Your Ad Here
2005 August 01 Monday
Mexican Zeta Commandos Attacking US Border Patrol agents

Jerry Seper reports on the recruitment of Mexican anti-drug commandos by Mexican cocaine traffickers. (same article here)

A renegade band of Mexican military deserters, offering $50,000 bounties for the assassination of U.S. law-enforcement officers, has expanded its base of operations into the United States to protect loads of cocaine and marijuana being brought into America by Mexican smugglers, authorities said.

The deserters, known as the "Zetas," trained in the United States as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, but have since signed on as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers and have recruited an army of followers, many of whom are believed to be operating in Texas, Arizona, California and Florida.

In lawless Mexico military deserters can operate as outlaws for years. Some of these people deserted as far back as 1991. Yet they are still wandering around free.

In the last year the attack rate on US Border Patrol agents has doubled with shootings quintupling.

Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, there have been 196 assaults on Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector, including 24 shootings. During the same period last year, 92 assaults were reported, with five shootings. The sector is the busiest alien- and drug-trafficking corridor in the country.

The US government should deploy the US military to stop the immigrant influx, stop the drug smuggling, and restore order to the US-Mexican border.

The Zetas and other armed groups associated with drug smugglers control Nuevo Laredo across the border from Laredo Texas. Battles between rival groups in Nuevo Laredo have caused the US to close its consulate there.

The United States is closing temporarily its consulate in this lawless Mexican border city after rival drugs gangs clashed with bazookas, hand grenades and heavy machine-gun fire.

"A violent battle involving unusually advanced weaponry took place between armed criminal factions last night in Nuevo Laredo," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza said on Friday.

Progress is not inevitable. Nuevo Laredo is the Wild West but in the 21st century.

At least 72 people, including 13 police officers, have been killed in the city this year in the battle between powerful gangs from western Sinaloa state and the local Gulf cartel.

If the United States was to build a barrier on the full length of the US border with Mexico and make drug and people smuggling extremely difficult then the drug smugglers would derive far less value from controlling Nuevo Laredo. Therefore less money would flow to the gangs and the place would become relatively more civilized.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 August 01 11:08 AM  Immigration Law Enforcement


Comments
John S Bolton said at August 1, 2005 12:04 PM:

These events are not likely to occur without some degree of approval from the upper reaches of the Mexican government. Mexico has repeatedly declared and demonstrated its state of hostilities with us. Traitorously, it is pretended that these enemies are our friends. Alternatively, they say but they're our neighbors, as if the USSR wasn't our neighbor in the Bering Strait, or, as if Hitler wasn't Poland's neighbor in 1939. The fact that dishonest rhetorical methods have to be used to present Mexico as friendly or inoffensive, indicate that there is no reasonable argument for not responding in military manner to such aggression. The wall concept is superior, since it would prevent their aggression on the border. If they attack the wall, we can retaliate against their fortifications or military assets. The current policy of traitorous appeasement of aggression by foreign forces will beget an ever intensifying cycle of such aggressions. The amnesty proposals are like giving Hitler the Sudetenland; it only whets his appetite for more. Mexico can sense the weakness of neocon universalists; they see that the American leaders do not dare to say that Mexicans are second class and unworthy of trust and confidence in these areas, which is what building the wall would also say.

Jorge D.C. said at August 2, 2005 2:03 AM:

If the United States was to build a barrier on the full length of the US border with Mexico...

This is lighting the fuse. Have you considered the political and economic ramifications of the violent collapse of Mexico? Sealing the border will cause civil war in Mexico almost immediately. It is not 1920. You are talking about birthing a massive modern guerrilla/terrorist movement and prolonged national death spiral right next door. There are 10 million!? native born undeportable Mex-Americans on U.S. soil who will fund this insurgency and make US supporters of the IRA look like pikers. They would be energized and quickly organize to influence the US government like never before. Think the end game would be Jeffersonian democracy flowering in Mexico City? The rebels would be radical left wing. Don't do the math, do the calculus. A sealed border would produce anarchy to the south and brown civil unrest to the north the result of which would likely be to create a terrorist movement in the USA in response to our government not siding with the "revolution".

