Illegal Aliens Running for Their Lives and American Drug Appetites

     The books I've read recently regarding drug cartels, illegal aliens, and sex trafficking have widened my view of what is happening along the southern border of the United States that we share with Mexico. It is a large and troublesome problem. In my opinion, throwing money at it or granting "amnesty" or burning a few fields of marijuana growing in remote sections of Mexico will not even begin to solve the problem. The problem is multi-factorial.

      The popular idea of who is crossing the border illegally is a poor Mexican-- with or without a pregnant wife-- looking for farm work in Texas, Arizona, California, or perhaps Florida. Poor Mexicans who are desperate for work and wages and crossing the border illegally does not even begin to cover what is happening. Yes there are poor Mexicans doing that. But there are also Mexicans and Central Americans who get on the migrant route and attempt to cross the border illegally because they have been threatened with death by members of their local drug cartel. And there is an increasing number of people from India using the migrant trails leading up through Mexico.

     Illegal aliens pay coyotes to bring them across the border. Even so, some of the aliens die when they are scraped off of train roofs or when "criminals" shake down the illegals for their money while on the trains. Some coyotes talk or force their group of illegals into being drug mules, others hike up "what is owed" and then sell their illegals into slavery, still others kill them. And then there are the drug cartels and gang members who have certain economic stakes into the drug trade and other underground businesses being conducted in the United States. The cartels and gangs [and some percentage of coyotes] form a cross-section of individuals and groups which are prone to violence wherever they are found.

     Central American cartels have become increasingly creative when it comes to getting drugs across the border. Subs are being built in the jungles and then used to transport cocaine and other drugs that United States citizens are enamored with. Legalizing the growth and use of marijuana would take some profit away from the cartels but it would not solve the whole problem.  Americans still like cocaine, MDMA, and other drugs and are willing to pay for them. How many users of Mexican tar heroin, for example, think to themselves that they ought to switch their drug of choice because of cartel violence? I'm pretty sure that the answer is close to zero.

     I am in favor of the legalization of marijuana and for laws that permit users to grow their own pot plants. I remain against any form of amnesty for illegal aliens. My grands came over here legally from their countries of origins, learned to speak English, and were delighted to be able to work in America. They were proud to become Americans. Illegals come over here and tax the Medicare system, take jobs from citizens [even in Chicago, people complained that the illegals were taking well-paying construction jobs away from them, personal trip 2007], and produce babies which we must render aid and assistance to. 

     I'm sorry that there is so much poverty and violence in Mexico. I think it is horrid that the Mexican economy-- one that we suppose depends upon tourism-- would fold if it were not for the drug money and money sent back to Mexico from illegals working here. This should not be our problem. I am horrified that the cartels and foreign gangs are making their presence felt in American cities. I cringe when I read that the best that ICE agents can hope for is a modicum of control at the wall separating Mexico from El Norte. I don't like the idea that illegal aliens from India as well as Pakistan and other places are using the 3000 mile border with Mexico as a hopping over point.

     I don't know how we can work on educating the American public about what their use of hard drugs is delivering to the cartels in terms of profit and why they should care. I don't know what to do about illegals who come here and take advantage of Sanctuary Cities that exist here, get identity cards and drivers' licenses from states that allow that, receive tuition grants from states that allow that. I'm pretty sure that any proposed "amnesty" for illegal aliens will not fix this. 

     For every illegal that is of Mexican or Central American origin who is here to escape violence threatened by the cartels, how many illegals who used the Mexican border as their entry points are here who have connections with extremist Islamic groups? And how many illegals cross over the Canadian border? How many enter via our airports or boat docks?

     We have immigration laws on the books. Why aren't we enforcing them in a uniform manner? There should be no exceptions. If you are being persecuted by cartels, then apply for asylum either here or in some other country. If you want to work here, there are legal channels to go through. And please learn English. 

