While the Obama administration sues the state government of Arizona for trying, however feebly, actually to enforce federal rules about border security, and while it wrings its hands before the farcical UN "Human Rights Council" over the horrors of "racial profiling" which such enforcement might conceivably entail...
...wealthy and powerful gangs of Mexican traffickers in drugs & humans have more or less taken over whole areas of Arizona:
"Pinal County Sheriff Baul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities East and West, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.
"'Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,' he said. 'They...have scouts on the high point in the mountains and in the hills and they...control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.
"'This is going on here in Arizona,' he said. 'This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States.'
"He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border but what he got was 15 signs..."
...signs "warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers."
Daniel Foster, at The Corner, goes on to quote the hyacinth girl, who's been there, and lived to tell the tale:
"On a recent trip to Phoenix, I pulled off the I-8 to let the dogs out and let the kid get her wiggles out. I'd stopped at this place before; it has some abandoned buildings I like to look at. About ten minutes after I'd stopped, a sheriff's SUV pulled up and a very nice lady sheriff asked me politely but with some urgency if I could gather my wayward puppies and child and leave immediately.
"I asked her why, as I'm pretty familiar with Arizona and the freedom within its borders. She explained that it was too close to sunset for us to be on that particular side of the freeway, as the drug and human traffickers would be out very soon.
"'They'll shoot you if they don't know you...'"
Comments (16)
Believe it, Steve, horrifying as it is. In fact, believing it is the indispensable first step in beating it. Unless or until we believe it, we won't be motivated to get it fixed.
But it's worse even than that. Sheriff Arpaio, who is enforcing the laws, is now the target of a federal suit for doing so. Law enforcement must actually fight the government in order to fight the criminals.
I often wonder if there's anything so perverse or detrimental to America that the Democrats (or the Republicans on different issues) won't do it just to curry votes.
Posted by Michael Bauman | September 3, 2010 5:10 PM
The answer to that question, though you and I might disagree as to specific issues, is a firm and resolute "No". True patriotism and republican virtue are dead; factional and personal advantage are all.
Posted by Maximos | September 3, 2010 5:46 PM
50k troops to guard a fake country, but not even 5k troops to enter this terrain and take control from the cartels. If our founders could see this, they would wish that they'd given us a King who would jealously guard his realm.
Posted by Mike T | September 3, 2010 6:01 PM
It really is weird, like we're living in one of those parodies of the political world from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Hard to believe that our politicians are truly this far gone. The country has had its ups and downs, but I don't believe it's been this broken before. I think Maximos is right. The whole idea of a public servant is defunct now. And I don't believe it's coming back. The foundation on which it was built is gone. Few even remember it, so it can't be revived. The fumes of leftover moral and social capital that we've been running on are nearly consumed, and soon there shall be nothing more than a primal struggle over scraps between warring factions.
Posted by The Deuce | September 3, 2010 6:25 PM
It would help if we didn't presently have an executive branch that is at war with America. The current level of hostility (see all the Justice Department lawsuits connected with Arizona) is not a bipartisan problem.
Posted by Lydia | September 3, 2010 6:35 PM
Ya'll need to have show some hope. In the past few years the plutocracy has been answered so forcefully by the republic on the issue of immigration that you almost want to stand up and cheer. Even in (perhaps temporary) defeat the AZ law has inspired dozens of governors, legislators and candidates.
More importantly, the Left's arrogance has been astonishing and resulted in terrible, gaping self-inflicted wounds. Never have I seen combined sheer incompetence with such reckless bluster. TWO CABINET SECRETARIES proclaimed under sworn testimony that though their department was actively working against it THEY HAD NEVER EVEN READ THE ARIZONA LAW. Talk about a couple of pathetic own-goals.
What every liberal here should do is look up the video of Jan Brewer freezing on camera in a debate recently, and then ask himself how in the world is my champion getting boatraced up by such lesser opponents?
The Liberal overreach on immigration has put Arizona in the GOP column for decades, and even put a real scare in John McCain, who is a liberal through and through on immigration. The man had to drop $20 million to win a primary.
Also, on the matter of sheer numbers immigration has shown clear signs of declining, whether because of the recession or because of it and other factors we cannot say.
Another cause for hope is that this Congress, 2009-2010, it will not have been Republicans that stopped amnesty but Democrats. Oh yes. The GOP has the honor of having told its own president to go pound sand on immigration (2005-2007); and now the Democratic Party has earned the honor of having told its own president to go pound sand on the same issue (2009-2010).