The fact that dishonest rhetorical methods have to be used to present Mexico as friendly or inoffensive, indicate that there is no reasonable argument for not responding in military manner to such aggression.

Big Business and Wall Street disagree. A new militant nationalism in the US means reversing the economy.

M.Robinson said at August 2, 2005 7:25 AM:

borders can never be sealed to such an extext, because somebody will always find a way through.
One way would be to have better manpower(well trained and well paid)on the US border with Mexico.
The mexican police like most other poor nations is most probably underpaid(leading to corruption) and lacking in techniques and armaments in relation to the drug barons and their gangs. the police are not being supplied effective resources (protective gear, weapons,manpower etc) by the Mexican government, leading to a situation of anarchy.
Maybe the US should help in the lower tier of drug enforcement which is at street level, and help training and equiping of the Mexican police to better handle situations against drug trafficking gangs, this can only be done by getting the mexican government to agree to as such.

Rick Darby said at August 2, 2005 8:40 AM:

Jorge D.C.:

Our first responsibility is to our own country, not Mexico; sorry if you find it hard to make the distinction. If Mexicans want to riot and commit terrorist acts against one another because they can no longer send their unemployed and their narcotics across the border, then that just shows the extent of their country's social decay -- one more indication that we should accept no more immigration from there. Maybe Mexico needs a revolution to shake things up.

Are we to be held hostage by the 10 million native-born, "undeportable" Mexicans in the country already? I'm sure there are laws against arms trafficking by private citizens; if they want to send money to support one side or another, why should we care?

As for Big Business and Wall Street, they are disgracefully putting their own short-term interests ahead of those of the American people, and we owe them no cooperation.

M. Robinson:

What evidence to you have that "somebody will always find a way through"? Are you seriously suggesting that if the full capabilities of U.S. engineers and military were committed to sealing the borders, they couldn't accomplish it? We are a "can-do" country when we set our minds to it; protecting the borders against intruders seems to me a far less demanding task than overthrowing regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As for training the Mexican police, they are irredemably "bent." We can expect no help from that quarter. It's up to us, on our side of the line.

Mark said at August 2, 2005 10:32 AM:

"Sealing the border will cause civil war in Mexico almost immediately."

Better chaos in Mexico then the slow the decay of the United States of America.

"borders can never be sealed to such an extext, because somebody will always find a way through."

There will always be rapes, people will rape no matter what measures or penalties the US government creates. Why bother doing anything about it.

Randall Parker said at August 2, 2005 11:06 AM:

Jorge D.C.,

The fear of Mexican revolution has been greatly exaggerated for years to justify Open Borders. If the fear was true then why hasn't Brazil been plunged into a revolution? Brazil has a $8100 per capita GDP as compared to Mexico's $9600 per capita GDP.

About a quarter of Mexico's population has left Mexico for the US. But very few Brazilians have left Brazil for the US as of yet. So why hasn't Brazil exploded? Ditto other Latin American countries which have lower per capita GDPs than Mexico.

But even if Mexico would have a revolution without the ability of its population go to northward I don't see how that is an argument against closing our southern border. We can certainly keep them out if they try to make the revolution spill over the border. If we spent about $10 billion on a border barrier and deployed some National Guard we could easily prevent revolutionaries or refugees from making it across the border.

M. Robinson,

Even if a few get thru that is better than millions getting thru.

Oh, and we trained the Zetas. When we train corrupt people all we do is make them more effective at being corrupt.

Pearsall said at August 2, 2005 11:13 AM:

Maybe the US should help in the lower tier of drug enforcement which is at street level, and help training and equiping of the Mexican police to better handle situations against drug trafficking gangs, this can only be done by getting the mexican government to agree to as such.

