oh goddess of the no personal attack... lol

    Parent

    Consistently hideous (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    Our economy can not handle new arrival (none / 0) (#49)
    by nyjets on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:23:46 PM EST
    Our economy is being slowly destroyed due in part because we are losing jobs right and left. Letting more people in to steal jobs from American citizens will not make us stronger and simply put a strain on our limited resources.


    Parent
    Although I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    that immigrants are "stealing" jobs from American citizens, let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that your characterization is accurate.

    In that case, why do you blame immigrants for "stealing" jobs but have nothing to say about employers who break the law to hire undocumented Mexican workers? Or about employers who import cheap but legal high-tech labor from India? Or about employers who outsource work to China, India, and elsewhere? Or about employers who exploit the absence of child labor laws in other countries?

    Your argument seems incomplete, and therefore inadequate, because it focuses selectively on immigrants without addressing the whole context and systemic nature of the situation.

    Parent

    Oh I do agree (none / 0) (#53)
    by nyjets on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    Stopping immigrants from coming to this country is only one part of the problem. We do need to punish companies from hiring the 'undocumented' immigrants as well as getting rid of work visas which allow companies to hire foreigners over American citizens.
    And we need to make outsourcing as unprofitable as possible for companies as well.
    All of this is important if we are going to save our economy.


    Parent
    The larger context (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:07:58 PM EST
    (imo) is that our so-called economy as currently structured is unsustainable.

    Short-term focus on quarterly profits (and bogus "globalization" and "free" trade "agreements" in service of this stunted vision); environmental destruction as a standard way of doing "business"; the degradation of our public education system; the destruction of family farms; the decimation and corruption of the labor unions; and of course our so-called government, a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the big banks--all these and many other issues are at the root of the problems we're discussing here.

    We don't even have to talk about socialism. Capitalism as it's actually supposed to work would be a start.

    Parent

    Capitalism, the way it's (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    always rationalized -- by the main beneficiaries to the peons -- IS socialism. The rising tide that lifts all boats.

    It's a lie.

    Just as the rationale for NAFTA and most the "Free Trade" agreements were-are self-serving lies: brought to us by the same savants who insisted that the "frenzy of Wall St deregulation" was the best thing for the country.  

    Parent

    What do you mean by (none / 0) (#65)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:04:49 AM EST
    "the main beneficiaries to the peons"? Do you mean to say "the main benefactors of the peons"? And would you therefore be using "benefactors of" (if that is what you mean) ironically?

    Help, kdog--you say you speak jondee.

    Parent

    Happy to help.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    My main man is saying the beneficiaries of capitalism...the top 5% that hold all nearly all the damn wealth...rationalize the capitalist system to the peons as a socialist system that benefits us all..which my main man does not believe to be the case.

    Parent
    Thanks, kdog (none / 0) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    Now, can you fly this plane? And did you have fish for dinner?

    Parent
    Shirley... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    you can't be serious:)

    Parent
    the main beneficiaries (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    of the system of the system, mistress.

    Beneficiary,n: a person who receives benefits, profits, or advantages.

    Parent

    make that "of the system" (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    "IT'S main beneficiaries" (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    I suppose would've been clearer..

    And be "clearer", I mean easier to understand..

    Parent

    "by clearer" (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    so much for the corrective lenses..

    Parent
    The money we send to Mexico (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:06:54 PM EST
    I believe is all about the drug war.  

    Mexico would do fine with a functioning government......

    Parent

    not just about (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:37:35 PM EST
    what Mexico is doing to stop the problem.  But frankly, what are WE doing to stop the flow of guns south?

    "Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border."

    Link

    I'd feel a lot better about these border agents if that's what they were looking for.  But you know, that's Mexico's problem - until the drugs and violence flow north again.

    Oh and this is just rich:

    "Republicans criticized the Mexican leader for discussing U.S. laws." Such as the assault weapon's ban.

    because apparently we can stick our noses in everyone else's business but when someone wants to complain about how our laws are fueling violence in their country - that's "off limits"


    Parent

    The guns ain't a problem... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:26:19 AM EST
    our gangsters are making the black market profits on the guns...so its not a problem like Mexican gangsters making money off dope. (snark)

    Parent
    Price is no object (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 26, 2010 at 06:53:11 AM EST
    DC shows that they believe you can never throw away enough money when wrap it in the bow of national security or their efforts to be tough on crime.

