Build the frakin’ fence, Obama.
EXCLUSIVE: RINCON PENINSULA, Texas — U.S. Border Patrol agents on the American side of the Rio Grande were forced to take cover Friday night when high-caliber weaponry was fired at them from the Mexican side of the river, sources told FoxNews.com.
The weapons were fired at the U.S. side of the riverbank in the area of the Rincon Peninsula across the Rio Grande from Reynosa, Mexico, at about 8:30 p.m., sources said. Bullets ricocheted into an area where Border Patrol agents were positioned, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told FoxNews.com.
Border Patrol sources confirmed Gohmert’s account, and said the shots may have been fired by .50-caliber weapons.
“We don’t have any armor that can stop a .50-caliber round, so our Border Patrol agents had to take cover when the rounds were richocheting around them,” said Gohmert, who has been in the area for the last week to get a first-hand look at the border situation.
“When the shooting stopped, about 40 to 50 people came out on the U.S. side and turned themselves in. So clearly the rounds were being fired to suppress every effort to stop anybody intervening with anyone or anything coming across,” Gohmert added. “We have no idea what or how many or whom came across with the other illegal immigrants.”
Shoot back.
Too bad the BP doesn’t have some RPGs.
That’s easy to remedy, Dar. I bet some of the militia folks do.
Where’s Pershing and Patton when we need them?
Once again, Obama’s making Woodrow Wilson look good.
– The POS in the WH is going to keep pushing his Left-wing loon BS as things continue to spiral downhill all over the world including on our own borders until there’s a really bad “incident”, then he’ll blame it on Conservatives.
Heh. With “suppressing fire” the coyotes can cross in broad daylight…
How do you say “acción de guerra” in English?
So clearly the rounds were being fired to suppress every effort to stop anybody intervening with anyone or anything coming across
Time to return the favor. Fire at anyone and everyone trying to attempt crossing, the instant they reach that invisible demarcation. If any fire is returned, call in artillery suppression support and air strikes. Machine gun nests and bunkers at every legal crossing. Sever and suspend any and all civilian traffic. If they return fire, send in the Marines to establish a 20-mile deep DMZ.
They want to start a war, firing on armed Federal agents is a good way to kick it off.
Werll, Drum, they could be active-duty Mexican Army and Barry the Lightworker is far more likely to punish the Border Patrol agents who let this incident go public.
Then again… is any news outlet besides Fox reporting this? Has any other government official, elected or otherwise, other than Louie Gohmert said anything about it? If not, the Dems and their media sychophants can claim it never happened.
“Well”
“are”
(No need to type so fast…)
They want to start a war, firing on armed Federal agents is a good way to kick it off.
For any other administration in history it would be, this one, not so much.
However, in the TXARG;
Yeah, until Obama calls them up to Nebraska to keep any more outhouse floats from turning up in parades.
State Defense Forces, on the other hand…
I suggest a couple of Marine counter-sniper teams.
Put an end to that non-sense real quick.
Hello, Governor Perry, Governor Brewer? You’ve got National Guard units are your disposal.
I suggest a couple of Marine counter-sniper teams.
The hell with that, a battery of M109s to get their attention.
Can we spare an A-10 or two?
Cranky – don’t think the TX Air Guard has them, but they do have a few FA battalions, and imagine the surprise on the southern side of the Rio Grande when they get blown up by something near 20 miles away.
I can picture it now…
Quote from the inside of the Mexican drug cartel bunker: “¿Qué es ese ruido que silba gracioso?”
Reports from the “Immigration Surge” Protests
That would be cool, EA. However, all we would hear about is the poor civilians who were killed by the Evil Empire (that’s us).
Considering the ongoing activity of the cartels, we are already at war. It’s past time we swept in there and cleaned it up.
As much as I’d like to see a couple of 155’s drop a couple of tons of ordnance on the guys shooting the fifties, I suspect counter-sniping would be a little easier to explain.
Although, 155’s just might send the “quit screwing around” message a bit more forcefully.
Call in the A-10’s. Move up the 155’s.
Meet fire with fire.
A-10s are too loud; there is more art in artillery.
You are correct, EA. We also don’t need to lose an aircraft or worse, pilots.
in baracky’s amerikkka keep dreaming. there’s golf to be played serfs.
I like the fact A-10s are loud. I want them to hear death coming.
something will fill the vacuum domestically created by the clowndisaster™
If you like, they could send a Spectre instead. I would be cool with that.
Not that I don’t appreciate what cool things you can do with artillery these days. For instance, they can place (at least) 5 shells on the same target at the same time from one gun, just by changing the firing parameters for each shell.
I know it won’t happen. The Republic is gone. We’re just going through the motions.