But this is exactly what the US has done; that's who the 'Zetas' that Randall is talking about are. They were trained to very high standards by the US government, but then they went home and realized that the cartels would be willing to pay multiple times what the Mexican state would, and so they switched sides, and now they are causing us all kinds of problems (as well, of course, as that small proportion of Mexican officialdom that has not yet been bought by the cartels).

Jim said at August 2, 2005 3:40 PM:

part of the problem is the criminalization of drugs in this country makes it so lucrative to smuggle them across the border. while most of the supply-side efforts are needed, i think a proper analysis of the problem should include an assessment of the demand-side solutions that might be possible.

Stuka said at August 2, 2005 8:51 PM:

"There are 10 million!? native born undeportable Mex-Americans on U.S. soil..."

"Undeportable"??! Says who? Mexicans moved to the US easily enough, and they can be sent back to Mexico easily enough. No sweat. The US must be liberated from this foreign occupying force.

John S Bolton said at August 2, 2005 9:45 PM:

We could help stabilize Mexican society, by securing the border militarily, with full fortification. Aggression and corruption are rewarded by the drug flow, and irresponsible childbearing is encouraged by leaving an outlet open. They could enforce their child labor laws, and find their society stabilizing rapidly. Their southern border is a source of instability, leading to clashes and insurgencies between those from further south and the indigenes. If our border was better defended, mexico could much more easily secure its southern border, yielding another great increment of stabilization. In any case our government is to maximize utility of the citizenry, not that of the foreigner, and especially not such bad, warlike neighbors.

M.Robinson said at August 3, 2005 5:09 AM:

Is it possible that drug cartels find is easier to transport drug shipments via land routes than sea lanes, as its easier to bribe border officials across the land route from point of production to mexico and to the USA. As the USA has extensive network of aerial reconnaissance to spot shipments via sea lanes.

the problem with as opposed to brazil is that mexico has a border point with US and brazil does not. So every drug cartel finds it an easy point of entry.
You have the legal workers crossing over to visit their familes in mexico, and some will be used as mules willingly to bring drugs over, some may be threatened or their familes may be threatened if they do not act as mules. how would you deal with this scenario.

I thought the 'Zetas' were special forces units and no way connected to the police force. As EX-Special forces personnel have been known to work for highly dubious people, there have been instances here in Britain.

John S Bolton said at August 3, 2005 6:02 AM:

It is not necessary to have the cross border commutation; Israel has gained greatly by stifling that sort of activity. It is a privilege we can longer afford to grant, and especially not to those to whom we owe no loyalty whatsoever. Officials owe loyalty to the citizen, who is presently being attacked by foreigners for lack of adequate border defense. Our fellow citizen, the net taxpayer, is being savagely taxed to provide for the millions of foreign criminals runing loose, and grabbing net public subsidy for themselves and their children. The responsibility of officials is to be loyal to our fellow citizens who are being attacked by such foreigners, not to the foreign aggressors!

Randall Parker said at August 3, 2005 8:58 AM:

M.Robinson,

The Zetas are not just "ex" special forces. They went AWOL.

But many Mexican police also work for the drug cartels. Mexico is a very corrupt place. All the more reason for the US to build a barrier between the US and Mexico.

Jorge D.C. said at August 3, 2005 1:56 PM:

Well, I tried to stir the pot :)

We had better at least consider the border situation as a likely paradox. The more it is sealed the more instability on both sides.

"Undeportable"??! Says who? Mexicans moved to the US easily enough, and they can be sent back to Mexico easily enough.

There is confusion about how many perfectly legal Americans of Mexican descent are here now. There are about 40 million hispanics, of which 2/3 are Mexican. Out of those there are 10-15 million illegals. The rest are legal citizens of Mexican descent. Born in the US second, third generation etc. These people are undeportable without a legal flipflop on the 14th amendment...PLUS retroactive enforcement!? Deport legal anchor babies from the '80s? Never gonna happen. These are the facts on the ground.

Are we to be held hostage by the 10 million native-born, "undeportable" Mexicans in the country already?