    It's not just about drugs (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    It's also about human trafficking.  I'm going to go out on a limb and assume no one around here thinks we should ignore this problem, right?    I don't consider that wasted money.

    And what about the violence? While making drugs legal may solve some of the problems, it won't eliminate all the problems, despite what many around here think. Criminals will always find away around the rules if it's more lucrative - these cartels aren't just going to throw up their arms and say, "Ok, drugs are legal, so we're just gonna go get regular day jobs at McDonald's now.  We're outta business!"

    Not.Gonna.Happen.

    spare your limb (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    it's about intercepting drugs and catching the money. The NYTimes:

    Homeland Security officials said that the troops would provide support to law enforcement officers already working along the border by helping observe and monitor traffic between official crossing points, and would help analyze trafficking patterns in hopes of intercepting illegal drug shipments

    Human smuggling is a part but they are focused on drugs/violence/money.

    Parent

    I had no idea we had 1200 National Guard troops (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:22:48 PM EST
    to spare (for the AZ border patrol), let alone the 6000 McCain is requesting.

    Sweet Jesus, if we have 1200-6000 National Guard troops, send them to Booming School and then ship them to the Gulf of Mexico, poste haste.

    Parent

    Me either (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:37:04 AM EST
    I'll see you NYT (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:31:30 PM EST
    And raise you a Reuters


    The funds will be used to enhance technology at the border and share information and support between law enforcement agencies as they target illegal trafficking in people, drugs, weapons and money.

    Yes, drugs are a big portion, but they still are illegal here, and the facth that it is complete chaos down there and people ate being killed, means we can't just ignore it.

    Parent

    jb, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    see us winning a drug war in Mexico.  They have tried that for decades and the cartels just keep getting stronger....

    The definition of insanity applies here....

    Parent

    I don't disagree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    But I think it's naive to say, "The day after we legalize drugs, all our problems will be solved."  These guys are worms, and are not going to stop engaging in violent and illegal behavior just because Americans could go to a store and buy pot.  It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

    Parent
    But with a lot less money (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    And, sure, the low level guys will still likely be violent.  But those who pay them will find different work....

    Parent
    It is not too amazing (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    that those who opposed expanding gaming casinos on Indian Reservations here in California included Las Vegas interests....

    Parent
    that is completely effective?

    That enforcement of this (or any) law is not 100% effective does not seem to me to be a strong argument for non-enforcement...

    More harm than good (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    Mexico's chief problem is a goverment corrupted by drug money and violence.  Absent that, and there is no reason Mexico cannot be like Argentina.

    A more prosperous Mexico is the only real answer to illegal immigration.

    If we were to legalize drugs, we would undercut the drug violence--here and in Mexico.  Ending Prohibition did not eliminate the Mafia but it helped a lot.  It would help more to take away the drug business.

    Parent

    Wow, if you could put together a reasonable (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:25:53 PM EST
    scenerio where Mexico, especially it's poor, would become more prosperous if we were to stop enforcing our drug laws, I would be very interested in reading that.

    Parent
    Mexico should be prosperous (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    It has tremendous natural resources--large quantities of oil.  It has a very large tourism industry.  It has a ready market in the U.S. for its agricultural products and its manufactured goods.

    The reason that Mexico tends to stagnate is its government.  Cronies keep all the wealth....Bribes abound....The government is simply corrupt.   And drug money corrupts it.   Many thought it was the dominance of the PRI as the governing party for decades since the Mexican Revolution.  But PAN has elected two Presidents in a row and still there are problems...

    The best way to undercut the control of the Mexican government by the drug cartels is to cut off their market....

    Ask any Mexican and you'll get a long diatribe against government corruption....

    Cutting off the Mexican drug cartels would dramatically change the dynamic.

    Parent

    long before the drug cartels. It has historically been that way. I don't see anything that suggests that it's the relatively new grand-scale illegal drug trade that's keeping the Mexican poor poor.

    Parent
    It prevents progress (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:59:38 PM EST
    Tourist industry is in the tank though. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:22:05 PM EST
    Another casualty of the drug war (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    and bad economy here too....

    Parent
    Wow, fill in the blank... (none / 0) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:49:23 PM EST
    The reason that __ tends to stagnate is its government.  Cronies keep all the wealth....Bribes abound....The government is simply corrupt. And __ money corrupts it.  Many thought it was the dominance of the ___ as the governing party for decades.


    Parent
    Wow, fill in the blank... (none / 0) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:49:48 PM EST
    The reason that __ tends to stagnate is its government.  Cronies keep all the wealth....Bribes abound....The government is simply corrupt. And __ money corrupts it.  Many thought it was the dominance of the ___ as the governing party for decades.


    Parent
    Jeez, sorry for the stammer. (none / 0) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:50:27 PM EST
    One thing I heard & noticed... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    in my short time south of the border was how many people are self-employed...taking some of this wasted anti-drug money and teaming with Mexico on a micro-loan program might do some good to alleviate both our problems...there has been success in Asia.  And some infrastructure work for the laborers, maybe something to our mutual benefit like alternative energy maybe?

    The root of our problems is a poverty problem...I think that much is clear.  Bring opportunity to the people so they will not cross borders to seek opportunity, or join the cartels for opportunity.

    Once the revenue is stripped from the cartels, they can't hire and bribe like they can now.  The hardcore gangsters will revert to other rackets where perhaps the people will be less tolerant of them.

    Parent

    And the gangs' business (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    would be less lucrative without the drug trade....Numbers and prostitution and extortion will bring only so much money....

    Without drug money, organized crime becomes much less powerful.


    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:05:41 PM EST
    the problem is, as you illustrated, the corruption.  Any big-shot who proposed this at a US-MEX summit would cause brandy to squirt outta the noses of other attendees.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:34:19 PM EST
    'Cuz the mafia got so much weaker after Prohibition was repealed and no new gangs sprouted up.  Oh wait....

    Parent
    But DRUG prohibition was not repealed. (none / 0) (#69)
    by SeeEmDee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 06:32:16 AM EST
    Which is why the Mob was able to 'diversify' so well after losing their government supplied cash cow (alcohol Prohibition)...with the drug prohibitionists hearty help. Which said benighted prohibs provide to this very day.

    Parent
    the illegal drug trade and Mexico's poor staying poor. Mexico has always had poor, looong before the US's WoD.

    Parent
    Sure, but Mexcio had a great (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    chance to work its way out of that poverty.....There are properous nations that were not so not too long ago.....

    Costa Rico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile....all have economies better than Mexico's.

    Parent

    So does Colombia. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    Colombia is held back (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    by the drug cartels.

    Our War on Drugs has created all sorts of collateral problems in Colombia including a guerilla movement that threatens its neighbors.

    Conservatives never get it with respect to U.S. Latin American policy.  Always creating enemies where none existed before.

    Latin America is in general very peaceful.  It avoided the World Wars.  Mexico took in countless Jews fleeing Hitler when the U.S. would not.  Many of the guerilla wars are largely the result of the right wing dictators supported by the U.S.

    Parent

    connection showing that the relatively recent mega-drug trade in Mexico is keeping Mexico's poor, poor.

    I'm not being argumentative nor challenging, I sincerely want to see the connection should there be one.

    However, nothing I google supports this. Except the two or three hits that reference comments on TL.

    In fact, because the drug trade gives people in Mexico jobs who might not otherwise have them, there is an argument to be made that the Mexican drug trade helps the poor in Mexico.

    The gov in Mexico does not now, nor ever has, really, shown a true willingness to address the socio-economic divide in Mexico - not before the big Mexican drug trade started, nor after.

    They really don't care. Drug trade or no drug trade.

    Parent

    Mexico had been held back (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    by the PRI as the governing party for decades.  Mexico, since the Revolution in the early Twentieth Century, had been a one party state.  PRI stands for Institutional Revolutionary Party....

    Try bending your mind around the concept of an "institutional revolution".......That should give you an idea of the problem.

    With the election of Vincente Fox of rival upstart PAN, the political logjam had been broken.  Mexican elections, which had for generations been rigged affairs, are now even more free from fraud and irregularities than U.S. elections.....

    I agree with the idea that PRI held Mexico back in a stultifying morass of bureaucracy and bribery.  But Mexico had broken the PRI grip.  Current Mexican President Calderon is a member of PAN, a conservative, free-enterprise party, which was needed in Mexico (but not here in the U.S.)

