2005 August 15 Monday
New Mexico Governor Richardson Declares Border State Of Emergency

Governor Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) has declard a state of emergency in 4 counties on the Mexican border in large part due to the failure of the US federal government to stop the lawlessness.

The executive order, issued after Richardson toured the area around Columbus, makes $750,000 immediately available to Dona Ana, Luna, Grant and Hidalgo counties. He pledged an additional $1 million.

The money will aid state and area law enforcement efforts, fund a field office for the state Office of Homeland Security and help build a fence to protect a Columbus-area livestock yard where a number of cattle have been killed or stolen.

Illegal aliens are a big contributing factor.

"As Governor I have a responsibility to protect our citizens, property, and communities," said Governor Richardson. "Recent developments have convinced me this action is necessary- including violence directed at law enforcement, damage to property and livestock, increased evidence of drug smuggling, and an increase in the number of undocumented immigrants."

The damage to property and livestock is mostly committed by illegals passing through the border areas.

The violence against law enforcement includes AWOL Mexican Zeta Commandos aiming to kill US Border Patrol agents.

Richardson says the US government does not devote enough resources to border security.

"The situation is out of hand," Richardson said Friday night on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," noting that one 54-mile stretch is particularly bad.

...

In announcing the state of emergency, Richardson -- a Democrat who served in President Clinton's Cabinet -- criticized the "total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress" in helping protect his state's residents along the border.

"There's very little response from the Border Patrol," he said on CNN. "They're doing a good job, but they don't have the resources."

The governor of Arizona might follow Richardson's lead.

"I'm taking these serious steps because of the urgency of the situation and, unfortunately, because of the total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress," Richardson said. "We will continue to work with the federal government in an attempt to get their assistance, but something had to be done immediately."

The Arizona Republic reported Saturday that Gov. Janet Napolitano, D-Ariz., might also declare a state of emergency this week because of border concerns.

George W. Bush has other priorities. He wants Hispanic votes and he wants to cater to business interests that want cheap labor. Lots of US Senators see immigration through the same prism as Bush. These politicians are worse than worthless.

Update: Can Democratic Governor Bill Richardson be trusted to take a hard line against illegal immigration? Of course not. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal (which is "Open Borders" central in the American press) says Richardson only pretends to take a hard line against illegal immigration.

Further evidence of the governor's zigzag policy on immigration came in April when he vetoed a "No Fear" bill, which would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal authorities to detect or apprehend people based solely on immigration status. But then he quietly issued an executive order that had much the same effect. Earlier this year, he also signed legislation giving some illegal aliens the right to in-state tuition rates at public universities.

"The governor is all puff and no cigar," says David Pfeffer, a Santa Fe city councilman who abandoned the Democratic Party this past March when he concluded its members "were closer to Michael Moore than to me." He expects the governor "to run for national office while saying one thing while he does something else back home."

Hillary Clinton's tough talk on immigration is similarly unbelievable. See my post "Hillary Clinton Not Serious About Border Security". The way forward for anti-immigration activists is at the state level. Lots of states have ballot initiative processes and direct appeals to voters through ballot initiatives can fix many of our border control and immigration problems. The California Border Police Initiative shows the way. A similar initiative in Arizona and state-level funding for border barriers in the border states could close the border. All other states - either through legislative action or ballot initiatives - could instruct their police to start rounding up illegals for deportation.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 August 15 03:26 PM  Immigration Border Control


Comments
John S Bolton said at August 16, 2005 12:01 AM:

Administration priorities may be influenced by their practice of appeasing the left and the Mexican bribocracy. the moderate right lives in fear of being described as motivated by racial feeling, because this is the only rhetorical approach the left can use, and thus can be expected to be used very frequently. This openness to foreign criminals is a huge moneyloser, but there are prospects of power for those whose influence fattens along with an increase in racial and ethnic conflict. The left is the gainer, the morally handicapped moderate right cannot resist the temptation to appease the left, hoping that they will go away, but they keep coming back for more. That the explanation is much as described, is indicated by the fact that the democratic governors are not afraid to act, even though they are capable of being called racists by their left wing, they are not as unprincipled as the moderate right.

Matra said at August 16, 2005 12:44 PM:

I noticed Richardson still refers to the alien invaders as "undocumented immigrants". Richardson's been on Lou Dobbs and has said nothing to make me think he cares about immigration control. Governor Napolitano in Arizona is said to be even worse than Richardson. So I doubt if this news marks a change in the Democrats' stand on the issue. They're probably just trying to take the wind out of the sails of the movement for border control by pretending to be doing something significant. The Left and the Mexicans will understand such a tactic, but will the pro-borders American population?