To some extent, yes. It's called politics in a democracy. They will be heard...look how they have already been pandered to.

I'm sure there are laws against arms trafficking by private citizens; if they want to send money to support one side or another, why should we care?

My point was that the US government will take sides via the CIA etc in order to stop neo-Sandinistas from taking over Mexico. We will take sides. In fact if it deteriorated enough we would jump in with troops and it would be much bigger than Panama.

In this scenario we should assume a split in the *legal* Mexican-American community between between Mexican loyalists and American patriots. I think eventually you get bombs going off in the southwest with the political purpose of ending US military support for the corrupt elites of Mexico i.e. a pro neo-Sandinista movement on our soil. This dovetails nicely with the Aztlan radical movement goals.

The fear of Mexican revolution has been greatly exaggerated for years to justify Open Borders.

I hear you. Yes, we must be aware of vested interests slanting in their favor. But Mexico is already facing a long-term insurrection in the south which we hardly ever hear about. I think the situation would be more than precarious if we 1) deported our Mexican illegals which will in turn 2) end most of the gigantic money transfers to the Mexican countryside.

If the fear was true then why hasn't Brazil been plunged into a revolution?

I would *guess* a stark difference in the cultural history of the two countries is part of it. I would guess that Mexico is institutionally more corrupt than Brazil and always has been. Mexico also has a history of violent revolution. I would also guess that Brazil's left leaning political history mollifies the lower classes somewhat. As opposed to Mexico which has always been hard right wing and has always pounded the lower classes unmercifully. Really, I think it's apples and oranges.

Also, consider the concept of withdrawing economic support and how it makes people that much more hostile once they've had a taste of economic security. Deporting the illegals will drastically reduce the incomes of entire towns all across Mexico. Western-Union transfers have been keeping the rural population in Mexico afloat for a long time now.

This whole thing is a bizarre situation and, I think, a real tinderbox in the long run. And it's easy to disparage Wall Street on a message board. But Wall Street *is* America to a great extent here in 2005.

All of the nationalist fulminating is a political minnow next to the whale of pocketbook economics. Americans know the situation is a mess. But they do not want to make the economic sacrifices to sort it out. It has to get much, much worse to make the cost-benefit analysis look attractive. Between bank loans and corporate subsidiaries the USA must have more than half a trillion on the line in Mexico. I believe this is the stuff that is calmly explained to a president once he assumes office.

Randall Parker said at August 3, 2005 2:22 PM:

Jorge D.C.,

You assert that Mexico is pre-revolutionary while Brazil is not. That is just an assertion. The PRI has played the same game since the revolution of presenting themselves as the revolutionary vanguard. I fail to see how they are any different than leftie politicians in Brazil on that score. Brazil and Mexico are both ruled by paler skinned elites. If Cardenas wins the next election then Mexico will have the same sort of President that Brazil has.

The Chiapas insurrection is small. It does not matter. If it ever comes to matter then all the more reason to seal the borders tight. We can insulate ourselves from Mexican political unrest.

The economic effects of unrest in Mexico would be small. Mexico is less important of a trading partner than China, Japan, Canada, Britain, Germany, etc. It just does not matter much. US corps could shift Mexican production to other countries quickly just as they shifted production to Mexico in the first place. They already are shifting lots of production from Mexico to China.

But, again, Mexico is not going to have a revolution. That fear is put forth by Open Borders advocates to hide other agenda.

Mexico has had severe recessions without having revolutions. Look at what happened after the bubble burst when Salinas left office. No revolution.

You would have us believe that Wall Street rules America and the will of the masses does not matter. But Tom Tancredo's immigration caucus keeps growing and immigration is becoming an issue in Congressional primaries. The House Republicans are opposed to Bush's immigation proposals. The mood in conservative talk radio has shifted heavily against immigration in the last 5 years. Prominent TV commentators such as Lou Dobbs have taken it up. Republicans are going to lose votes by favoring immigration. They could win more elections by favoring restriction.

