Eagle against the star.
By trevino Posted in Elections — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As avid readers of James Michener's staff-researched tomes know, the fates of Texas and Mexico are inextricably intertwined. It is the manner of that intertwining that fluctuates throughout history, and it has taken a slow, ugly turn in recent days. From the era of Southron settlers raising the standard of revolt, to the era of "one riot, one Ranger" -- not coincidentally the era of Anglo lynchings of Mexican-Americans -- to the NAFTA era, Texas has as often as not been internally defined by its relations with its neighbor to the south. Not for nothing did then-Governor George W. Bush campaign in 2000 on the premise that he was already experienced in foreign policy by dint of his relations with Mexico. My own family (now Texan, but once Mexican) is a microcosm of this relationship: my great-grandfather, a border sheriff who wore his ivory-handled pistols like he meant to use 'em -- and did -- almost certainly bused Mexicans across the Rio Grande to help LBJ steal the 1948 Senate race from Coke Stevenson; and my aunt and uncle are in the habit of traveling to the border town of Nuevo Progreso along with countless other elderly Texans to purchase drugs and medical services at ludicrously low prices (whether this is wise in the absence of meaningful regulation is for another post). The cross-border traffic has not always been so nonviolent: my grandmother recounts how her mother, a Laredo resident, would brave Federales shelling during the Mexican Revolution to go to the mercado in Nuevo Laredo. But that was ninety years past: now, sadly, we find that venturing into Nuevo Laredo is a lethal exercise for Americans once more.
Read on.
This is more than an ordinary crime drama -- rather, the phenomenon of the missing Americans goes to the heart of the emerging relationship between Mexico and the United States. It is a relationship that, despite the hopes that attended the relationship (now sadly neglected) between Presidents Bush and Fox, is sliding more and more toward confrontation, even as populations increasingly mingle. One need not buy into the racist theorizing of anti-immigrant groups (like the detestable American Patrol, which apparently believes that Mexicans are incapable of basic humanity) to recognize that there is a culture of lawlessness and banditry afoot in Mexico, and that the United States needs to confront the question of just how much it is willing to allow its citizens to suffer from that. The tragedy of the Nuevo Laredo disappearances has been a long time coming, and like most such phenomena (including Muslim terrorism), the perpetrators kill far more of their own than they do Americans. The kidnappings in today's WaPo were long since preceded by increasingly violent drug wars and horrific mass murders. (Another of my aunts, who, like me, is not immediately identifiable as Hispanic, was in Nuevo Laredo with her daughter several years ago -- she grew up in Laredo -- and overheard men debating in Spanish when and where to seize the young woman. She grabbed her daughter and fled.) The desperados, toting about their AK-47s and RPGs in public and outgunning local police, often sound more like Iraqi guerrillas than Mexican bandits. The effect in either case is the same -- society is terrorized into submission, and the law fades into irrelevance. Often the "law" itself is the problem: in Reynosa, Americans have been robbed by local police who force them to withdraw money from ATMs. Where the law is effective -- on the American side -- it is hamstrung to act where it is needed by Mexican sovereignty and the unique prickliness of Mexican nationalism. For all its troubles, official Mexico is loathe to call upon the United States: this is the nation where Mexican soccer fans chant "Osama" to taunt American players; this is the nation where the government publishes what is, in effect, a how-to manual for illegal immigrants and provides them with certain legal protections once in the United States. It is hardly too much to say that the demands of Mexican self-respect are such that they would rather sink into anarchy before accepting the strong hand of American assistance. So be it: Mexico is free to do as it wishes.