Randall Parker said at August 16, 2005 1:19 PM:

Matra,

I agree with your assessment. Yes, these governors can not be trusted on immigration and border control. No, I don't think the pro-borders people will be sucked in by this.

However, I see this as a good sign. I think some Democrats are trying to appeal people angry about the border situation. That shows that the rising anger has gotten high enough to have an impact on political calculations of elected officials.

Derek Copold said at August 16, 2005 3:11 PM:

It's extremely good news. Of course, Richardson can't be trusted, as everyone else has noted, but the fact that he's discussing illegal immigration, and from a restrictionist POV, will put pressure on the GOP to meet, if not exceed him. Considering how they have practically no other issues working for them come 2006 and 2008, illegal immigration is the only straw they can grab now.

Also of interest, a poll from the Pew Hispanic Center came out showing that a good number of native-born Hispanics are opposed to more immigration. Unfortunately, it also shows that about every 2 out of 5 Mexicans would move to the U.S. if they could--and this isn't just the poor saying it, either. Discontented Mexicans are found at every level of education and wealth.

So Very Bitter said at August 16, 2005 4:19 PM:

Interesting historical trivia: Columbus, New Mexico, was the same town that Pancho Villa raided and burned from across the border back in 1916, prompting President Wilson to send an expeditionary force led by Gen. Pershing --into Mexico. Of course, no response so politically incorrect could be countenanced nowadays. . . .

Stephen said at August 16, 2005 4:23 PM:

Derek, I saw a poll last year that had a majority of Hispanics in favour of expelling illegal immigrants from Mexico. I thought it odd at the time that the in-favour figure was larger than the equivalent figure for the general population, but a moments thought revealed the likely explanation: economics. Legal immigrants need higher wages (ie they're thinking of the long term) but are the first to be undercut by illegal immigrants (who think short term). My hypothesis is that there's a quantitative difference in the downward pressure on wages depending on whether the immigrant is legal or illegal - ie legal immigrants do not push wages down as far as illegal immigrants.

Stephen said at August 16, 2005 4:27 PM:

I said vaguely: "...expelling illegal immigrants from Mexico."

I leave it to the reader to determine whether I was referring to illegal immigrants residing in Mexico being expelled from Mexico, or whether I was referring to illegal immigrants in the US whose origin was Mexico...

RPM said at August 16, 2005 8:47 PM:

I applaud Gov. Richardson's move, if for no other reason that it lights a fire under some of the remaining Republicans who have a spine. Of course, he's certainly just doing the right thing right? I mean,with restrictionist sentiment rising in America, he wouldn't be looking ahead to '08 would he? Oh no, surely not.

Proborders said at August 16, 2005 10:06 PM:

It is possible to have better security on the US/Mexico border and more immigration from Mexico (in my opinion immigration from Mexico into the USA should be decreased, not increased, however).

If all Mexicans could lawfully migrate into the USA, the USA’s Mexican/Mexican American population could increase by more than 40 million, as Mexico has more than 100 million people (see “Poll finds strong desire among Mexicans to immigrate”).

American Patrol has a Bill Richardson section.

Rush Limbaugh has recently mentioned Bill Richardson. See here.

Jorge D.C. said at August 17, 2005 3:25 AM:

Mexican bribocracy

Gotta love that terminology...

Yes, these governors can not be trusted on immigration and border control

Well, this is a flanking maneuver...pure politics that might just be successful considering the Bush family's ideology.

“Poll finds strong desire among Mexicans to immigrate”

Ha ha ha no kidding.

I don't think there's enough discussion of "invisible" forces out there who are behind the integration of North America i.e. open borders. There was a recent article by Phyllis Schafly that can be googled; it is incredible New World Order stuff...Council on Foreign Relations which of course makes people's eyes roll back in their heads. The fact is that this is program that has been foisted on the American public. It is not a random event. It is a plan that is being worked and work that is being planned.

I have prev posted opinion outlining the sealed border paradox: that it will actually create more chaos. I'm not anti-border control. Just feel the horse is out of the barn. Millions of pro-Mexico Mexican-Americans [even though they are in the minority of Mex-Ams] are going to make serious border control improbable in the current PC climate. We must consider the awful facts on the ground.