    Without the drug corruption, many good things could have and should have been happening in Mexico to bring it forward.....But the corruption continues.....

    Sure, drug money supports certain towns in grand style in Mexico, just like Medellin in Columbia.  But, overall, you need a functioning government and legal system that can foster real commerce--and not just perpetuate a system that seems to benefit only people like Carlos Slim.

    Google may not have this idea all spelled out.  But talk to Mexicans with some education and they can spell it out more clearly than perhaps I can....

    The answer to illegal immigration is a prosperous Mexico.  And Mexico's dysfunctional government is holding it back--of that most Mexicans are in complete agreement.....

    I don't think it is all that much of a leap to see what is still the problem with the Mexican government at this point--it is impotent even when it is not corrupt.....And drug money is now the main culprit....  

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    I really don't see drug money as the main culprit as the Mexican gov has historically always been relatively impotent with regards to its poor, but I will keep an eye out for future analyses of this aspect.

    Parent
    It's a much bigger problem.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    than illegal drugs, to be sure...that's more on the violence problem end.  And how it fuels the continued corruption.

    The poverty has been around since forever...just saying that with no additional expenditure, or less even, we could possibly get a much better rate of return on the violence and immigration problems if we combated poverty instead of drugs...thats the link.  Instead of chasing the guy after he's joined the cartel or just left his home to seek opportunity in the US...we help him in his hometown.  I prefer micro-loans or job creation to large welfare rolls..."teach a man to fish".  

    Parent

    Unfortunately, as in the U.S., (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:24:22 PM EST
    but greatly magnified in Mexico, there is a strata of very rich people, and a government which does not share the wealth from natural resources with the population.  

    Parent
    Some of the hardest working most dedicated (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:50:37 AM EST
    people.  The best boss I ever worked for had at one point in his life been an illegal from Mexico.  He later married an American and had a family.  He was so fair and reasonable too, gave regular bonuses, he really pulled all the employees together as a team too and we would gladly cover for each other if there were sick children to care for or appointments.  We had zero backstabbing for some reason.  He owns three different businesses now, and one of them is a casino.  He was one child of 18, nine boys and nine girls.  And when one of his siblings would want to come to America, when he got to know me better he confided that he had a route through the Arizona desert that he took to get them and bring them back.  Very successful American family due in large part to him.  Worked hard...took many risks to get here and bring his family here that wanted to be here with him.

    Parent
    My experience (none / 0) (#72)
    by Rojas on Wed May 26, 2010 at 07:25:22 AM EST
    After three and a half decades in construction and manufacturing in Texas is quite different. The reality is that many will bring a form of patronage with them and have absolutely no problem setting up their little fiefdoms here.
    The harshest treatment of illegals I have witnessed come from these expatriates.
    Plenty of @sshole gringos running shops, but they typically don't hold a candle to the exploitive skills of those who lived and learned the Mexican way.

    Parent
    That's sad (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 07:52:43 AM EST
    My grandfather was a bricklayer.  I remember that even when I was little many of the hod carriers were illegal and it is very hard work.  Most of the construction crews around here a year and a half ago appeared to be mostly illegals but there isn't an established Latino population here exploiting them. A few people who we know and who were building would be upset because when they went to the construction site of their homes few workers knew much English and could answer their questions.  It does seem that the last building boom was a good time to exploit illegal aliens.

    Parent
    Yeah, with all our problems ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    of war, unemployment, health care, the banking system and so on, we realize it's all Mexico's fault.

    Blame Mexico, blame Canada, blame people willing to work for below minimum wage, blame the sick and infirmed.  Blame anyone and anything, rather than looking inward.

    Window Dressing (none / 0) (#7)
    by DaveCal on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    Pure political ploy.  He doesn't care.  He sees $500 Million as chump change.  If he can score some cheap political points with it, he'll be happy.  

    What ought to be disturbing people is the significantly higher amounts of money that have been proposed for these:

    1) $23 Billion of our tax dollars to bail out state and local schools (which, of course, will simply let them avoid the budget tightening that is required); http://www.businessinsider.com/keep-our-educators-working-act-2010-5

    and

    2) $165 Billion of our tax dollars that would be necessary to "back" or "guaranty" the underfunded union pension plans. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/04/08/decrying_the_union_pension_bailout_bill_98411.ht ml

    You can squabble over school spending I suppose (although its is not, constitutionally, and shouldn't be, a federal government function).  But how does anyone with a straight face propose a taxpayer funded bailout of underfunded union pension plans?  That's nothing more than theft.  If the companies that agreed to fund those plans can't pay, then they should do what is necessary (raise the benefit eligible age, lower the benefit amounts, file for bankruptcy protection, or whatever else private parties do when they can't pay their debts).  