How about a gravity weapon? If they’re good enough for Wile E., they should be good enough for…
it is getting mighty close to the time that we need to channel the spirit of Black Jack and send the U.S. military in there to kill off the cartels, overthrow the corrupt government of Mexico, and do what we did in Japan 70 years ago…write a constitution etc.
Hell..since most of the population of Mexico seems to want to move here, just conquer the damn country….mexico’s southern border would be much easier to defend.
C-47 and a MOAB.
One MOAB = no more snipers + no more cover for a couple hundred yard radius.
Rinse and repeat along all known border crossings.
– All great ideas with no chance in hell of being implemented as long as this crazy mofo is in charge.
People forget that Tijuana is a bigger city (population-wise) than San Diego (not the metro area, just the city), and the largest Mexican city west of Ciudad Juarez (opposite El Paso)…
Just think of all those new Democrats…
Ripley’s on line two with a suggestion…
Obama really does inhabit his own universe.
I think Obama, rather than Beck, is much more likely to become “A Face in the Crowd.”
serving food and clothing to the needy “traveler” of whatever origin is the Christian thing to do. go beck show up the baracky fraud
“A-10s are too loud; there is more art in artillery”
30 Mike Mike has a way of making it’s presence felt. And the noise is not the primary effect rendered.
You just don’t understand the situation as Obama does.
Obviously he just needs to withdraw the Border Patrol to the new “American” border 40 miles north. Rinse repeat as the situation evolves till Jan 2017, by which time he will have found a way to lose another war that was won by the “wrong” people.
Obama, righting all the wrongs, for the people.
oh my : beck standing up for american sovereignty
– I think right about now the religion of pieces is trying to figure out why world opinion has rallied around their PR campaign of using their own citizens as human shields. The cleaning out of tunnels and rocket launchers continues apace, much to the murderous bastards puzzlement. If this insanity of Israel defending itself goes on much longer the peace loving Palestinians may actually be forced to practice peace.
hasn’t rallied.
– Bumblefucks homebois are getting their asses kicked so he’s worried.
– Latest from Gaza.
“The solution is simple – If there is quiet in Israel there will be quiet in Gaza,” says Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor at UN Security Council emergency meeting on escalating crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. “Israel agreed to a ceasefire three times. Hamas rejected it.”
– Link to Iron Dome live blog.
– Finally some real movement in the border wars with the looney Left.
BBH, hopefully, the Guard has orders to treat this as the armed confrontation that it is.
30 Mike Mike has a way of making it’s presence felt. And the noise is not the primary effect rendered.
Noise gives warning. OTOH, we can assume that the snipers have pals in the general area, and the effect on them when their buddies are vaporised with no clue where the boom came from is likely to make them reconsider their career choice.
We’re all missing the obvious option: farm out our border enforcement to the IDF.
We’re all missing the obvious option: farm out our border enforcement to the IDF.
heh, Klavan mentioned nearly that in the vid Insty links this morning. One thing looks kinda obvious about the idea though, the Israelis don’t seem to have much trouble identifying and going after more distant second-order sources of border troubles.
Noise gives warning.
The sound of the shell fired from an A-10 on an attack run arrives on the close order of 2 seconds after the shell actually impacts, since the muzzle velocity is 3500 fps, compared with slowpoke sound moving at just about 1/3 of that, and the effective range is about 4,000 feet. They might hear the plane since it tends to fly low and slow (around 300 knots), but at night, and without lights, that kind of a sound is devilishly hard to locate.
Our “border” problem is worldwide.
Our “border” problem is worldwide.
Certainly it is, since Pres. IVotePresentandWonPenPhone has Article II powers of conduct in all foreign policy and defense matters, which amounts to an open invitation to all the nations of the earth to go ahead and “Start sumpin’, [’cause there] won’t be nuttin’ “.
We’re all missing the obvious option: farm out our border enforcement to the IDF.
Widen, deepen, and extend the Rio Grande to the Pacific, and then fill it with alligators, sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads, and mutated sea bass.
Anybody for a balloon fence?
Balloon fence ??
Mile-high berm…?
Balloon fence ??
It came along with mile-high berms, too.
jinx
“Forgive me Mr. Pancreas, for I am too dumb,” but what are youse guys talking about ?
Here ya go Eingang.
And more for your amusement, Eingang. Too, there’s a generous helping of our old friend Ric Locke in there.
Is it me or have the avatars for most of you changed?
Signed…
Confused In Cloud Cuckoo Land
Some of us switch ’em out from time to time, though the old ones may reappear too now and again Bob.
It’s just that so many changed, it seems, overnight.
BTW: McGehee, the new one stinks – I hope that’s not you without you trademark hat.
Like so.
