Seriously… I don’t think *anyone* is suggesting we deport illegals by putting them in shipping containers without any of their belongings and dumping them inches beyond the edge of the Rio Grande, all without a hearing or trial such that we increase our chances of deporting actual citizens. (Though I do think “Born in East LA” is a hilarious movie.)

1. How do you find them? Are warrantless house-to-house searches legal? Will they be allowed as sort of like road blocks to catch drunk drivers. Should all American citizens be required to carry citizenship papers at all times so that random checks for illegals can be made?

2. Suppose an American citizen is detained/arrested by mistake, does he/she have a right to legal counsel and due process?

3. What legal rights do illegals have. Are they entitled to a court hearing before being deported? are they entitled to water? bathrooms? food? shelter from cold? heat? rain? crime? disease?

4. If they are locked in shipping containers for deportation, are there any rules concerning over crowding. Is 250 people per container too few? Too many? Just right? What about illegals who die in the containers – are they entitled to burial or should they be recycled? Do American citizens who die in containers get burial or should they be recycled?

5. Should the children of illegals be deported if they were born in the US? Can a US citizen-by-birth be deported? If an American citizen has a child outside the US, under the 1986 law that child is NOT automatically a citizen but may be naturalized if its parents are desirable. Should this rule be extended to children born in the USA?

6. If we dump 12 million Mexican on the South bank of the Rio Grande, the Mexican government will be unable to house and feed them. It will quarantine them in one or more refugee camps on the Rio Grande.
a. Should we let these illegals pollute the Rio Grande with human waste and dead bodies?
b. How do we prevent the illegals from coming back?
c. How do we prevent these camps from becoming breeding grounds for terrorists like the ones in Palestine? Do we adopt the Israeli solution and periodically invade the camps a kill bad guys and bulldoze their homes? Are we ready for an intifada? Suicide bombers?

7. I assume that none of the illegals will be allowed to take any of their possessions with them when they are deported because there will be no room on the bus/in the box car/container. Who gets their possessions? The Nazis gave Jewish possessions to the people who informed on them – do you think this is a good idea? The DEA gives possessions to the cops who catch the bad guy even if he is never found guilty – is that a good idea? Does this violate the 4th amendment? Does anyone care?

Really? Why?

A certain amount of skepticism in the American people and an even greater skepticism in their government is understandable but this is a bit much. This statement flies in the face of the political reality that has forced the administrations hand (to tighten border controls) and dismisses it without comment. It assumes that funding won’t be changed and the tone seems to assume that problems won’t be solved along the way. I imagine that things will be worked out if the depth of public support demands it.

BTW, guerilla activity on the border (or elsewhere) would only strengthen public support for border security.

US BORDER COLLAPSE

“I think the Bush administration and the federal government should put up the money to create the kind of protection the federal government is responsible to provide. We have to press the federal government. It’s their responsibility, not the state’s responsibility.” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Monday,[May 15] President Bush is expected to announce the deployment of up to 10,000 National Guard troops on the US border with Mexico. On its face, this is a political move, intended to shore up support among the Republican base going into the mid-term elections. However, it is indicative of something much more. It is a realization that border controls, in a world dominated by a morally neutral global platform that trumps the sovereignty of nation-states, have become a sham. This sham control has become an acute problem (particularly for the states on the border) as armed open source smuggling networks have “liberated” large sections of Mexico from state control (to really understand this, please read this review of Moises Naim’s book).
Unfortunately, like the pro-immigration protests that set this ball in motion, this action will yield the opposite of the intended effect. It will both speed the unravelling of the American domestic fabric and undermine any remaining confidence that the US federal government (particularly by its dependence on a grossly underfunded and overstretched National Guard) can provide anything of meaningful value.

Further, as we escalate the conflict, we may find that open source economic networks are more than able to defend themselves (as we are seeing around the world) as global guerrillas.”

Taken from John Robb’s blog.

We are in a unique situation. I cannot think of another place where two adjoining countries are at such different stages of economic and political development (other than Korea, of course). This should not be a case of all the benefits being on one side and all the concessions on the other. You usually only get to that state by winning a war.

Don’t expect anything ‘reformed’ in Washington to solve any of this immigration issue. It is not in the interest of the other governments, particularly Mexico City, to change the situation. It is in their interests to rid themselves of their excess poor and population to specifically avoid real reform or revolution. The ruling political class has no inclination to surrender power. They have been given decades to sustain that power by this policy of dumping their excess human population which would otherwise create significant political turmoil within their existing governmental system. All the debate in America on this immigration issue will alter nothing in this situation. It is merely a debate how to clean up someone else’s mess. The mess will continue. The non-solution will only widen the rift between the governed and the governing. Undermining further the legitimacy of a form of government that does not solve problems, but merely papers over the effects. Annexation and Commonwealth status addresses all the issues.

No, it doesn’t have to happen by force. It should be started by openly discussing it as a legitimate possibility given the behavior of the other governments in their assaults upon the sovereignty of this country. Its time to start the dialogue with their people about the advantages of opportunity, of mobility of labor and capital, of stable currency and economy, of the intolerance of corruption as a governmental culture, and of a future for their posterity. It also gives the United States a stick to bring to the table when discussing the problem with those existing governments, who till now just smile, nod their heads, and continue to do business as usual.