The push for immigration restriction is going to continue to grow. Either the Republican Party gets behind it or the Republican Party splits. I have no loyalty to those assholes in the White House or the Republican traitors who favor Open Borders on the Hill. I'm not alone. After this Iraq Debacle and the continued idiocy of the Bush Administration's immigration policy I think it is clear they have abandoned their base.

If American citizens of Mexican extraction start setting off bombs then it is time to amend the constition to provide a mechanism for stripping them of US citizenship.

Randall Parker said at August 3, 2005 4:43 PM:

Jorge D.C.

There are 5 billion people living in countries poorer than Mexico. Why aren't they all about to have revolutions since they can't send much of their populations to the United States?

John S Bolton said at August 4, 2005 2:37 PM:

So far, revolutions have been associated with rising expectations, not falling ones. Virgil said "hope comes to kindle wrath", and racial provocateurs say keep hope alive, don't they? If this is not so, why would those advocating for illegal immigration try to kill our hopes of reversing it, while trying to raise the hopes of the foreign criminals with suggestions of amnesties, special tolerance, etc.? Appeasement raises the hopes of aggressors, leading to the attacks like those of the zetas.

Jorge D.C. said at August 4, 2005 3:05 PM:

Well, Pundit, I think you make some good points but...

You assert that Mexico is pre-revolutionary

No I do not. As it stands today Mexico is not pre-revolutionary. The desperate population still has hope: the hope of getting into the USA. I think it would quickly become pre-revolutionary with a sealed border and mass deportations.

...leftie politicians in Brazil

I haven't gotten any traction on the concept that a country with a huge income disparity gap run by leftists is less likely to see violent revolution than when run by rightists. I do think this is the case. Left wing governments usually experience non-violent revolutions or reform processes. The reason being they at least talk about partnership with the little guy. Just a theory.

The Chiapas insurrection is small. It does not matter.

This is a chronic long term situation with potential to spread: an alliance with the deported northern desperados.

We can insulate ourselves from Mexican political unrest.

I mildly disagree with some of your points but vehemently disagree with this one. This is a pipe dream. Once again I repeat that having millions of Mex-American legal compadres on this side of the border will greatly impact our domestic politics in the event that Mexico goes into a tailspin. It's politics 101.

Mexico has had severe recessions without having revolutions. Look at what happened after the bubble burst when Salinas left office. No revolution.

Well, sure. The open border was a release valve on that pressure cooker. Envision a severe recession in Mexico w/o the ability to go north for work. And a greatly reduced amount of funds coming back from the US through Western-Union.

You would have us believe that Wall Street rules America and the will of the masses does not matter.

Well, remember, my point is that Wall Street IS America to a great extent through mutual fund investments etc. But if you're talking about boardroom elites I would say that, yes, that is a contributing factor on many issues but certainly not all issues.

As far as the will of the masses relating to the border issue I think Big Biz and Wall Street have filled a void. Meaning a strong will of the people has not been thwarted, only a neutral position. The fact is the will is growing but it's nowhere near critical mass. O'Reilly mass-publicized the online petition and it was a bust. He was shocked and saddened. Right now there is frankly a nationalist contingent and not much else. The avg Joe is not in the fight. He is polling negative but not getting off the couch to do much about the situation.

I do believe a massive terrorist strike (especially if perps can be traced to the open border) changes the calculus dramatically. Of course that will change the economy dramatically also. Really, it's all about the dollars. And many angry sealed-border types don't want to consider the economic issues.

Perhaps someone can post a link assessing the economic costs of disengagement from Mexico. I read what you typed above and still have to believe the cost is pretty damn high.

Jorge D.C. said at August 4, 2005 3:10 PM:

There are 5 billion people living in countries poorer than Mexico. Why aren't they all about to have revolutions since they can't send much of their populations to the United States?