     Please do not hold up a sign in Phoenix Arizona stating that Texas is actually a part of Mexico. That battle was lost by your government. Please do not talk about what we "owe" you. No one owes anyone a living. You are not entitled to a silver spoon or to happiness because you came over here illegally. Sneaking through a tunnel from Mexico to Texas makes you a criminal. Swimming across the Rio Brave or the Rio Grande makes you a criminal. Hiding in a car or truck makes you a criminal. You are committing a criminal act.

     We have an overflow of Americans who feel entitled as it is. Americans who think that the government owes them. Americans who are not willing to work for what they want. Americans who resent us for having a thing that calls itself a car in our driveway. Americans who believe that because I have five radios, I ought to give away four of them. We do not need any more people here who feel entitled. And we certainly do not need any more terrorists here.

     To those who are here legally, determined to create a honest living, I salute you. To the rest of you, I think you should go away. We are not responsible for solving your problems. 

     Anything that is worth having is worth working for.

radical sapphoq 

What If Ed Snowden Isn't Who He Says He Is: An Opinion

     The following post is composed of my opinions.  My opinions may be right, wrong, or somewhere in-between, but they are my opinions.  F.Y.I., I am not a dem lib and I have not been for quite some time now. 


     I think Ed Snowden is who he says he is.  I do not believe that he is an operative working for the C.I.A.  I do believe that he exists.  Yes, people can and do change their viewpoints on a variety of issues and sometimes a bit dramatically throughout the years.  That Ed Snowden was against leaking stuff a couple of years ago [according to information given to Ars Technica by folks who saved their typed conversations with Ed Snowden] really doesn't bother me in the least.  Furthermore, there is a real danger in labeling someone as having narcissistic-like tendencies sight unseen, especially when this label is based on media reports and opinions of various people who did not professionally evaluate Ed Snowden.  In short, I do not believe that there is evidence for that particular claim.  I don't think he exposed the leaks because he wanted to be in the spotlight.  I think Ed Snowden's motives lie within the realm of realizing that what is happening within the N.S.A. is incorrect.  

     I believe there is some amount of misinformation being fed to us-- intentionally or otherwise-- by the media.  One example is the reports I read at first did not admit that Ed Snowden could stay in the transit area of the Russian airport without a three day visa.  The initial reports admitted that he did not have a three day visa but not that he would only need such a document in order to leave the transit area of the airport.  Another example is the idea that both China and Russia have harvested [interviewed] Ed Snowden in hopes of gaining information from him or offering him work as their spy or something like that.  I don't believe that has happened.

I cannot understand:
1.  why the N.S.A. cannot locate Ed Snowden.
2.  why Congress isn't asking the N.S.A. some very pointed questions about exactly how it is that Ed Snowden was able to download some heavy duty stuff onto a thumb-drive.  All in a day's work, is it?
3.  why Obama and other politicos think that China; and now Russia, should just willingly deport Ed Snowden just because the American government and its' various shadow organizations want them to.
4.  why people assume that Ed Snowden must be at a Russian airport in the transit zone just because we are told that is where he is.   
5.  why some country doesn't just jump up and say "Come over here, Ed.  Stay with us."  Considering the circumstances, Ed Snowden needs immediate protection and immediate citizenship someplace else.
6.  why the conversation has centered around that bad boy hacker Ed Snowden instead of what the N.S.A. is doing.
7.  why the conversation has centered around that bad boy hacker Ed Snowden instead of why the N.S.A. appears to be able to dictate its' own doings without any real oversight from any other organization or from Congress or frigging anybody.
8.  why people are at all surprised by the recent revelations of exactly how deeply the N.S.A. is into monitoring all of us here and everyone in the whole world.
9.  why there is not more in the news about Boundless Informant.

 
Furthermore, the definition of a "terrorist" needs to be refined a bit.  I may be wrong but at least to me, it appears that:
1.  people who support or are in Anonymous are considered to be friends of terrorists or terrorists.  
2.  people who use encryption are considered to be suspect.
3.  people who use V.P.N.s or TOR are considered to have some kind of inherent criminal intent.