I want to know which gun shop in Texas sold that weapon to the Mexicans! Damn NRA.
Freaky Deaky…is this one of the signs of The End Of Days?
Wow.
Amazing what one misses without decent intertube access. At the time I was occasionally marveling at this thing taking out mortar rounds, which was obviously a huge waste when all we needed was some aerostats and chickenwire.
signs of The End Of Days?
in my case it’s just a signifier of the 10 day road-trip of death.
My new avatar is the model for a new toy sensation: Mr. Eggplant Head.
I’ve been playing around switching avatars until I get a chance to have a new picture taken. ‘Cause I’ve got a new hat.
sdferr just enjoys flipping the bird from time to time.
Humor him; it’s summer.
Also, I listened to Beck’s initial report from the border, and at least one thing is evident: the forces that drive the tsunami of people across the Rio Grand are vast and entrenched and include heavy participation by the drug cartels — to suggest that Beck’s one-day buffet and soccer-ball initiative has the slightest effect on people’s decision to head north is absurd.
Something like saying that the gravitational effect of one of those soccer balls will affect the tides.
Also, that photo that Jeff posted awhile back showing the teenagers? It’s because they get put in separate rooms by age. There are other rooms with 7-year-olds and 10-year-olds, etc.
So, no single photo of kids in a room is indicative of the demographics of the crossers.
Furthermore, the cartels often “forgive” part of the $7K crossing fee, in exchange for a little favor or two later on. I’m sure you can guess what those favors entail.
It’s insane down there, and Beck hasn’t changed his position on the border one iota. He was on it during the Bush administration and actually called for Bush’s impeachment based on the criminality of the whole border situation.
This Must Stop was his message then and it’s exactly the same now.
Not sure why people have a problem with that. His truckloads of charity got him close to the action and allowed him to talk to people who hate his guts, so he could find out what was actually happening.
He showed up. Others say they’ll go and then cancel.
Yeah. Big mistake, Beck. Whatever was he thinking.
McG, I hope it’s a magic hat.
Texas is sending 1000 National Guardsman to the Mexican border.
Texas AG and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott is on Gretta right now explaining what’s up.
>Yeah. Big mistake, Beck.<
i don't understand the big hate from some on team r/conservative for feeding peeps in a bind
i don’t understand the big hate from some on team r/conservative for feeding peeps in a bind
He’s “enabling” the illegal crossings by offering teddy bears and sammiches.
For some people, unless Beck is physically building the fence, personally escorting the kids back across the river, or canceling in-state tuition for DREAMERS, he’s “helping” the other side.
Uh, no.
It’s called putting your principles ahead of your politics.
He swore an oath to do that. So that’s what he does.
>He’s “enabling” the illegal crossings by offering teddy bears and sammiches.<
If the Central Americans surging into South Texas are seeking asylum, they have an obligation to seek it in Mexico, rather than traverse the entire length of that country’s territory to reach someplace with a more fully developed welfare state where they already have relatives.
ot birds sited so far @ new house work site: dove, hummingbird, turkeys
“i don’t understand the big hate from some on team r/conservative for feeding peeps in a bind – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54475#comment-1096654”
I don’t personally have a problem with what Beck is doing, but for those that do I think it is based on the logic that you shouldn’t feed a stray cat. Next thing you know you are up to your armpits in cats.
I know the argument, that it isn’t a motive for the people coming over the border blah, blah, blah. That’s not the point. The point is feeding them will cause an increase through the law of nature and common sense. It’s a cruel to be kind mentality.
> Next thing you know you are up to your armpits in cats. <
well the same could be said of the baracky's "open border " policy. so feeding poor brown kids privately is verboten in america 2016?
>the logic that you shouldn’t feed a stray cat. <
dehumanizing peeps ain't good
“so feeding poor brown kids privately is verboten in america 2016? – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54475#sthash.8m4ya09H.dpuf”
I don’t think anyone is saying it should be prohibited, it’s a disagreement on the wisdom of the thing.
Like I said, I don’t have a problem with what Beck is doing, but if I feel no compulsion to do it does that make me a bad person?
“well the same could be said of the baracky’s “open border ” policy. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54475#sthash.8m4ya09H.dpuf”
Ain’t that the truth, along with the Dream Act, and decades of the responsible politicians not taking the problem and their duty seriously, including Reagans Amnesty in the 80’s. Some just lump in Becks action as well on that list , you see?
>Some just lump in Becks action as well on that list , you see?<
sounds like "link bait" for the faithful see:
“I Do Take Offense At Being Called A Crapbag”…Thomas Lifson to Dana Loesch
the diane west gig
the lifson/loesch thing is funny ’cause tommy is mightily “offended” @ being called a “crapbag”. good allan the “balls have left the building”.