     

    When, oh when, are you going to figure out (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    that Fox News and all the other right-wingers lie to you about this stuff all the time.

    "Purpose of PBGC is to take over insured pension plans when employers go bankrupt. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal corporation that insures private pension plans and takes over insured plans that go into default, such as when a company goes bankrupt. PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues; instead, it collects insurance premiums from employers that sponsor insured pension plans, earns money from investments and receives funds from pension plans it takes over.

    Not to mention the underlying ugliness of your idea that when a company pension plan gets screwed up, the pensioned-off former workers should just get screwed and everything will right itself.

    Honestly, I have no words for this kind of thinking.


    Parent

    please put your urls in html format (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:53:03 PM EST
    long ones skew the site and since I can't edit, only delete, comments, your entire comment will have to be deleted. Use the link button at the top of the comment box or written instructions at the bottom. Thanks.

    Parent
    Non sequitur? (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:21:01 PM EST


    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    To decide that someone is a worm, allows for all sorts of dehumanizing behavior. Nice formula, it worked for those at abu ghraib.

    Tthis kind of dehumanization, leads down a very bad road, imo.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:16:41 AM EST
    We should respect the dignity of drug lords - people who torture and kill others for a living - at all costs.

    But it's still okay to call those with whom you disagree with politcially as "cultists", "criminals", "jack-booted thugs", and "bedwetters".

    Parent

    The Same? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:34:33 AM EST
    When I call you a cultist it does not mean that I would ever sanction torture, arrest, pain or suffering of any kind on your body or soul.

    On the other hand you with your tough on crime, are quick to dehumanize an alleged criminal, so that you can, guilt free, revel in the torture, pain and suffering of the human being who you call a worm, because a worm is easily crushed, and no tears are ever lost.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    A worm can find many ways around a situation - hence, the reference.  These drug lords are not going to give up their lifestyles if America legalizes drugs and part of their business goes away - they, as most criminals do, will find another way around the law to make money.

    And point of reference - I could care less what you call me - you really are pretty insignificant in my life.  Of course, you also call Republicans names (Bush / Cheney are "war criminals", "jack booted thugs" etc.), so I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of logic (once again).
     

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:35:28 PM EST
    Calling for tough penalties for those you deem worms, snakes, lower life forms, parasites, etc allows you to feel good that dehumanized "vermin", as opposed to human beings are being punished.

    It is the only way that torturers from the Inquisitors, the Nazi's, all the way up to the prison guards at Abu Ghraib, could cope.

    As far as calling you a cultist, those are human beings who are sadly under the spell of another. Nothing dehumanizing about that, in fact it is a term, meant to draw pity, not punishment.

    Parent

    Believe what you want (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    As I said, I could give a rat's a$$ of what you think about my comments, my views, me.  If you prefer to live in alternate-reality land,where you assign motives and make up stuff people say - that's your choice.

    Parent
    agree about the name-calling (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    worms is not appropriate. But, I deleted your comment likening the the author of the comment to a worm. Let's steer away from personal attacks, please.

    Parent
    Close (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    Non compos mentis.

    Parent
    I am too kind? (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:29:54 PM EST
    Indeed you are (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:34:23 PM EST
    Although both apply. :)

    Parent
    Maybe that's what they want (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:31:27 PM EST

    "The cartels will become stronger."

    Crack down on the ones that aren't "team players".

    it's a bit disconcerting (none / 0) (#39)
    by pitachips on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    to think it's that easy to smuggle yourself and many others into this country.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:07:48 PM EST
    But it has been that way for centuries.

    Parent
    legalize which drugs? (none / 0) (#55)
    by diogenes on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:19:05 PM EST
    If you legalize pot only, the Mexican cartels will go into meth (which they already are).  The cartels don't do much heroin yet.  They can pick it up, though.  If you want to stop the drug money then you have to legalize EVERYTHING.