Stuka said at August 17, 2005 6:08 AM:

Stephen said: "I said vaguely: "...expelling illegal immigrants from Mexico." I leave it to the reader to determine whether I was referring to illegal immigrants residing in Mexico being expelled from Mexico, or whether I was referring to illegal immigrants in the US whose origin was Mexico..."

I thought by 'Mexico" you were referring to California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Georgia, New York, Massachusetts, etc. You know, the territory that is being occupied (temporarily, one hopes) by Mexico.

Derek Copold said at August 17, 2005 7:33 AM:

Stephen,

The Mexicans want to expel illegal immigrants from their country because they undercut wages in Mexico and because most illegal immigrants in Mexico are transiting to the U.S., where they'll compete with Mexican laborers. Each non-Mexican who gets through represents that much lost income in remittances for Mexico. Remittances from the U.S. are Mexico's second biggest source of cash, right behind oil.

Randall Parker said at August 17, 2005 9:33 AM:

Jorge D.C.,

Revolutions are rare. Compute that. Regimes rarely get overthrown from within by popular uprisings. The Middle East is supposedly all kinds of unstable. Well, when was the last time that a Middle Eastern regime was overthrown by any sort of popular uprising? 1979 in Iran. 26 years ago. When was the last time before that? Lebanon's civil war probably. When before that? I can't remember. The rest were military coups.

Chaos in Mexico is unlikely. Revolution in Mexico is very unlikely. Revolutions are rare. They are like child kidnappings. They are rare and yet everyone obsesses over them to make them seem like they are really common.

Derek Copold said at August 17, 2005 12:22 PM:

We're more likely to see some sort of coup, followed by a serious crackdown on gangs in Mexico than a repeat of 1910-20. What most Mexicans want right now is order and security. They want to be able to take a walk without having to worry about being kidnapped and murdered.

Jorge D.C. said at August 17, 2005 7:52 PM:

Jorge D.C., Revolutions are rare. Compute that.

Well, why don't we stick to Mexico and not introduce analogies from countries around the globe?

Your confidence in a revolution-free Mexican future seems to be 100%. Maybe you can pick some stocks that will always go up for us also?

The facts on the ground in 2005 are dramatically different than 1985. Brown power has arrived. No, I don't believe it's a good thing. I'm not cheerleading at all. There are zero brown countries near the top of the list in national GNP. I do not thing it's a positive step for the USA to turn brown. It's ludicrous, in fact, for many reasons.

But you, Sir, are in denial about Latino economic and political power in the Southwest in 2005. The forces set in motion by mass deportations of illegal Mexicans and cutting off the huge remittances back to Mexico would likely cause chaos in Mexico [how could they not?]. And surely the patriotic [to Mexico] population in the USA would create enormous political turmoil here. It's not the 1910's!!! You could not deal with them like the German Bund.

A lot of nationalist websites advance anti-septic solutions to this problem. But the millions of Mexican-Americans who are born-in-the-USA, or otherwise perfectly legal, are facts on the ground that eliminate a 1950's style Operation Wetback solution. Let us deal with political reality.

You are adamant that mass deportations and sealing the border will not produce chaos in Mexico. That the notion is a straw man. OK. Who else is in your camp? Who else has done the due diligence and concluded that the potential destabilization of Mexico is a myth?

BTW You realize of course that cash remittances from illegals in the USA are now the #1 source of national income in Mexico. This is more revenue than from their very substantial oil industry.

The situation is unprecedented. Big business [and small], the Catholic Church, Brown Power, and the Left in the media and education have all teamed up to bring us to this point. I say it's a tinderbox on both sides of the border.

Randall Parker said at August 17, 2005 8:49 PM:

Jorge,

Why look around the globe? Because there are patterns in human behavior that recur. Revolutions really are rare. Is there a risk? Sure. But there is a risk if we don't take control of the border. Nuevo Laredo would be more peaceful if we built a border barrier and stationed US troops on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigrants and drug smugglers..

Enormous political turmoil here? How do you define that? Are they going to start blowing up bombs in shopping centers? Rioting in cities? Look, if these people are not loyal to the United States first and foremost all the more reason to halt the influx and gradually to reverse it.

But if we deport the illegals then the Hispanics who are here legally will experience an increase in living standards. They'll make more money and be less at risk of crime and will drive down less polluted roads and breathe cleaner air. Our white and black lower classes will experience all of those same improvements. Sounds good to me. Well worth some risk that I think you exaggerate.