I feel no compulsion to do it does that make me a bad person?
Deciding not to participate in that effort is not a problem.
Engaging in “feeding a stray cat” logic where it does not apply — on a blog where I can see it — is.
Some just lump in Becks action as well on that list, you see?
It doesn’t belong there. Let me repeat myself:
If Glenn were offering in-state tuition vouchers or food stamp applications or drivers licenses or asylum or EFFING JOBS or if he were participating in any way, shape, or form in the Central American media messaging, you could accuse him of being an enabler.
Instead, he sees children being warehoused in internment camps like stray dogs. He’s a Christian, and Christians go help the “enemy” when he’s lying beaten in the path and left to die, regardless of the team jerseys of the people he’s cooperating with and regardless of the political implications.
If you are interested in what might give someone generally supportive of these types of efforts a moment of pause here it can be found in the transcript to this O’Reilly show, di.
In general, when one side is doing all the active evil and the other side just generally wants the transformational madness to stop… don’t let O’Reilly get away with invoking the menace of the far right or say something decrying politics like, “I don’t care if it is the left or the right that’s doing it.”
Charitable efforts? Great. Allowing and offering that sort of rhetoric though in the name of that very charitable effort? Not so great.
Does charitably alleviating the suffering of the children of Gaza, in a likewise fashion — a certain suffering and certain evil done today, a statement with which we do not disagree — mean that those charitable outsiders alleviating that suffering today (while such burden sharing is undertaken, they have to acknowledge, in concert with Hamas which rules in Gaza today, because reducing the resources Hamas would otherwise be expected by the peoples of Gaza to commit to the welfare of those people, who may, if denied those resources rise up against Hamas their tormentor), and which charity therefore, even if it only indirectly benefits Hamas insofar as it is relieved of some portion of its burden to care for the children of Gaza today — does this mean regarding outside aid to the children of Gaza today which possibly may indirectly lead to a prolongation of Hamas’ rule in Gaza for years to come, and therefore insuring further suffering of the children of Gaza at Hamas’ hands in years to come, does this mean that those relieving the suffering of the children of Gaza today must acknowledge their share in Hamas’ guilt in the suffering of the children of Gaza in the years to come, but that the exchange of present suffering for future suffering is well worth the act? Or ought they to say that contrariwise, one cannot know what evils may come in future, so any charitable act today, whether its future consequences may be tacitly predicted to result in future evil, is well justified on grounds of certain ignorance of the future?
In another part he says, “Well, while Washington is arguing, I think we have a personal responsibility for mercy and to be there to help them to be the Good Samaritan, to be the Americans that we always are.”
While Washington is arguing? See, I thought it was rather simpler than that. Obama is a lawless danger to our republic and he’s acting with a great deal of intentional malice against the best interests of our country.
You do see why these sorts of nods to partisan equivalency are frustrating, right?
don’t let O’Reilly get away with invoking the menace of the far right or say something decrying politics like, “I don’t care if it is the left or the right that’s doing it.”
Listened to it.
Yes, it grates to hear O’Reilly invoke the “far right” as being Beck’s detractors. O’Reilly is a putz who is more invested in appearing to be “fair” or “neutral” than in seeing things clearly. You’d have to ask Beck why he didn’t take issue with the term. Maybe in the interest of time.
When Beck said “I don’t care if it is the left or the right that’s [exploiting children for political gain],” he’s referring to (a) his long-standing record of cursing Bush and even calling for his impeachment over the gubmint’s crimes at the border and (b) the fact that he’d be helping those kids regardless of whose policies landed them in those camps.
So I see O’Reilly’s comments as both offensive and par for the course; Beck’s remarks not so much a problem.
Huh, does “The border is what made me call for the President when it was Bush, his impeachment back around 2006 or 2007” imply some weird asymmetry today? Or is Beck calling for ClownDisaster’s impeachment today and I missed it?
Obama is a lawless danger to our republic and he’s acting with a great deal of intentional malice against the best interests of our country.
I’m guessing that Beck declined to tell O’Reilly why he thinks Obama is doing this because of their history — Beck has tried for years to get O’Reilly to see/admit that Obama is a Marxist but O’Reilly won’t stop it with the “not evil just wrong” stupidity.
Had Beck spoken his mind (as he frequently does on his radio show, should you ever care to listen), then it would have been all about Obama rather than the crisis on the border.
Beck knew better than to rise to that bait. He needed to stay on topic.
We’d probably be able to argue a bit around this topic, di, but I don’t think either of us are particularly inclined towards it.
For what it’s worth, you make a clear brief on his behalf and I’m always happy to hear your thoughts on these things given your experience with both our southern friends and Beck.
