Taking offense at the border fence

Many fence opposers bring up valid issues.

For example, a border fence will certainly ruin riverfront properties and boating life where that exists.

I sympathize. I wish it wasn't necessary to protect our border.

I also regret that we need a national biometric ID. Our lives will be less private.

But we have to adapt. We didn't create Mexico's overpopulation problem. We didn't install Mexico's corrupt, heartless ruling class. We didn't create its well-meaning but ecocidally wrongheaded dominant religion.

We didn't invent Arab Islamofascism either.

Nor do we benefit from the illegals' presence. Corporate owners do; then they outsource all the social burden to the taxpayer.

Yes, many illegals pay taxes. But that barely dents the costs they add to law enforcement, education, medical services, and more. We don't even benefit from their spending, since they send so much back to their own countries. That's personally virtuous but bad for us.

And of course a small but significant percentage of those hordes of trespassers come here to prey. The average gangbanger in LA is now a transational criminal. Perhaps a million illegal aliens now reside on our dime in county jails, state and federal prisons.

Also, one commentor questioned why we'd build a fence between us and a friendly country.

How do you define friendly? Is it friendly to export--on the downlow, to be sure--a million Mexicans a year here illegally?

Is it friendly to export Mexico's social services infrastructure to America?

Is it friendly to disseminate pamphlets showing Mexicans how to thwart law enforcement here?

Is it friendly to set up a system of consulates across America dedicated to helping Mexican illegals get away with it?

Is it friendly to tell your citizens that a big chunk of a neighboring country actually belongs to your country?

Mexico profits from parasitizing America. Illegals send billions of dollars to Mexico each year--so their government is incentivized to lubricate this process.

And Mexico's government aggressively intervenes in all attempts to deter illegal immigration.

And Mexican law enforcement officers moonlighting for the drug cartels have crossed the border repeatedly, protecting drug shipments, and have been involved in confrontations with border patrol agents, who always retreat in the face of superior firepower.

It's a pacifist's dream come true.

There are many gradations between being at war with another country and being its BFF. Mexico is somewhere in between, and needs to be treated as such.

Shakespeare's dotty old character Polonius advised his son Laertes to be slow to get into a quarrel--but, once in, to make sure the other guy never wanted to quarrel with you again.

We're not doing that, because our beloved "decider" turns out to believe you should "speak loudly but carry an undersized stick."

Right now there's so much violent crime being committed against Americans across Mexico that our State Dept. should issue a travel warning, as it has done for many other equally perilous countries.

But with Mexico...the State Dept. says ...nada. If I were cynical I'd say the fix is in.

Another commentor assumed all of us who want strict border controls are Bush-loving Republicans.

It's not that simple. True, at least 80% of GOP rank and file want strict border control and workplace enforcement. But the GOP leadership in Washington wants lots of illegals here, to drive down wages for unskilled labor and bust unions.

Bush has been a cheerleader for letting in gobs of illegals, in total opposition to the GOP rank and file.

Moreover, around 40% of Democrats also oppose illegal immigration.

In fact, if you analyze exit polls from several California elections that contained anti-illegal immigrant initiatives, you'll find that around 25% of American Latinos voted for those initiatives.

They were voting in their self-interest. Many legal Latinos compete with illegals for work. They're often bear the brunt of illegal immigration--and illegals who are violent criminals prey on American Latinos more than most other groups (and on blacks, too, even ethnically cleansing mixed neighborhoods in the LA area).

Here a question for people who take offence at the fence:

Why shouldn't America get to choose who lives here? I vote for educated, middle class people who speak good English and whose families and offspring won't be a burden on society.

Consider all those college-educated, middle class Iraqi refugees--including a million Christians--now huddled in Syria & Lebanon due, to our government's extreme blunderosity. Then start working down that looong list of applicants for LEGAL immigration.

You do remember all the qualified people who've been waiting for years trying enter our country legally? All the PhDs in important fields here on student visas that we're sending home now?

How about more of them, fewer semiliterate peasants? We have plenty of homegrown high school dropouts who need work.