Friends, what we're doing at the border clearly isn't working -- or rather, since the federal courts and the Democrats refuse to allow the Trump administration to deport phony asylum-seekers, our border has become, in effect, one big joke. This calls for outside-the-box thinking, if we are ever to restore U.S. sovereignty. My latest article suggests an approach that concentrates on Mexico and Central America, rather than on the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. See what you think...
https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2019/04/19/president-trump-look-to-mexico-city-not-washington-for-a-solution-to-the-border-crisis-n2545053
In other news, the Mueller report is out! I don't wish to waste any more time than necessary on this charade, which I consider to be the death throes of the collusion delusion, but this article mirrors my thinking pretty well. Mueller set out to nail Trump -- and he failed. In the process, Mueller ignored plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by Democrats. Our task is now to set that right and to bring to justice the would-be framers of Donald Trump. Personally, I will settle for nothing less.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/19/mueller_strzok_out_with_his_whitewash_report__140106.html
Dr. Waddy: Its such a hard choice; economic sanctions would probably increase the destitution and desperation of those many among the migrants who seek only a decent life.
ReplyDeleteChief among those who advocate allowing unlimited immigration are those who believe it would destroy our country and who actively seek that end. No border, no country and they know it.We face an existential threat and the fundamental purpose of the military is to protect us. We would be justified then, in using it.
Its an onerous situation but the plain fact is that Mexico, by accomplishing or enabling the massive crossing of our border against our will, demonstrates itself an enemy, no less, against which the use of force, economic or military, may be a tragic necessity.
You're right, Jack, that severe sanctions and/or military force both risk destabilizing the relevant countries, and thus INCREASING the flow of migrants. Any harsh action would also play into the hands of the drama queens in the media. My guess, though, is that the mere discussion of bold measures like these could bring our neighbors to the south into compliance with their obligations. Already Mexico is starting to see the light. We need to give them a few more reminders of the stakes.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: That makes sense. I am confident we do all we can to advance the well being of the wretched of Latin America with legal immigration and foreign aid. We do far more than most countries, including the very homelands of those for whom life is an ordeal.We also saved most of Latin America from the curse of Marxism, an ideology proven in practice to degrade beyond measure the lives of those it purports to uplift. Venezuela exemplifies that which we stopped in most of the Western hemisphere (even the Canadians, great fighters that they are, could not have stopped a Soviet onslaught on their own). We have done much good but we have necessary limits and the right to defend them.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, where is the U.N. in aiding the poor of Latin America? Oh that's right, corrupt and venal regimes of South America are as nothing compared to the consummate injustice of Israel,against which much of the U.N.would be blithe to take very decisive and permanent action any old time now.
Jack, I'm not sure the UN provides much succor to the poor anywhere on Earth, but capitalism sure does. The lot of the poor in the Third World has been substantially improved in recent decades, and as we both know it's not "socialism" that worked its magic...
ReplyDeleteI wonder when masses of Venezuelans will start showing up at the border. They've already arrived in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru. Why not hoof it to Texas?
I suppose one thing we could do to calm the situation in some Latin American countries would be to legalize drugs and thus stick a fork in many criminal enterprises. Would you be amenable to that?
Dr. Waddy: I'm for this: in the U.S.legalize weed, and some other drugs which may be reasonably seen to be approximately no more harmful than alcohol.Then get super serious about those who persist in enabling the use of deadly drugs like meth and heroin. For users, provide one chance only at mandatory shock incarceration. If they reoffend, they must be considered dealers for helping to sustain the market. For the dealers of death, death by hanging is just. Consider Singapore.
ReplyDeleteIn a country like ours a relatively decent life is available to most people willing to live lawfully and positively (despite Bernie Sanders being a millionaire by profit - I mean, does he NEED those big bucks? ). Nuthin' wrong with getting a buzz on as long as its done within the law; with alcohol and some then legalized drugs an adequate variety of means of enjoying such recreation or consolation would obtain - no excuses left. Many who profit from illegal drugs, however, are incapable, due to thoroughly criminal attitudes and lifestyles, of living constructively. They will turn to other forms of crime.
I worked with many inmates who grew up in Latin American settings so appalling that they were reduced to desperation. Many of them had only the vaguest understanding of what had brought them incarceration in the frozen north. What of them should the drug trade be curtailed? We must defend our country, yes, but what of them? Free enterprise and profit seeking, including that of America, are the best ways to lift the intensely unfortunate but,as Shaw's St.Joan said " Oh God, when, oh when will we be worthy of your Saints?". We could render enough aid to alleviate very much suffering but when it is intercepted by venal monsters in cursed lands . . . ?
Jack, I'm CERTAIN that we can never end poverty and desperation abroad with foreign aid. As you say, it's a very blunt instrument, and we simply don't have the funds to make a dent.
ReplyDeleteDrugs are admittedly not my field of expertise. It's hard for me to judge which drugs are "serious" or "deadly". Seems to me, though, that what's legal and illegal isn't necessarily very rational. I'm also not convinced that a user, who truly would be only hurting themselves if drugs were legal, should be incarcerated. I see little to be gained from that. As I said, though, I know next to nothing about drugs, so my views on the matter aren't doctrinaire. Personally, I find drugs and those who use them repugnant -- but I find CNN repugnant too, and I haven't endorsed its criminalization. Yet.
Dr. Waddy: The reason I suggest Shock is because it takes offenders firmly in hand for a relatively short time and administers very intense group therapy designed to prove the viability and rewards of positive living. Had I the power, I would clear the criminal records of those who stay lawful afterwards. But for anyone who persists in supporting the deadly and sociopathic illegal drug trade - let them know the full weight of society's outrage,I respectfully hold. Its done in places like Singapore and it works. There, a drug conviction is a truly fearful prospect.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jack -- I can see that a tough, zero-tolerance approach certainly could produce results, and in the sense that I find drugs morally abhorrent, I'm sympathetic to that approach. On the other hand, I'm a bit of a libertarian too... Not an easy conundrum to resolve.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Its not only the crime stopping fear of hideous death at the end of a rope or almost unendurable physical and social suffering for druggies which places like Singapore promise. Far more important, I think, is the proven safety of the most vulnerable segments of any society in such places. They hold, simply, that for the elderly and children and the parents of children to live in fear of crime is utterly and completely unacceptable and that ANY measure to counter it is justified. I know I was able, as a very obvious foreigner (somewhat less on the scale of those who MUST be championed by any decent society)to go anyplace in Singapore with no fear of assault. Let the Chicago Mayor answer to that! He can't.
ReplyDeleteAs Ronald Reagan said (in human affairs) "there are no solutions, only choices";he was not always right in that but let those who weep at the wall for the travails of victimizers, of sociopaths, of police killers like he of Philadelphia who garners such shameful sympathy, like those who casually and cynically poison so many with thoroughly pathological substances, realize to the full that which they enable, before they condemn those determined to defend civilization from their chaos.
Well said, Jack. We've observed before that most limousine liberals are one mugging away from registering as Republicans. I don't wish violence on anyone, but I do wish our media would tell the truth about crime and criminals...
ReplyDelete