The question then becomes one of what we are willing to do to protect our own. In the case of the dozens of missing Americans in Nuevo Laredo, we seem to be a long way from the days of "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." American diplomatic pressure on Mexican authorities is exceedingly well-hidden, and the era of sending soldiery across the Rio Grande to mete out justice where the Mexicans cannot is apparently also bygone. (The last time it happened, in 1916, my great-grandfather was among the US cavalrymen.) In the absence of meaningful protection for American citizens -- and let us note that if we can send Marines to Liberia, we surely can effect measures to secure the very near abroad -- the southern border therefore becomes a sort of festering wound, or perhaps more accurately a vacuum into which the lawless and renegade elements of the region set up shop and ply their deadly trades. And not just the region -- the world, for the breakdown of order in Mexico is already showing signs of attracting the attention of Islamist terrorists who have had enough of the burdensome bureaucracy of Canada. Given that we know that transnational criminal organizations spanning the United States and Latin America already exist, and given that we know they are attracting the attention of al Qaeda, this is no idle threat. Beyond the ordinary impetus to protect American citizens, the need for a secure and orderly Mexico is a key facet of the war on terror.
What, then, have we seen from our government and this Administration on this issue? Precious little. The President's efforts are limited to a thoroughly ill-conceived amnesty that does nothing to address basic issues, and the Congress can't even agree to fill in a gaping hole in the border fence in California. Some Republicans are starting to break ranks on the issue, but it remains to be seen whether they are enough to make a difference. Meanwhile, Americans living along the border cry out for help -- even as their children out for a night in Mexico are not coming home.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Liberty for all -- a great speech — Comments (0) »
Eagle against the star. 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
All right, then, you have presented anecdotes "back[ed] up ... with ample citations."
I suppose any collection of data could be considered "anecdotal." Multiple kidnappings, killings, and the breakdown of law enforcement is rather more serious, though.
IOW, I'm not suggesting that your anecdotes are untrue; just unrepresentative. (Laredo's crime rate dropped 15+% from 1990-1998, f'instance....
Yeah, but Laredo's not the problem. Nuevo Laredo is -- it's the Mexican side where things are going to pieces.
We disagree, however, on whether recent changes (if any) in immigration laws or the enforcement of those laws are responsible for a recent increase in the border crime rate (if any).
I don't know that there's been a significant change in the laws or their enforcement in the recent era; I do know that they've done little to stem the tide and its attendant problems.
We also disagree on whether a bigger fence and tougher immmigration laws will create enough of an economic disincentive to discourage illegal immigration....
I don't think the disincentive will be economic at all -- on that count, certainly I'm amenable to development projects within Mexico. A barrier is a barrier, after all.
Incidentally, on the impact of illegal drugs on border crime, don't read this as a drug law liberalization screed.
No worries -- I'm in favor of a great deal of drug liberalization.
Are adopting Malkineese, are are you using the term in its ordinary sense? If the latter, I certainly agree.
We do agree on this point, then.
This is, as you note, hardly a new phenomenon. Growing up in The Great State, one sort of learned that there are large stretches of Mexico into which one does not venture unarmed, and certainly not in the company of young women. It is a situation that the penultimate occupier of the Oval Office assured us was improving in the wake of the peso crisis -- and, from my limited, anecdotal experience, most of the country bought that sales job.
This was big news almost twenty years ago, but it was hardly a unique event.
Without necessarily turning this into an open thread, I rather wonder what the best solution for this is. Me, I suspect a solution was in hand one hundred and sixty years ago, but for good or for ill, we didn't take Scott's victory to its logical conclusion. Bellicose idiot that I am, I'm open to considering rectifying that (if "rectifying" is the right word), although I suspect the problems attendant with doing so would be nearly as great in number and scope (although not in type) as what we would have faced then.
...annexing Mexico, it wasn't a logical conclusion at the time; as usual, the slavery question was skewing everything.
As to whether it would have been a good idea, I've already come up with five major variables (Native American assimilation issues, the reaction by Europe, the reaction by South America existing anti-Catholic prejudice in the United States and the conflict over whether the new territories would be slave/free states*) and I haven't even had my coffee yet. IOW, calculating the highest probability result for this alternate would be kind of tricky. :)
-M
*Which, given that the new territories in question had belonged to a nation which had previously abolished slavery, could have been... contentious.
I note I said this:
although I suspect the problems attendant with doing so would be nearly as great in number and scope (although not in type) as what we would have faced then.