Or like so.
sdferr says July 22, 2014 at 1:35 pm
That’s always a concern.
(Note: the entire rest of this comment was written with the possibly mistaken understanding that you were drawing an analogy between Gaza aid and the aid being provided SW American border. It doesn’t make much sense if you weren’t drawing that sort of analogy. When I went back to read your comment again I realized I might be mistaken as to your thrust.)
It could be a reverse tragedy of the commons sort of situation wherein no one charitable person (or powerful charitable vector like Beck) could be nice enough to encourage outsiders to take advantage but 30 or 50 million of them could act in a magnitude gracious enough to encourage them.
For my part, I’d probably need to see this possible phenomena referenced enough by the outside actors to seriously consider it a considerable part of their individual decision to head north. As it is, we probably gotta go with the simpler answer of a) better country and b) far larger welfare payments.
You were correct as regards the analogy bh, not mistaken. This is a fraught subject, a very difficult subject I think, one which I may not be up to presenting properly, or capable of crystallizing with sufficient clarity to aid anyone (and among the anyone, not least myself) — as you might surmise from the painfully inarticulate ineptitude of my original comment.
The question raised by that inept comment of mine, I suppose, must be seen from a political point of view (since it’s Machiavelli’s question, after all is said and done), as opposed to from a private charitable point of view. If attempting to establish a longer term good entails doing or participating in a shorter term evil — if we permit ourselves to speak honestly about policies which even only remotely participate in evil, let alone objectively evil policies — aimed at ending worse evils at hand, can we undertake to do those [longer term aims] with right?
Beck has often said he does not like politics, by which he generally means partisan electoral politics — he does not tend to take or speak of taking a wider view of politics. If Machiavelli has anything to teach about politics, I’d say Beck is right not to like politics even in the more general sense Machiavelli intends. But I believe we may miss something if we follow him there.
Cool, sdferr.
I have to cut this short as dinner service starts, hmmm, right now, but I suppose that the negative view of politics (hateful sophistry and posing which we might characterize as the Machiavellian viewpoint) is the one most commonly held now.
It cuts off a fuller view of the thing (matters of the city, of civilization) but there we go. Even while people are making explicitly political actions (for instance: trying to do their best in regards to the city) they’d never see it as such.
The pejorative lives on.
To further encumber the question: might a decent parent remain decent, to use another case as analogy, when seeing his child about to burn his hand on a stovetop, properly hesitate before the child receives a mild burn (though a painful burn nevertheless — just not a finally debilitating one), or must the parent dive in and grab the groping arm, so sparing the child the pain of a mild burn while depriving the child of the many lessons which accompany the pain incurred — lessons like “you are responsible for where your arm goes”, “don’t assume you know what’s going on in the world, since your assumptions may pay you back in agony”, and other such stuff? It’s possible that either way will work to some good effect, to be sure. It’s also possible that evil creeps in for repetition when one’s own intimate connections to it as cause aren’t fully explored. So with the Gazans. So, possibly, with the invaders from the South.
“Engaging in “feeding a stray cat” logic where it does not apply — on a blog where I can see it — is. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54475#comment-1096887”
Newrouter claimed to not understand those that disliked what Beck was doing, and I took a stab at explaining what I think to be the thinking of them. Go ahead and dismiss it out of hand if you want, but frankly you sound a little arrogant in my opinion.
Do you imagine no one south of the border has a phone or TV, or will never hear from people that went north about how they are treated like guests instead of the invaders they are?
Do you also imagine that little toddlers managed to make their way across Mexico by themselves, yet when they finally hit the US Beck is the only thing saving them from starvation?
Again, I don’t care what Beck does, and doubt those that do are all wrong.
If you want to play the “what would Jesus do” card, perhaps Jesus is an open borders amnesty guy, and we should have all the poor of the world come in. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing for a rich nation like us to do?
A pop-culture [sorry about that word] example.
Stringing out an evil thing to lessen the immediate pain leads to a normalization of the evil as not so bad.
Horowitz: Obama’s Border Narrative Unraveling
A denouement may finally be playing out. And the Big Zero! plays himself.
the proggtards are running out of plausible memes/narratives
Go ahead and dismiss it out of hand if you want, but frankly you sound a little arrogant in my opinion.
I am arrogant. Now what?
Do you imagine no one south of the border has a phone or TV, or will never hear from people that went north about how they are treated like guests instead of the invaders they are?
(1) They’ve been treated like guests instead of invaders (drivers licenses, jobs, in-state tuition, La Raza advocacy) for decades. Beck’s behavior doesn’t change that one way or the other.
