Saturday, July 19, 2014

The Plot Thickens – 10 Questions about the Border Crisis

Last week I posted 10 facts about the border crisis leading to an unhappy conclusion. At best the US government saw this “invasion of innocents” building, and let it happen in order to create political momentum for a “comprehensive immigration solution.” (Read amnesty)  At worse, it actually colluded with the governments and cartels to our south to make this happen.  The combination of inaction, counterproductive action, and secret action over the last week raises some serious follow-on questions.

1) Who created the story that all these children are running from a spike in violence in Central America? Federal officials have pushed the story, and the Main Stream Media (MSM) embraced it as a reason to offer asylum. In fact, a redacted version of what appears to be a recent report from the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)  – charged with tracking exactly this sort of issue --  concludes that violence in Central America is in fact DOWN. In interviews, most immigrants listed the reason for the wave of new assaults on the border as stories about the end of US deportation activities, based on President Obama’s recent actions, as the reason for their travel across the US border. US embassies in the region could not have missed these local press reports, or the likely result. But they did nothing to counter them.   

This false story used by the MSM to create a false narrative pointing away from US government culpability looks disturbingly familiar.  Have we been Benghazied again?

2) Why hasn’t the media sent reporters to check the facts of the 800 mile journey the illegal crossers are supposedly taking? They seem to be able to send reporters to the edge of conflict in Egypt, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Nigeria, and the Ukraine. Why not to the capital cities of El Salvador or Guatemala to see who is leaving and how they are traveling? Why no reporters sent to view road and rail routes in Mexico? Why can’t the media confirm the simple of question of whether thousands of children are coming from relatives or orphanages? Because of restrictions by DHS, reporters aren’t even reporting directly from the holding areas on our side of the border.  The MSM is simply repeating whatever story and pictures the US government provides. Since when is our investigative media so trusting, and willing to report government handouts as fact without secondary confirmation?

3) Why does everybody keep saying that all these children require separate hearings to determine their safety before deportation?  According to a June 23d, 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service ( ), under the law, only  Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) deserve such special treatment.  If children cross with a parent or adult guardian,  they can be deported immediately just like any other illegal invader. By extension,  if they are delivered to a parent inside the US (as current ICE policy directs) then they are no longer unaccompanied – and they qualify for immediate deportation.   Continuing to treat them as UAC AFTER LINKING THEM UP WITH A PARENT is a US POLICY – not a legal requirement.  If we end up with 65,000+ children clogging the US immigration courts with their cases, it will be because President Obama has made this policy decision with his phone and his pen – not because the law requires it.   

4) Every person suspected of wrong doing and taken into custody in most US  jurisdictions is scanned and photographed for gang tattoos, and separated out for gang activity if so identified. Is this happening with those taken into custody as part of this invasion?  If so, gang members should qualify for immediate deportation, under the President’s announced risk policies. Is that happening?  How many times?

5) Why are all these people being moved in secret and in the dead of night?  Is it to disguise who they are? Is it to prevent local people from knowing about the impact on their community?  Is it to place them in republican districts in order to change the voter balance? Before you laugh at that last question, note that the first community to stage protests about large numbers of aliens being placed with them secretly was a small republican bastion in a sea of democratic jurisdictions in California. How was the small republican town selected as a destination?

6) Why have there been no diplomatic efforts to reduce the flow of people out of Central America and through Mexico to our border?  (If in fact, that’s where the people are coming from. We have no independent confirmation of government reports.)  The President, Vice-President and Secretary of State are quick to engage leaders overseas when the sovereignty of other countries is at risk. At this moment our President has his national security team working to rally European sanctions against the prospect of a single Russian soldier setting foot in the Ukraine. But apparently no one has made a single call to the leadership of Mexico or any Central American country asking for help reducing and controlling the flow of thousands of people along an 800 mile route to our border. Why not?

7) Bravo to the reporters who have noticed that this movement is leaving large parts of the border uncovered. In military terms this would be called a feint or diversion – pull the enemy out of the way of your main attack.  Do any experts have any thoughts on how much money is being made as drugs and other contraband pour through our undefended border while the Border Patrol is changing diapers?

8) And where is all the money going? The recent level of violence in Chicago is astonishing.  It begins to remind of Juarez years ago as the quantity and value of smuggled goods began to rise, and gangs and cartels began to fight over territory, routes, and distribution points. Can our experts identify any connections between increased smuggling across our border, and increased violence in our heartland?

9) What exactly could the National Guard do if deployed as Governor Perry has requested of the President? True, Guard presence would not change the flow of illegal immigrants rushing to surrender after crossing the Rio Grande. But the Guard might cover the parts of the border abandoned by an overcommitted Border Patrol now seeking to collect and safeguard tens of thousands of children. The problem is not with sending the Texas National Guard – the governor can do that himself. The problem is with paying for their service. Since the Guard would be addressing a national problem which the Federal Government is incapable of handling, the Governor really wants the President to pay for the Guard’s deployment. If the President deploys the Guard under Title 10 of US code, they work for him, the Feds pay the bill,  and the soldiers can have no direct law enforcement role (IAW the Posse Commitatus Act).  But if the President merely authorizes the deployment under the governor’s direction, as Title 32 of US law allows, then the Federal government will pay the cost. Which is only fair as they seem to have created the problem to begin with. So why doesn’t Governor Perry specifically request this, and the President grant it, as the law allows?

10) Which take us to the big question that almost everybody is missing.  There is big money to be made here – hundreds of millions from smuggling drugs and other goods.  Who is making it?  

No comments:

Post a Comment