It's not like I was unaware of the problems (you've forgotten still-hot Mexican nationalism less than fifty years after independence from Spain, logistics in keeping the place garrisoned while it's brought under control, the weird ethnic mix/cauldron that Mexico was at the time, lingering bad feelings between Mexico and what had until recently been the Republic of Texas, difficulties with Britain to the North (not to be resolved for a few years yet), and border issues with Texas). Nor was or am I advocating that course, then or now. I was starting the discussion off.
As the Patron Saint of Flamethrowers, it's my job to start things off this way.
...just shoving out to the open some of the variables before the "Yeah, we shoulda done that!" or the "We'd all been doomed!" comments started up. :)
-M
PS: And I think that we've both forgotten the "millions of new citizens who would only have spoken Spanish" issue. Or at least not mentioned it. :)
Let me second Thomas' comment of "excellent, excellent post."
she's a;ready well to the right of Bush on immigration. If it becomes clear that she intends to run, I will be supporting her candidacy at Dean Nation.
She has no intention of undercutting a potential future constituency's demographic growth, unless she thinks Rove is right.
Is there any reason you wouldn't support her?
....you'd be an Evan Bayh man.
It's unclear to me that Hillary! actually stands for much beyond her own self-promotion, really.
you're aboslutely right, pure democratic card-carrying partisan that I am, of course I must be supporting Hillary as an a-priori imperative. It's ludicrous to even suggest otherwise!
Do me a favor and don't do a google search for "Aziz Dean Nation" anytime soon. I much prefer the comedy.
is the one who smacks to me of self-promotion. He is a good moderate but hasn't ever distinguished himself in my mind with any bold action of leadership.
I've long (ie, 1996-onwards) been a fan of Hillary, sans superflous punctuation, and have done extensive reading on her background enough to be impressed with her character. As she has of course been caricatured by her enemies, I'm not even going to try to defend her on Red State, it would be a fool's errand, but to m mind there are strong parallels with a certain man from <strike>Kenneybunkport</strike>Crawford in how she has been vilified for partisan gain rather than out of any honest assessment of ideals and principles.
I was serious. The way you phrased it made it sound like, "Given her stance on immigration, I would support her." That suggests but for causation. What about her would make you not support her? I was (and am) actually curious.
I apologize for being defensive - as written, your comment sounded like a "well DUH you support her". I respect Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, as mentioned in my response to Josh earlier. Regarding immigration, my parents immigrated here the hard way in the 1970s from India and in general I support open LEGAL immigration (for largely liberal reasons, such as unrestricted illegal immigration puts downward pressure on wages and undermines unions). On this issue I think Clinton has formulated the right position whose national security benefits are, of course, self-evident. Speaking as a homebuyer in east texas, I am fully aware of the invisible subsidy that illegal immigrants have given me, but I think that the benefits to society in the longer term make it neccessary to take a harder line towards illegals.
I admit to favoring a guest-worker program as the ultimate ideal solution, as long as it provudes a mechanism for eventual citizenship via a seniority system. I also think that we should not break up families. We can stop the flow but do so in a humane manner.
I am absolutely , irrevocably opposed to changing the "born on US soil = US citizen" rule. Any candidate who even suggests tinkering with it is immediately beyond the pale of my support.
As far as the wording of my comment, you're right, and I apologize. It wasn't meant that way, as I explained earlier.
Who, precisely, is in favor of changing jus soli, and, if I may ask, why is that beyond the pale? Again, that's meant honestly, not snidely. I see pros and cons each way.
but it has come up before in the immediate-post 9-11 era, and i offered it as an example of a position that a given politician such as Hillary might espouse which would stop me from supporting them (as you asked for an example of). Since Hillary (unwisely) floated the idea of abolishing the Electoral College post-2000, it's not like it's unthinkable for other "minor mods" to the Constitution to be tried out as part of an immigration policy, though I assume its less likely from a liberal tough-immigrationist than from a conservative one. Then again, its the conservatives who want to "minor mod" the Con to allow Schwarzenegger to be president, which I also oppose, so go figure. Its nearly impossible to really predict which side of the aisle will flot a given "minor mod" (man, i love this new turn of phrase) based on ideological concerns, really. Hence my bringing it up with relation to Hill.