You are telling me we take a risk by tossing them all out. Yes, of course, But we don't just take a risk by keeping them here. Risk means there is a less than 100% chance of bad outcome. We do 100% certain real measurable damage by keeping them here. Some of the damage is already done because they have citizen kids. There is no low risk low cost way out at this point. Either way we pay a price. Mass deportations and a barrier results in the lowest total cost. But we can reverse the build-up of the damage and greatly delay the increase later. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I'm in denial? How do you get that? I accept that it is a huge problem. I accept that drastic measures are necessary.

As for chaos in Mexico: My concern is for the United States of America. We will be better off in the long run if we stop the influx and deport the illegals.

I think the citizenry of American can still team up to put a halt to and reverse the influx. Those factions who support this mess can be defeated.

I remember the 1970s when Reagan was portrayed as an extremist nut. Roll back government economic regulations? Disaster would ensue? Oppose Soviet expansion and make the USSR collapse? Impossible. He'll cause nuclear war. He's crazy. Blah blah blah. I heard it all right here in California. It was all wrong. He deregulated oil prices and lots of other markets. He helped to spend the USSR into bankruptcy. I learned that the Conventional Wisdom can be very wrong and can be defeated.

Derek Copold said at August 18, 2005 8:23 AM:

Jorge is making a serious mistake if he thinks every Mexican-American supports illegal immigration. In fact, they don't. It's their neighborhoods that get trashed first as a result of the flood. It's their schools that suffer the most, their kids who get intimidated by gangs and their families who suffer from the violence and debased culture.

Secondly, we don't necessarily need to enact a repeat of Operation Wetback, where we go kicking in doors. If Congress sets up a database AND we enforce severe penalties for lawbreaking employers (like seizing their businesses and assets), the demand for illegal labourers will dry up over time.

As for the economic shock, it'll hurt Mexico, but Mexico needs a good kick in the ass. It's about the only way they'll fix their rotten system. The remittances are only putting off the inevitable day of reckoning, and indeed, they act as a perverse incentive since they reduce Mexico's desire to invest in revenue producing industries at home.

Jorge D.C. said at August 20, 2005 4:02 AM:

Nuevo Laredo would be more peaceful if we built a border barrier and stationed US troops on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

I know that O'Reilly's military guests in that past have voiced deep concern that posting troops on the border will lead to their corruption. They will be offered massive bribes and they will accept. If we end the WarOnDrugs we could go much farther in securing the borders. But the WOD is never going to end apparently. Therefore we're screwed.

Enormous political turmoil here? How do you define that? Are they going to start blowing up bombs in shopping centers? Rioting in cities?

OK we've already seen in the past month the cops donning the riot gear en masse in SoCal just so pro-borders folks can hold a public meeting! Yes, I think it's a logical step that extreme La Raza types e.g. Brown Berets will start bombing if faced with mass deportations. These people are militant and they hate whites and blacks. They would bomb now but white displacement is happening so quickly that they don't need to.

There is no low risk low cost way out at this point.

This is very true. My whole argument is that it's not 1980. If it were then we could do the anti-septic old school fix successfully. Now it's a gordian knot problem. The elites have decided that North American integration is the solution. I think that is delusional but they have the money and the power so I guess we're gonna find out.

Probably the border solution will be more half measure bullshit: No one is really deported. But the border is made tougher to violate in the short term.

Let's keep in mind that the US/Mex border has never been enforced by guards but rather enforced by a political nationalist mindset. The fact is that the US farmers and other business lobbies were trying to erode the border in 40s-50s which in turn brought about Operation Wetback. It was only the racial consciousness of US elites in the 50s that prevented a mass invasion back then.

Really I don't think the US masses matter at all and today's situation is proof of that. All that matters is the consciousness of a nation's elites. And if your elites are deracinated or denationalized then your borders are not going to be enforced no matter the desire of the masses. This is the reality we are faced with today.

I remember the 1970s when Reagan was portrayed as an extremist nut...

Well, I am a huge fan of Reagan on the Soviet issue and this is a pretty good analogy...but only if the paradigm is shifted with another massive terrorist attack etc. Then a massive cleanup of the border can take place under the guidance of a tough on crime leader. But the fact is that right now in the mainstream media there is no tolerance for any politician to crack down on the border seriously. Talking about it is fine. But doing something is altogether taboo.