Problem #1:  I thought things were a bit odd last year and earlier this year when I realized that FedBook wanted our wallet names and wallet info [picture that!], when Google and Twitter and Yahoo and AOL wanted our cell phone numbers in order to open an e-mail account, when Google suddenly changed their TOS to be all inclusive when using any Google service, when the push was on to link various accounts together.  I distinctly remember the days before Google transformed into a Big Brother sort of outfit. 

Partial solution:  Don't use Fedbook.  No new e-mail accounts.  Search for an email account with a company that does not have dot com or dot net or dot biz after their name.  Use e-mail minimally and certainly not for communication purposes.
Drastic solution:  Get off of the internet entirely.  [For now, I will take my chances]. 
 
Problem #2:  I first suspected something was wrong this year when suddenly Google appeared to be vomiting on my searches when my computer was shielded under a proxy.

Solution:  Use another search engine.

Problem #3:  I first noticed something was wrong this year when suddenly Yahoo would not show up in a search engine when behind a proxy.

Solution:  Use another search engine. 

Problem #4: Obummer has offered "reassurance" that no one is listening in on our phone calls.

Solution:  Figure that A.I. bots which have been scripted to recognize certain code words are listening in on phone calls. 

Problem #5:  It is hard to know who is telling the truth and who is spinning a yarn.

Solution:  Carefully evaluate the evidence from a variety of source material.  Take nothing at face value.  

radical sapphoq says:  We the People have a right to know what is going on when a powerful shadowly agency is performing broadly based Big Data collections.  So much info has been collected and is being collected that a facility in Utah is being built to house it in.  Utah is an ideal location for such a facility to be built because a large number of National Guard recruits originate in Utah.
 
When an agency or organization [like the N.S.A.] is given carte blanche to do as it will with little to no meaningful oversight, a distinct possibility of abuse of power exists.  Meta-data is not innocuous.  If it were, the N.S.A. would not be interested in organizing meta-data through Boundless Informant. 

I like my privacy-- even though I in fact "have nothing to hide."  I am aware that if someone or some agency is hunting for something to report, the information will be found or manufactured or spun to suit the purposes of said person or agency.  Drama begets drama.  If the job order says "Find something," then something will be found.  I've learned that from investigations work.   

I prefer some transparency in my government to lies.  Certainly I prefer a smaller non-interfering (in my personal life or other peoples' personal lives) government to this stuff that is going on right now.  What the N.S.A. is doing under the guise of offering us security is unacceptable to me.  Security is not the opposite of privacy.




 
       

Getting Out of Gitmo

Camp Justice in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is slated for closure. Fear strikes at the heart of this blogger. I will not deny that beating on the terrorists there was a bad idea. Nor will I condemn President Bush for his hand in creating Gitmo. All of that falls under "old news." In establishing that business not as usual, President-Elect Obama has picked on the one thing that is full of controversy.

The folks housed in Guantanamo Bay are not nice people. They are not P.O.W.s because they are not legal combatants and therefore not covered by the Geneva Convention. They are not American citizens and therefore not habeus corp writ material. They are human beings who like blowing up other human beings in vastly illegal ways. The International Herald Tribune (iht) article states that many of the prisoners there are without a country that wishes to take them. Otherwise, they are eligible for release back into society. Any countries wish to volunteer? I don't see why they can't go back to the countries that they used to live in if indeed some percentage of them are in effect free men being held at Camp Justice.

Some of the folks will get a sort of military trial, possibly on U.S. soil. Others will have a special justice system created for them as it seems they are the holder of secrets. These secrets are powerful stuff. Plans to blow up more Americans and all of that. Some human rights groups are all for getting rid of Gitmo and giving the land back to Cuba.

Quite frankly, my hawkish nature continues its ascent. The terrorists who are at Guantanamo Bay should be disposed of, as in terminated. They aren't protected under national or international laws. They do not have our best interests at heart. They wish us dead. Well, I wish them dead too. If there are any innocents residing in Camp Justice, let Mexico or Israel have them.

radical sapphoq





http://www.wikio.co.uk/international/americas/caribbean/cuba/guantanamo_bay
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/10/america/NA-US-Obama-Guantanamo.php
http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/president-elect-obama-working-towards-closing-guantanamo-bay-prisio/