If we just repealed the 17th, that would solve a lot of stuff too... but dont get me started.
that would make for an interesting discussion - if it gets on fp anytime soon, count me in. Im not ready to marshal my thoughts in the quick of a comment right now but given a chance to think on it i could probably be a bit more coherent.
I, too, favor repealing 17. Sniff.
Why is altering jus soli so very bad? Like I said, I see pros and cons.
Peer pressure! Peer pressure!
All the cool people want to repeal the 17th Amendment. Don't you want to be cool? :)
...institute it and you've got the potential for delegitimizing people's citizenship after the fact. I have at least two great-grandparents whose immigration history wasn't precisely, ah, perfect; my awareness of this pretty much forces me to draw a line against any potential weakening of jus soli at all. I don't really care how unlikely it would be that I would be affected by such a policy - and my sympathies are all with the people that it would apply to.
Anyway, that's my own stance on the matter.
As I fear I must repeat as an antecedent, I see pros and cons, and could go either way.
But we could grandfather this. It's not like it's a Constitutional issue; it's a Congressionally delineated thing. We could apply jus soli only to legal immigrants and citizens. We could apply it selectively. We could abolish it altogether. There's no need to go to a pure jus sanguinis regime.
Insofar as it acts as a perverse incentive to immigrate illegally, when coupled with our policy of never breaking up families, and never forcibly deporting American citizens, there are issues. I don't see, based on what you said, why this needs to be off the table altogether.
...in part because the incentive that you mentioned is a small enough price to pay for not having a government policy that can result in somebody's citizenship being taken away after the fact. However rarely such a policy might be implemented; to use an overused term of art, it's a slippery slope scenario.
-M
PS: BTW, I grokked that you're stimulating the conversational ether, not taking a position one way or the other. Sorry that wasn't clearer in my earlier comment.
I -- even strict originalist that I am -- don't remotely see how one could be stripped of one's citizenship after the fact, for a whole host of Constitutional reasons.
...in people seeing how obviously unconstitutional the nature of an offending law was somewhere around the fourteenth or twentieth time that Congress made a mockery of the 'limited time' portion of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
Or, from another angle (btw, IANAL), let's contemplate a hypothetical law from 1970: Smith vs. Jones, which finds that the Constitution mandates that spitting on the sidewalk be punishable by fines, jail time and the wearing of big rubber noses. Would the famous activist group Americans for Big Rubber Noses prefer to have SvsJ overruled, never to come back - or would they prefer to to go back in time and prevent the court case from reaching the Supreme Court? I'm going to say the latter, because even if the case is overturned it was still part of American jurisprudence for thirty years and (I believe) will still have relevance in future cases.
IOW, I prefer scenarios where instead of pouring an egg back into its shell we try not breaking the egg.
-M
PS: We shall now pause while the trained legal professionals on this site genially mock my clumsy attempts to argue case law. I don't mind, really. :)
but ultimately my main rationale will be symbolic. It is, after all, the single reason my parents immigrated here. It is hard to express sometimes just how important the symbolism of it is to 2nd generation-onwards Americans. Being of the first generation born here, I am hpelessly biased, as are most Indian* Americans I would suspect.
* not "Native"
I think that you play up some anecdotes, and portray the border region as worse than it is. Moreover, this region has been problematic since the very beginnings of its existence. Its lawlessness (both real and perceived) is a feature that has been, historically speaking, largely unaffected by our immigration policy over the last century-and-a-half. It's a mistake to point to our current immigration policy and imply that this is a primary cause.