(2) On which channel would they see Beck in action? Did anyone televise it except The Blaze? Nobody in Latin America has the faintest idea who Beck is and I can guarantee that nobody called home and said “Guess what, abuela: OSITOS! All y’all come on up and getcha one.”
(3) Churches and other charities have already been helping illegals, quite apart from whatever nonsense the gubmint has been doing; Beck responded to their pleas for help because they’re tapped out and overwhelmed.
(4) When Latinos decide whether to cross the border themselves or to send their kids, they are looking at amnesty, jobs, and family. Not at what some damned talk show host they’ve never heard of does.
(5) I visit Latino immigrants regularly and speak to them in their own language, so I know what they’re about and what motivates them to come up here, and being welcomed by a gringo or three is irrelevant. There’s such a huge community of their own people to take them in that they don’t have to pay attention to whether the güeros like them or not.
PERSPECTIVE, for cryin’ out loud.
If you want to play the “what would Jesus do” card, perhaps Jesus is an open borders amnesty guy, and we should have all the poor of the world come in. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing for a rich nation like us to do?
You never have listened to Beck rant about the border, have you? Because he’s been more adamant about THIS SHIT MUST STOP than anyone else. For years. Including during the Bush administration.
Also, that’s a non-sequitur. It’s possible to say SEND THEM HOME and still help the children who are being exploited by drug lords and our own lovely gubmint until at such time they’re sent home. Not sure why you decided to accuse Beck of going off the deep end when he’s done nothing of the kind. In fact, “Hey Obama, we evil conservatives have to help clean up this mess you’ve made” provides that coveted Moral Authority more than muttering “build the fence” on a blog.
Futhermore, the Mormon Jesus says the following:
The current chaos at the border violates both the principles of wisdom and order. Also
Furthermore
Beck is clearer on the border than you or I, and he’s also trying to balance that with his Christian conscience to care for people when they’re unable to fend for themselves.
I might be arrogant, but you’re talking though your hat.
No, seriously:
People are borrowing up to $7K from loan sharks to get across the border, and they risk their very lives just crossing. Girls risk rape; everyone risks dehydration, rattlesnakes, getting caught in the narcotraficante crossfire.
THAT’s what people phone home about. That plus the jobs and the safer neighborhoods and better schools and the JOBS and all the other Latinos up here who will help you out, plus the JOBS.
They’re sending their kids up in the hopes they’ll get permiso. The presence or absence of a bowl of cereal from Glenn Beck is so far under their radar it’s not even funny. They can get better food at home; they don’t need to come up here for that.
If he were passing out housing applications or proffering any of the actual incentives to cross, you’d have an argument to make.
But Beck’s efforts won’t help increase the influx by one single soul.
Not one.
Don’t overestimate our ability to affect something this big, either by yelling “send them home” or “secure the border” or passing out soccer balls to a bunch of frightened children.
Thought experiment:
A bunch of us stand on our side with signs saying, “Vengan legalmente, si fueran tan amables” and “Vuelvan a casa: aquí no hay campo.”
Is one illegal deterred for even a second?
I could suggest a different thought experiment…
Change the signs to “Si se cruza la frontera ilegalmente, serás asesinado”, and have a few armed men standing at port-arms.
Think they might be deterred then?
“stray cat[s]”
“stray dogs”
Yum.
Yum.
@caecus; makes me so blue.
Now listen to what you’ve done geoffb ~
All from my favorite time period for them.
The Os are up?
Dang Buck left Miggy inna game one batter too long — Trout. Tater, man on. crap.
Change the signs to “Si se cruza la frontera ilegalmente, serás asesinado”, and have a few armed men standing at port-arms.
Think they might be deterred then?
Yes.
Instead, when the narcos cross the river with their charges, they select the weakest passenger and toss him or her overboard mid-stream, forcing the border guards to jump into the river to save the floundering soul.
In the meantime, other narcos on the shore throw rocks at the border guards while they’re in the water. Thus “distracted,” the narcos continue what they were doing unimpeded.
Then they send the illegals on their way, each of them owing about $4K worth of “favors” to the narcos.
Beck and company heard about a quadriplegic kid in a wheelchair who was left face-down on the riverbank (our side), barely alive. The narcos are psychopaths, all, who are making enormous amounts of money in the human and drug trafficking.
There’s a TON of money and power to be accrued by both parties and corporations on the backs of these illegals.
That’s why it won’t stop.
Instead, when the narcos cross the river with their charges, they select the weakest passenger and toss him or her overboard mid-stream, forcing the border guards to jump into the river to save the floundering soul.
How would that “force” the border guards to risk their lives to rescue someone they were about to shoot anyhow? And why wouldn’t they just shoot the narcos, THEN send out a rescue boat if they were so inclined?