Time Magazine is just now out with its most powerful hispanics list. This is more facts on the ground evidence. Brown power is real. And brown elites don't want the borders controlled. Yes, a majority of the brown masses want the border fixed and see that their lot in life will be improved. Duh! But they, like the white masses, are not in control.

Jorge is making a serious mistake if he thinks every Mexican-American supports illegal immigration.

I think less than half are illegal supporters or otherwise patriotic to Mexico. But the gross numbers of Mex-Ams are so large that it doesn't matter. And we all know that it's tiny elite minorities that have driven the agenda throughout history. Brown elites in the southwest want to displace whites across the board. This obvious and frankly nothing new in the history of the world: elites trying to displace competing elites.

Bottom line: Brown elites are potentially the real enemy here to America as we know it. Not the brown masses. Much the same as only 10% of southern whites owned slaves in the Confederacy.

I have come to realize that [unfortunately] even here in the good old USA the masses come dead last in political calculations. Sophisticated political theory is all about competition between elites. It seems that right now in America the elite battle is between the Christian WASPS and leftist Jews. Caught in the middle are the post-religion liberal whites. But they can't remain in the middle much longer. And yes, La Raza Latinos are on the rise in the southwest. They will replace California's Jewish senators. They will have the numbers and the racial consciousness. Get ready for all-Latino governors/senators throughout the southwest within 10 years CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, CO etc. A democratic nation cannot sustain this of level of immigration without consequences. Modern hispanic immigration dwarfs the gigantic Irish and German immigrations of the 1800s. Scary stuff.

BTW there does not seem to be a coherent Asian political elite in the US.

D Flinchum said at August 20, 2005 5:55 AM:

"And yes, La Raza Latinos are on the rise in the southwest. They will replace California's Jewish senators. They will have the numbers and the racial consciousness. Get ready for all-Latino governors/senators throughout the southwest within 10 years CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, CO etc. A democratic nation cannot sustain this level of immigration without consequences."

About a year ago, I told a friend of mine who works for a feminist organization that it was just a matter of time before Boxer or Feinstein was replaced by a Hispanic male whose interest in "women's issues" was less than zero although he would likely run as a Democrat. She couldn't believe me. After all CA is a "liberal Democratic" state and that just wouldn't happen. I told her that it is only a matter of time.

Chris Bell, a white liberal Democrat in TX, was defeated in a primary in 2004 in the 9th Congressional district by Al Green, a black Democrat, in an election that was primarily about race in a district that was over 2/3 black/Hispanic (37%/32.8%). Bell spent over $1 million while Green spent less than half of that. Bell had represented the 25th Congressional district but redistricting (initial redistricting was challenged in court and upheld in January 2004) placed him in the 9th. Bell had endorsements by labor groups, teachers, abortion rights groups, and Minority Leader Pelosi. He lost to Green, a former justice of the peace, by more than 2 to 1 (Green - 66%; Bell - 31%). It wasn't Bell's voting record. Al Green simply did the math, saw the chance, and took it. I am not suggesting that Green was wrong to do this; I'm merely illustrating Jorge D.C.'s point regarding numbers and racial consciousnes with a concrete example albeit not Hispanic.

Randall Parker said at August 20, 2005 10:04 AM:

Jorge,

I know that O'Reilly's military guests in that past have voiced deep concern that posting troops on the border will lead to their corruption. They will be offered massive bribes and they will accept. If we end the WarOnDrugs we could go much farther in securing the borders. But the WOD is never going to end apparently. Therefore we're screwed.

If we build a substantial enough barrier we won't need that big of a military force and we could rotate it. I don't think corruption would become a large problem.

OK we've already seen in the past month the cops donning the riot gear en masse in SoCal just so pro-borders folks can hold a public meeting! Yes, I think it's a logical step that extreme La Raza types e.g. Brown Berets will start bombing if faced with mass deportations. These people are militant and they hate whites and blacks. They would bomb now but white displacement is happening so quickly that they don't need to.

If they started rioting then that would be enough to anger the white masses into demanding the elites stop the immigration. Appeasement is the current policy.

As I see it the whole "brown power" movement can get stomped down real fast if we closed the border and some people started rioting. Even most brown people don't want rioting in their neighborhoods. They don't want their cars and houses trashed.

Our only obstacle is our own corrupt elites. Everything else can be handled.


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 ©