It is true that some of the criminal activity is directly tied to our immigration policy, which has delivered significant portions of the citizenry into the hands of coyotes and banditos. The solution to such problems is not, however, to tighten immigration restrictions.
von
p.s., and FWIW -- I'm acutely aware regarding particular advantages/limitations/problems (depending upon your perspective) in the Mexican criminal and civil justice systems. (I cannot get into my particular knowledge or experiences, however, because of certain ongoing litigation.)
also I am sure that teh War on Drugs has played a nontrivial role in the militarization of the criminal element. The exact dynamics there I am not qualified to comment, but it does need to be factored into the analysis.
I think that you play up some anecdotes, and portray the border region as worse than it is.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, nor of your statement that "this region has been problematic since the very beginnings of its existence." I portray the border factually, I think, and back up my "anecdotes" with ample citations. If you think they are inaccurate or unrepresentative, that's one thing -- I disagree, of course, and I think the situation backs me up. As for the region being inherently "problematic," the fact is that during most of the era of PRI rule, it was vastly less so than it is now. When my mother was growing up, her parents felt quite free to send her alone as an exchange student to Monterrey. Imagine the risk doing that now.
Its lawlessness (both real and perceived) is a feature that has been, historically speaking, largely unaffected by our immigration policy over the last century-and-a-half.
To the contrary -- the organized crime element involved in human trafficking across the border is a major element in promoting lawlessness there. The drug traffic probably bears the preponderance of the responsibility, but we can't dismiss immigration as a meaningful factor as you do.
The solution to such problems is not, however, to tighten immigration restrictions.
Why not? A fence and a militarized border would solve a great many things. As would meaningful anti-illegal-immigrant enforcement within the United States.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, nor of your statement that "this region has been problematic since the very beginnings of its existence." I portray the border factually, I think, and back up my "anecdotes" with ample citations.
All right, then, you have presented anecdotes "back[ed] up ... with ample citations." I'm not sure how that addresses my criticism that your argument regarding the present-day state of Laredo and Neuvo Laredo and (presumably) other border towns is primarily "anecdotal."
IOW, I'm not suggesting that your anecdotes are untrue; just unrepresentative. (Laredo's crime rate dropped 15+% from 1990-1998, f'instance: http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexascities/Laredo.pdf, and there is an attempt at greater cooperation on both sides of the border -- see, e.g., http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-council/council-activities/council-minutes/
2002Min/M2002-R-04.htm.)
As for my assertion that the U.S.-Mexico border has been problematic since the inception of a U.S.-Mexican border, your own post cites the lawlessness of the border region in the past. It has been a fixture since there was a "U.S." and a "Mexico" (and probably before) -- in part because of the expanse of the border, in part because of the sparseness of its population. Indeed, the general lawlessness of the Mexican-U.S. border region (or, at least, the perception thereof) is so well-established that it's taken for granted in the popular imagination: think of Tijuana pirate radio stations, Eastwood's spaghetti westerns of the 70s, and Willie Nelson's entire commerical output (etc.).
To the contrary -- the organized crime element involved in human trafficking across the border is a major element in promoting lawlessness there. The drug traffic probably bears the preponderance of the responsibility, but we can't dismiss immigration as a meaningful factor as you do.
Yes, we agree on both narrow points. We disagree, however, on whether recent changes (if any) in immigration laws or the enforcement of those laws are responsible for a recent increase in the border crime rate (if any).* We also disagree on whether a bigger fence and tougher immmigration laws will create enough of an economic disincentive to discourage illegal immigration -- or whether it will simply lead to greater lawlessness, fewer tax collections, greater danger to Mexican migrants, and further criminal control over the process.
Incidentally, on the impact of illegal drugs on border crime, don't read this as a drug law liberalization screed. There is a very large difference between implementing common-sense rules regarding immigration and the war on drugs.
As would meaningful anti-illegal-immigrant enforcement within the United States.
I'll confess to always being unsure what someone means when they mention "enforcement." When Michelle Malkin says she's "pro-enforcement," she means that she wants to enact new laws or wants to prevent the enactment of other laws. Each is, of course, contrary to the ordinary meaning of the term "enforcement," as well as disingenuous -- but, hey, a certain looseness of morality and language are hardly her worst faults.