Pro’ly ’cause shootin’ ‘cross a border is agin’ Marquiis of Queensbury In’ernat’n’l Law or some such.
We already have a Coast Guard, so how come we have a Border Patrol instead of a Border Guard?
They wouldn’t be shooting across the border, they would be shooting at targets on this side of the border.
The government of the United States under the administration of the ClownDisaster is so sensitive to the safety and welfare of its people, it now issues travel warnings for those Americans who would go to visit Israel, but of course that’s not enough to end the Jew. So, our ClownDisaster’s administration bans US air carriers from flying into Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv for fear, they say, some stray Hamas rocket might by happenstance strike a flight.
See how sensitive to threats? The ClownDisaster administration knows not only how to identify threats but how to make them as well.
Just as when Ansar al-Sharia terrorists moved in next-door to the US consulate in Benghazi Libya and were discovered to be living there; when the diplomats whose lives were imperiled in Benghazi alerted the IVotePresentandWonPenPhone administration to the immediate dangers, begging for increased security measures at a minimum, those diplomats were of course withdrawn to the absolute safety of a casket bound for America. And the source of the danger was dug out forthwith: it was a nasty anti-Islam video that done it.
Who would not feel safe entrusting their care to such a beneficent protector?
How would that “force” the border guards to risk their lives to rescue someone they were about to shoot anyhow?
I’m telling you what’s happening now. Today. That’s what the narcos are doing now. They throw people overboard to occupy the border guards so that they can finish their transport unmolested.
The Border Guards do not shoot people coming across the river, just because they are coming across.
And why wouldn’t they just shoot the narcos, THEN send out a rescue boat if they were so inclined?
Because you don’t randomly shoot into a clot of people and hit abuela and the 6 year old and her mother.
I’m telling you what’s happening now. Today. That’s what the narcos are doing now. They throw people overboard to occupy the border guards so that they can finish their transport unmolested.
Right, I get that they are using our standard responses against us. Now, as you say.
Now, to return to the thought exercise, what if we stopped doing that, ignored the person in the water (who could probably swim well enough to return to their home country) and just started shooting the whole group out of hand?
Why should we risk our border officials to do something that distracts them from their official duties (to wit, actually guarding the border from those they know are violating it)? If the passengers start to realize they are going to be thrown overboard as a distraction, and it never actually distracts, that might change a few things on their side of the cost-benefit equation, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, I’m a cold-hearted sunnuvabitch, but I am tired of armed people violating our national sovereignty, and think it’s time to change the equation in a way that will not let them figure out how to use the rules against us. If they throw someone overboard, and still get arrested, add “attempted murder” to the (many) charges.
what if we stopped doing that, ignored the person in the water, and just started shooting the whole group out of hand?
What’s the point of this thought experiment? OF COURSE an armed response such as you describe would deter entry. We’re all pretty clear on that.
I hope we’re all equally clear that our corrupt gubmint will not change the ROE to stanch the flow in any way, shape, or form. Surely you know that all that coyote money is not remaining on the Mexican side of the border.
So unless you want to construct your own sniper nest and take potshots at the crossers, there’s nothing to be gained by fantasizing about armed responses to the current situation.
Those who have the ability to stop the tsunami have no intention of doing so, and they are absolutely not interested in the wishes of a bunch of teabagging güeros such as you and I.
I think we should do like France and Italy. Round up the intruders, put them in quarantine and send them back to the last country they were in before they hoofed it up here.
Hasta la vista, bebe!
“Some political arrangements just need killin’,” is the theoretical stance at hand.
Is the American political idea peculiar? Deaden it, b’gob.
For instance, listen here.
What’s the point of this thought experiment?
What was the point of yours? I have posited a situation that would stop the crossings — UTTERLY — within mere hours of institution. The fact that the current administration wouldn’t do anything of the sort, and that the other side IS firing shots to achieve a purpose, is another of those things that will not be going on forever.
If the bad guys are using the rules against us? Time to change the rules to something they cannot stop.
What was the point of yours?
To illustrate that some actions taken at the border have nil effect on people’s decision to undertake the crossing in the first place.
e.g., Beck’s teddy bears don’t encourage crossing any more than placards discourage it.
Because people are pissed at him for “enabling” or “encouraging” the problem when in fact he’s not in a position to affect the numbers either way. Not by going to the border, anyway, unless he’s passing out fistfuls of C-notes or housing vouchers.
I think we should do like France and Italy. Round up the intruders, put them in quarantine and send them back to the last country they were in before they hoofed it up here.
On the purely logistical level, how?
Politically, fuggedaboutit.
Aren’t they already in camps? They are in the barracks here at Ft. Sill.
They got here somehow. Tom Coburn said we can fly them all back to their home countries, in first class, for less than the billion$ that Obama is asking for.