So that's a record of nonpartisan, small-r republican success that any opponent of mass immigration can hang his hat on.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 3, 2010 6:44 PM
Take a look at Colorado state Sen. Scott Renfroe's trip to Arizona, as excerpted on his Twitter account
Selections:
Lunch mtg with Ranchers in Serra Vista. Kids are dropping out of high school to smuggle illegals for $500 per trip. 8/19
Ruth is 4th Generation Rancher. In 1996 things began to change. Now must carry a gun, camera and cell phone. In that order. 8/19
Ruth ranches 15k & Sue 50k acres. Each are 25 miles N of the Boarder. They are overwhelmed by illegals with no end in site 8/19
Meeting with homeowner on the Boarder. He said you wouldn't believe the number of Chinese caught/seen crossing the boarder in Nogales. 8/19
Posted by Kevin J Jones | September 3, 2010 6:53 PM
SB: "While the Obama administration sues the state government of Arizona for trying, however feebly, actually to enforce federal rules about border security, and while it wrings its hands before the farcical UN "Human Rights Council" over the horrors of "racial profiling" which such enforcement might conceivably entail..."
Not too long ago in American history, the Obama regime's flagrant support of the invasion of the U.S. not only would have been considered a dereliction of duty but probably an act of treason.
But hey, everyone, no need to worry. Archbishop Jose Gomez assures us that "in God’s plan, the new Hispanic presence is to advance our country’s spiritual renewal.”
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 3, 2010 7:15 PM
Mr. Roberts, please see http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/09/i_wish_i_couldnt_believe_this_1.html#comment-152047
The self-indulgent doomsaying needs to end.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 3, 2010 7:37 PM
Paul: I do admit it's impressive that no amnesty legislation has passed in the last 5 years -- largely because of grass-roots resistance -- especially when there is such a massive convergence of powerful interests to get it passed. If the Democrats lose in November, however, beware of a midnight session where outgoing members of Congress might try to ram though all sorts of unpleasant legislation including "comprehensive immigration reform." There's also the threat of a mass amnesty via executive order.
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 3, 2010 8:04 PM
me vs. the heathens:
http://theforvm.org/diary/vinteuil/i-wish-i-couldnt-believe
(I'm vinteuil)
I wonder how many of you know what it's really like, arguing with run-of-the-mill leftists, in gangs.
Posted by steve burton | September 3, 2010 10:48 PM
A year or two back, my cousin was down in AZ fighting fire. They were only there a few weeks, and couldn't wait to get out-- they had to have armed guards to make sure they were not shot, and the ladies in the team were warned to NEVER go anywhere with less than two male co-workers. In front of her mother, she was willing to admit that they saw some worrying people-- given her mother's tendency to worry, it must have been REALLY bad.
Posted by Foxfier | September 4, 2010 10:38 AM
"I wonder how many of you know what it's really like, arguing with run-of-the-mill leftists, in gangs."
I do Steve -- I used to do a lot of it at Rod Dreher's blog a few years back. Eventually I gave it up -- not good for the soul. I found that in many cases logic was an item missing from their arsenal.
David Mills wrote in Touchstone several years ago that in a certain sense the conservative is always at a disadvantage when arguing with libs, because we believe that truth is rooted in the transcendent and thus we are "attached" to it in a way that liberals are not. He used the analogy of two dogs fighting, one of which is chained to a stake. Even if the chained one is bigger and stronger, there's still a disadvantage there compared to the other one. The "chain" that serves to keep us attached to the truth becomes a liability when arguing with those who have no such attachment.
Posted by Rob G | September 4, 2010 11:23 AM
Steve, I don't know to any very great extent what it's like to argue with leftists in gangs. The nearest I've gotten are a few of the Leiterite gang attacks here at W4 and back at Right Reason. A lot more at Right Reason, where leftists were more welcomed as commentators. I still remember the hours I wasted answering leftists on my original "Choice Devours Itself" post at RR. I hated it and for the most part refuse to do it. A happy coward--that's me. Or maybe it's just too darned boring.
Foxfier, good anecdote. Your family seems to specialize in strong female characters. :-)
Posted by Lydia | September 4, 2010 11:48 AM
We'll gladly admit we're wrong when the Tea Party successfully carries out an electoral coup in the Republican Party or the public votes in a 3rd party. Until then, your optimism is based on theory, not actual behavior on the part of the electorate.
Posted by Mike T | September 4, 2010 2:03 PM
What's going on in Arizona, and at least similar elsewhere, doesn't bother the court in Versailles a bit. "Pass the snuff box and did you hear what Senator Blah said".
The turds view this as purely a political question, what votes and when are to be mined, who to curry favor with and who to sell out.
Something similar is taken place in NYC with the mosque, though there it's money and not counting noses, at least not yet.
May I point out that islam/sharia are the new civil rights issues & allied with, in kind, the Border/Mexico sore.
There's a nation to sell out & plenty willing to do it.
Posted by johnt | September 5, 2010 10:47 AM