Are adopting Malkineese, are are you using the term in its ordinary sense? If the latter, I certainly agree. So long as money can be found in the budget, I am absolutely in favor of increasing true "enforcement" expenditures.
von
*We'll define "recent" as 1990-present so that we include the NAFTA era.
All right, then, you have presented anecdotes "back[ed] up ... with ample citations."
I suppose any collection of data could be considered "anecdotal." Multiple kidnappings, killings, and the breakdown of law enforcement is rather more serious, though.
IOW, I'm not suggesting that your anecdotes are untrue; just unrepresentative. (Laredo's crime rate dropped 15+% from 1990-1998, f'instance....
Yeah, but Laredo's not the problem. Nuevo Laredo is -- it's the Mexican side where things are going to pieces.
We disagree, however, on whether recent changes (if any) in immigration laws or the enforcement of those laws are responsible for a recent increase in the border crime rate (if any).
I don't know that there's been a significant change in the laws or their enforcement in the recent era; I do know that they've done little to stem the tide and its attendant problems.
We also disagree on whether a bigger fence and tougher immmigration laws will create enough of an economic disincentive to discourage illegal immigration....
I don't think the disincentive will be economic at all -- on that count, certainly I'm amenable to development projects within Mexico. A barrier is a barrier, after all.
Incidentally, on the impact of illegal drugs on border crime, don't read this as a drug law liberalization screed.
No worries -- I'm in favor of a great deal of drug liberalization.
Are adopting Malkineese, are are you using the term in its ordinary sense? If the latter, I certainly agree.
We do agree on this point, then.
I suppose any collection of data could be considered "anecdotal." Multiple kidnappings, killings, and the breakdown of law enforcement is rather more serious, though.
Well, no. Statistical data, such as the data that I present for Laredo, is not "anecdotal." As for Nuevo Laredo's crime rate, a quick google didn't turn up relevant statistics. However, given the relative openness of the border and the interrelationship and interdendency between Nuevo Laredo and Laredo, one would expect that a sudden and severe rise in Nuevo Laredo's crime rate would be reflected in an increase in Laredo's crime rate. Yet, we don't see that.
Incidentally, I'm not the one who is arguing that there's been an increase in crime. I'm merely pointing out that (1) anecdotal evidence is a poor way of judging whether the per capita crime rate has, in fact, increased and (2) per capita measures in a nearby community are not consistent with a sudden or severe change in Nuevo Laredo's crime rate.
I don't know that there's been a significant change in the laws or their enforcement in the recent era; I do know that they've done little to stem the tide and its attendant problems.
I guess I'm having real trouble understanding the "attendant problems" to which you're referring. Criminals are in control of immigration? Well, if the immigration is not per se objectable, it seems like the best way to remove criminals from the process is to legitimize it. It worked extremely well for alcohol regulation, after all.
Immigrants are being abused, or are working for below market (and below statutory) wages? Again, if you want workers to be subject to the requirements of the system, bring them into the system.
Immigrants aren't paying their fair share in taxes? Once again, legitimizing the process so that they can pay their taxes seems advisible.
Immigrants are a drain on public services and don't contribute enough? See the tax issue, above. Also, if you reduce the incentive to have children in the US by providing sensible work procedures (which allow migrant workers to freely move between both countries so that the benefits of native-born citizenship are reduced), you may find people less incentivized to have children in the U.S.
Are we concerned about terrorists using the border as a dodge? Increase cross-border coorperation and free up (scarce) law enforcement assets to pursue the bad guys -- by, say, shifting those assets from immigration work.
Is there a risk of allowing al Queda agents of Mexican descent to use the border as a shield and a cloak to secretly enter the country? Sure -- and maybe it has already occurred with respect to Padillo. But it's not intuitive to me that stricter immigration laws will necessarily result in greater control over immigration, or whether they will simply drive the illegal trade in people deeper underground. And there's an similar risk of U.S., Canadian, Filippino, Malay, Bosnian, Chechneyan, etc. agents -- which raises a question of how far such controls should extend. (Profiling -- whether direct or, in the case of immigration controls, de facto -- will only get you so far.)