Fuck politics.
Well, since there is no “political” solution to the crisis, we might as well roll over and go back to sleep. Can’t stop criminals from being criminals, so we might as well, just have our stuff in easy-to-carry bags so they don’t get annoyed and hurt us on their way out.
I mean, since there isn’t any way to defend a border, and all…
ruining class news
In a blog post titled “The Dignity of the Human Person,” what Cardinal Dolan wrote was:
A week or so ago, I watched with shame as an angry mob in southern California surrounded buses filled with frightened, hungry, homeless immigrants, shaking fists, and shouting for them to “get out!”
It was un-American; it was un-biblical; it was inhumane. It worked, as the scared drivers turned the buses around and sought sanctuary elsewhere.
The incendiary scene reminded me of Nativist mobs in the 1840’s, Know-Nothinggangs in the 1850’s, and KKK thugs in the 1920’s, who hounded and harassed scared immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and Blacks.
And there it is: Sanctuary. Thanks for nothing, Roman Catholic Church.
Reminds me of the time I served a confirmation mass for Archbishop Weakland. Wasn’t I so very proud? Wasn’t I so very naive and soft-headed?
People should read that link in full to see the excluded middle on full display.
Shameful.
One is either a hateful xenophobe or a loving sophisticate.
This is properly labeled sophistry, which has an even older pedigree than the Church, if I recall correctly.
i wonder if the cardinal had any thoughts about the monks being chased out of mosul after 1500 years?
(Footnotes: 1. excluded middle was the shorthand for the false dilemma when I was in school and 2. just google Rembert Weakland.)
Heh, so religion resorts to a debilitating hackery when it rubs up against politics. Why whadda ya know, there’s ol’ Machiavel’s complaint again.
I very much doubt it, nr. The protection of the faith isn’t really on the priority list anymore, it seems.
On the plus side, we did have a Reformation. We don’t need to pay all that much attention to such empty-headedness if we don’t find their pablum worthy for adult consumption.
The man in question did anyways. So let’s name him. Cardinal Dolan. This is on him. Religion itself has neither a voice or thoughts or agency.
The good Cardinal should address the issues of crime, poverty, drug running and child prostitution in Central and South Americas.
Beam in your own eye, Eminence.
Fair enough corrective bh. Religion has no . . . being of its own apart from individual human beings in our experience.
Yeah, I’d say not, sdferr. Religion is like literary theory or electrical engineering. It’s a system of thought in our employ. When someone writes a piece of shit novel or causes an eventual house fire, we can only blame human action/inaction.
Any remarkable consistency we may notice in the human representations of religious expression we account to a consistency in the humans themselves, we might say. Will we be in some difficulty down the way?
Towards the first sentence, I think I would say this, sdferr. As to the question, I either don’t catch your hint towards what problems this line of thought would logically lead us into or would just say that we’ll be in the same difficult situation we’ve always been in.
Well, since there is no “political” solution to the crisis, we might as well roll over and go back to sleep.
OR WE CAN THINK OF WAYS TO NOT LET THIS CRISIS GO TO WASTE.
Sorry for shouting; I’ve been saying this on other threads and nobody seems to get what I’m saying.
I suspect, but of course cannot know, that we might find our premises to lead us into difficulty with individual religious persons who take another view. I might laugh at such a statement, yet can only do so in full awareness of heads being lost to just these sentiments in Iraq today, among other places. And yes, I agree too with the idea that we’re in “the same difficult situation we’ve always been in”, no more, no less.
The good Cardinal should address the issues of crime, poverty, drug running and child prostitution in Central and South Americas.
Damn straight. Catholicism in Latinoamerica doesn’t serve as a moral compass for people — it’s the very opiate it’s been accused of.
Spain brought the Church to its colonies to help the peasant class resign itself to its pathetic state. Having never had competition as it did in the English colonies, fulfilling the spiritual needs of people or providing guidance on how to behave was never the Church’s business.
Ergo, it attracted a much different class of men to the priesthood: those with political ambitions rather than pastoral concerns.
Not to mention the Marxoid “liberation theology” heresy that’s infesting the clergy.
Someone like Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia doesn’t exist in Latin America. Her Catholicism is well-considered and transformative; anyone so inclined down there joins another Christian sect.
They have to: Latino Catholicism provides no such path.
I forgot to say: There’s no such thing as “Catholic guilt” in Latin America. They do what they want then pray to the Virgin to win the lottery.
That tells you all you need to know.
I’ve certainly found that to be the case.
ruining class news
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. Calif.) suggested that “the most important thing that we can do to use this crisis as an opportunity is to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”
Jeb Bush: Use Border Crisis to Pass Amnesty Bill