Monday, January 26, 2009

Er, Over There, Janet

With Mexico losing ground daily to the power of the drug cartels, with the Mexican army having been implicated in providing security to drug dealers and making incursions into the U.S., and with illegal immigrants continuing to pour across our southern border, new Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, naturally views Canada as a priority.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned with strengthening border security to the north, but what worries me is the increasing likelihood that security policy will be influenced as much by a desire to refrain from offending immigrant advocacy groups (such as the National Latino Congreso, quoted in the linked article) as it will be by the need to find ways to deal with what should be the overriding issue of protecting our citizens from terrorist attacks and otherwise defending our sovereignty.


JeffS said...

Maybe Canada is a priority because everyone will be stampeding north to escape the coming beclowning of America. Gotta keep those taxpayers where they can be squeezed, by yimminy!!

TW: iglos. No, I ain't heading that far north. Igloos ain't all that fun, thankyouverymuch.

Paco said...

Hey, that's Canada's problem!

kae said...

Igloos: at least the beer will stay cold.

As will everything else!

TW: coomshea
whateverthehell that is.

SwampWoman said...

Hasn't Canada been a preferred place to immigrate for terrorists?

cac said...

Such is my general lack of understanding of matters North American that I generally have to translate issues into antipodean to make sense of it all. Thus Obama = Rudd, Caroline Kennedy = Peter Garrett etc.

In this context Canada becomes New Zealand. And to an Australian, keeping a ceaseless vigil against infiltrators from the near neighbour with an inferiority complex who can almost (but not quite) pass among us undetected makes perfect sense.

richard mcenroe said...

We can offend Canada without Nancy Pelosi losing her migrant grape pickers in her vineyard: THAT's the national priority!

TW: holont: as in "Grab yo' las' dollar and holont, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!"

JeffS said...

cac, Canada is indeed an easy way to infiltrate into the United States. There are places where you can do so in the howling wilderness, if you were so inclined. Or in the middle of a city. Or a farm field. 'Tis done all the time.

But the Canadian government is a lot more stable than the Mexican government. And Canada at least doesn't have to send their Army to arrest their federal police (the RCMP up north, the "Federales" down south).

And that's the least of our problems from the southern border, especially if things go bad there. My grandfather campaigned with Pershing against Pancho Via before WWI. I'd rather not see a repeat in my lifetime, or the next several generations.

And a slight reality check is in order: Ever since Texas became a state (and arguably well before that, back to 1776), anyone can "pass among us undetected". Most of the notable infiltration attempts from Canada have been by "non-Canadians", shall we say?

So I'm more concerned about Mexico going belly up than Canada. If nothing else, Canada is so socialized that they reduced their military to a pitiful array. Canadians are superb soldiers, but Canada pulled their teeth long ago, I regret to say.

And we get invaded by Canadians all the time; they stampede on weekends down here whenever the exchange rate favors the US, and clear out Wal-Mart. Quite a few stores along the US-Canadian border have RV parking set aside in their lots for Canadians.

I should note, I was raised near the US-Canadian border. But I was stationed at Fort Bliss, in El Paso, right across the river from Juarez. The difference between the two borders is staggering. There are a lot of good people down there, but in charge they are not. One recent DoD report pointed out how Mexico is a growing security threat to the US.

Sorry about the rant, but I know that the view of the US from "Down Under" can be a bit blurred by the distance.

Paco said...

My point (probably mangled by writing in haste) is that the priority in border security should be Mexico, not just (or even primarily) because of the danger of terrorists infiltrating, but because of the astonishing increase in violence that is spilling across the border as a result of the activities of drug lords. The Mexican police (and, the army, too) are not only not a reliable bulwark against the narcotraficantes, but have largely been co-opted by the druggies. This is leading to, among other things, assassins striking far into Arizona, Texas and California, targeting other drug dealers who maintain second homes in the U.S., or witnesses who have fled. Mexico's law enforcement infrastructure is on the verge of collapse, and when that happens, people won't be fleeing to Honduras.

JeffS said...

Paco, I expect that our problems would be refugees, increased criminal activity (not least of which is trafficking of whatever you please up north), and border skirmishes (if not outright war), in that order. Waziristan might look restful in comparison.

That's a worse case scenario, I hasten to add. In any case, I share your concerns, but my background leans me toward a tactical analysis, and not necessarily strategic.

Paco said...

Jeff: I totally agree.

yojimbo said...

I'm in full agreement with Janet's push to the North. You really want Wimpy Canadian and Andycanuck joining together and pushing their cultural imperatives on us? You really want to sit there on a Saturday afternoon and be forced to watch some guy pushing a polished piece of marble down some shuffleboard court? Get with the program, she has our best interests at heart.

JeffS said...

True, Yojimbo, but they like their beer cold, and keep extra fridges on hand just to make sure they have enough. That's gotta count for something.

Minicapt said...

Pictures of Ft Bliss: