Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Some of them, however, were treated as such by the Yankee Carpetbaggers
that invaded Texas after the war.
It would have been a lot simpler if we just left Texas an independent
republic, blocking counterinvasions from Mexico for the next hundred
years.
Then you could complain about Mexico instead of the United States. d8-)

Yes it would have been. If you notice, the feds are protecting the Texas
/ Mexico border,
not the Texas Rangers.

As it is, I think we are pretty well invaded now.


Wes

It's pretty hard to stop determined people who can't make a decent living.
Thanks to NAFTA and to corn price subsidies in the US, the campesinos in
Mexico's interior don't have a lot of choice, if they want a better life for
their family. They may not make up most of the illegals but they are a
significant portion of them. As for the rest, just compare wages in Mexico
and Central America with those in the US. If they can get a job here,
they're in good shape. We don't enforce workplace investigations of
illegals. How much better can an economic incentive get?

Under those circumstances, we're trying to block a dike with a thousand
leaks, and will continue to be, until we figure out how to deal with it.



I think a series of well placed machine gun emplacements where most of
the border crossings take place would do a lot. Hell, if a recession has
sent thousands of Mexicans scurrying back to Mexico imagine what word of
the army shooting at people coming across the border would do. But
you're right, even that wouldn't stop them all. Then again, we don't
have to stop them all, just most of them. It's just a matter of will. If
we were actually serious we could stop the migration in no time at all.
But we're not serious. Well, some of us are. Just not the ones who are
in a position to actually do something.

Hawke