A complex issue. But I'd say some of those people are having or about to have a revolution, just not a violent one. Revolutions are and have been occurring all the time around the world but they are frequently non-violent i.e. China. Also income disparity and the racial makeup of the elites, workers and bottom rung is key. With a lower IQ level a revolution of any kind can be forestalled.

As to what specifically makes the Mexican situation different: Right wing elites are less safe in the post-Marx world. And the Mexican culture. Which is arrogant even at the bottom rungs of society. They possess a permanent historical cultural memory and a history of violent revolution. What happened in Mexico 100 years ago is much more relevant to a modern-day Mexican than typically in other nations. There is literature describing this phenomenon.

I think the Brazil comparison is a little weak not only because of the left-right political differences, but also the Portuguese vs. Spanish history. It seems nearly all of the conquistador descended elites in Central and South America are in some sort of pre or post revolutionary state at any given time. Not all of them violent, of course. But it's a fairly unique revolutionary area of the world as opposed to Africa where there may indeed be an IQ deficiency that forestalls coherent grassroots revolution, and East Asia which has what seems to be some sort of genetic disposition to conformity and mostly non-violent revolution. Southeast Asia on the other hand is more susceptible.

So far, revolutions have been associated with rising expectations, not falling ones.

Yes, and what about taking all expectations away?

I'd like to think that will cause reform in old Mexico, but I'd be wrong.

Randall Parker said at August 4, 2005 4:05 PM:

Jorge D.C.,

As I see it the cost of letting in tens of millions of dummies is far more damaging to the United States than a Mexican revolution would be.

As for insulation: Just how do you expect us to pay a big price? I see we could totally prevent bandits or military factions from crossing the border. We could build a barrier. We have the most advanced military in the world. We can control the border. We don't control it due to lack of political will, not due to lack of capability.

Some Mexicans in the US would sympathise with one faction or another. Well, so what? We have Cubans in Florida deeply opposed to Castro. This is not causing even 1% of the violence on the streets in Miami. Yes, Mexican-Americans would expect us to take sides just like Jews expect us to take sides and Cubans do and so on. If that is a crisis then, well, we live in a continuing crisis. But the Mexicans won't be anywhere near as articulate as the Jews and will have far less influence. So far the supposed Mexican influence is really US business interest influence and American politicans who have deluded themselves. The Mexicans themselves are not very influential.

During WWII we had a large German immigrant population. This did not cause a disaster. Ditto for our other immigrant populations from enemy nations. But we wouldn't even be fighting Mexico in event it had a revolution. The revolution would end eventually. The place would be even worse off. But we could isolate ourselves from the effects.

If we are worried about Mexican stability then we should support Cardenas for President. Get a leftist in control.

Expectations have fallen in Mexico many times and without another revolution. While some left many stayed and got poorer. Some of those declines in expectations were accompanied by much smaller outfluxes since we used to seriously try to keep out illegals once upon a time.

Look, I'm not willing to screw ourselves for generations to come in large measurable ways in order to prevent some potential cost that would not be large even if it happened.

Sealed border and costs: We can allow the flow of goods while drastically reducing the flow of people. Only managers and engineers and financiers need to cross the border to allow factories to produce goods for trade. 99% of the human movement is not necessary. Look at US-China trade. So I think you are exaggerating supposed costs of proper border security.

As for building popular anger: 5 years ago O'Reilly and lots of other commentators did not place much importance to border control or immigration restriction. Talk radio, TV commentators, and many pundits have shifted their positions toward restriction. More local groups are being formed on this. This sort of shift doesn't happen over night. But that is the way the wind is blowing. Bush and Rove and Cornyn and Kyl and the other Open Borders guys are just feeding the anger. Bush's worker permit program is so monumentally stupid that it helps the cause of immigration restriction.

East Asia: Well, there is the not so small matter of very violent Chinese revolution. During the Cold War the US managed a lot of East Asian political development to prevent revolutions.

John S Bolton said at August 4, 2005 4:34 PM:

Immigration costs hundreds of billions a year already, in net public subsidy, and the net costs are concentrated in the Latino immigration cohorts. This is like a major war going on all the time, and getting worse.

John S Bolton said at August 4, 2005 5:04 PM:

The multibillion dollar flow of remittances, the easy drug money, the outlet for supernumeraries of low skill, the easy escape for those with great displeasure over how Mexico is run, all of these tend to bring on the revolution of rising expectations. With effective border defense, the traditional fatalism of the Mexican people receives abundant reinforcement, and the result is resignation not revolution. Illiterates who are led to believe that their children's incomes might easily be ten times theirs, are fodder for revolution. Italian Americans had no ability in 1940, to bring us into the war on the axis side. Japanese in America at that time were considered more dangerous, but they actually accomplished almost nothing in support of Tojo. Irish Americans had no chance to bring us in on the IRA side in 1916, even though their political influence was great. Likewise in 1940, Irish neutralism, could not push FDR away from the British side. In any case, stability of countries near or far, is by no means a proper value in itself. Latin dictatorships are not especially alarming; even Castro does not compare in bloodthirstiness to the old world ones.

J.M. Rodriguez said at August 20, 2005 12:17 PM:

Randall Parker's comments about Brazil August 2 , 2005. are dead wrong.

Do a search of Illegal Brazilian Aliens+Rio Grande Valley and read the current stories like the one fragment listed below from last week. ALso find other stories about ILlegals from Brazil in other countries, like the story about one shoot in UK.


"Border Patrol figures show that the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas have become major transit points for illegal immigrants from nations other than Mexico. Arrest figures show that Brazilians and Central Americans now outnumber Mexicans in the numbers of undocumented immigrants."

“Since October, Border Patrol agents have arrested 21,456 Brazilians, 18,482 Hondurans, and 15,412 El Salvadorans compared to 45,418 Mexicans”.

“Part of the problem is blamed on the lack of immigration detention space that prompted Border Patrol agents to give thousands of Brazilians and Central Americans notices to appear (NTAs) before an immigration judge. The immigrants were released with their NTAs, but more than 90 percent of them failed to appear in court. Cervantes said the expedited removal program would change the process.”

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=3417409

Valley Woman Asks For Help With Illegal Brazilians June 1, 2005, 11:24 AM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=brazilian+illegal+aliens%2Brio+grande+valley+&btnG=Search

many stories at this link

Randall Parker said at August 20, 2005 1:12 PM:

J.M. Rodriguez,

See my post from July 26 2005 Other Than Mexican Flood Increasing At US-Mexican Border. I quote a different source (Christian Science Monitor) which claims Mexicans are still the clear majority. However, the OTM portion of illegals is rising so rapidly that I conceded it is possible that OTMs are now more numerous than Mexicans. Or maybe that is just the case in the Rio Grande Valley.

If anyone else wants to see J.M. Rodriguez's source for his claim it is from Sergio Chapa of the Brownsville Herald.

Border Patrol figures show that the Valley and South Texas have become major transit points for illegal immigrants from nations other than Mexico.

Arrest figures show that Brazilians and Central Americans now outnumber Mexicans in the numbers of undocumented immigrants.

Since October, Border Patrol agents have arrested 21,456 Brazilians, 18,482 Hondurans, and 15,412 El Salvadorans compared to 45,418 Mexicans.

I'd be very curious to see more sources for this claim. I'm going to go off googling on this.

Erick Garza De La Cruz. said at October 21, 2008 4:31 PM:

This goes to all does stupid white trash talking shit about us(mexicans) we have been the people who has pick-up your fucked up country and as far as zetas are killing your people so will we, so dont come to mexico, you guys are so stupid that even gaves us school and training and now neather the mexican government or the white trash goverment can handle us so stay tune cause thers alot more blood runnin

Laisa said at August 4, 2010 1:39 PM:

Ok..the major problem in every country is that no one has faith in God. Put God first and he will take care of the rest. Simple.


Advertise here. Contact randall dot parker at ymail dot com
Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©