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 (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf
), 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