No worries -- I'm in favor of a great deal of drug liberalization.
I buy the arguments in favor of decriminalization and increased local control over marijuana law. I don't for most other drugs.
_________
Regardless of how we conceive of the U.S. and Mexico in a formalistic sense, the two nations are inextricably bound together. (I realize that you make this point with respect to Texas, but the issue is larger than just Texas.) The U.S. and Mexico are two nations, hopeless interpedendent: receiving capital investments and providing labor and goods; receiving culture and providing culture; each being altered by and altering the other. To the extent that our immigration policy can recognize these facts, good. Efficiencies are born in the rare case when government policy aligns with reality.
Jeez, how much is this going to suck?
Answer: a lot.
After Spiderman, FF was my favorite. A septuagenarian Ben Richards just doesn't fit.
But still.
And if she doesn't have like five hairstyles and seven different ways to show cleavage, they've really trashed the spirit of the thing.
To figure out how this was "related news." (Mr. Fantastic was a migrant farmworker prior to being blasted by gamma rays? Did I miss some "The More You Know" announcement on NBC when I was watching the cartoon on Saturday mornings?)
There is always hope.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, nor of your statement that "this region has been problematic since the very beginnings of its existence." I portray the border factually, I think, and back up my "anecdotes" with ample citations.
All right, then, you have presented anecdotes "back[ed] up ... with ample citations." I'm not sure how that addresses my criticism that your argument regarding the present-day state of Laredo and Neuvo Laredo and (presumably) other border towns is primarily "anecdotal."
IOW, I'm not suggesting that your anecdotes are untrue; just unrepresentative. (Laredo's crime rate dropped 15+% from 1990-1998, f'instance: http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexascities/Laredo.pdf, and there is an attempt at greater cooperation on both sides of the border -- see, e.g., http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-council/council-activities/council-minutes/
2002Min/M2002-R-04.htm.)
As for my assertion that the U.S.-Mexico border has been problematic since the inception of a U.S.-Mexican border, your own post cites the lawlessness of the border region in the past. It has been a fixture since there was a "U.S." and a "Mexico" (and probably before) -- in part because of the expanse of the border, in part because of the sparseness of its population. Indeed, the general lawlessness of the Mexican-U.S. border region (or, at least, the perception thereof) is so well-established that it's taken for granted in the popular imagination: think of Tijuana pirate radio stations, Eastwood's spaghetti westerns of the 70s, and Willie Nelson's entire commerical output (etc.).
To the contrary -- the organized crime element involved in human trafficking across the border is a major element in promoting lawlessness there. The drug traffic probably bears the preponderance of the responsibility, but we can't dismiss immigration as a meaningful factor as you do.
Yes, we agree on both narrow points. We disagree, however, on whether recent changes (if any) in immigration laws or the enforcement of those laws are responsible for a recent increase in the border crime rate (if any).* We also disagree on whether a bigger fence and tougher immmigration laws will create enough of an economic disincentive to discourage illegal immigration -- or whether it will simply lead to greater lawlessness, fewer tax collections, greater danger to Mexican migrants, and further criminal control over the process.
Incidentally, on the impact of illegal drugs on border crime, don't read this as a drug law liberalization screed. There is a very large difference between implementing common-sense rules regarding immigration and the war on drugs.
As would meaningful anti-illegal-immigrant enforcement within the United States.
I'll confess to always being unsure what someone means when they mention "enforcement." When Michelle Malkin says she's "pro-enforcement," she means that she wants to enact new laws or wants to prevent the enactment of other laws. Each is, of course, contrary to the ordinary meaning of the term "enforcement," as well as disingenuous -- but, hey, a certain looseness of morality and language are hardly her worst faults.
Are adopting Malkineese, are are you using the term in its ordinary sense? If the latter, I certainly agree. So long as money can be found in the budget, I am absolutely in favor of increasing true "enforcement" expenditures.
von
*We'll define "recent" as 1990-present so that we include the NAFTA era.