Mexico is uh....

Drug cartel governmental support: makes you a cartel government. This is what happens, FAFO.

She says this while living in the U.S.

This woman might be the dumbest person on the internet. "Stay in your country"? Wow.

U.S., Mexico, drugs, trade and the future

This morning on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM, I was listening to senator Joni Earnst talk about the border with Mexico and the issues in Mexico in broader.   She was making the point about the flow of drugs such as fentanyl into the United States, but also equally important is the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico particularly the fact that most of those were flowing to the drug cartels.

The United States and Mexico have mutual problems, but equally important is that the two countries have a mutual opportunity. It's readily apparent that Mexico wants to stop the inbound flow of weapons as much as the U.S. wants to stop the inbound flow of drugs.  The Mexican government cannot fight an increasingly armed and impervious ring of cartels without a co-operative effort within the United States, and the same is true for America with respect to the drug flow.  The inertia that prevents doing something about both of these issues (spawned by Democrats' desire for more illegal voters to pad their vote totals) really mostly benefits the drug cartels at the expense of the people of both countries. 

Aside from the obvious notion that a wall would benefit both countries (thank you president Trump for pushing for that), it's less obvious but still true that there is a potential for mutual economic benefit.  

The Background

As Peter Zeihan points out, there is a massive onshoring of manufacturing coming to North America in this decade. The below video provides a good summary of his reasoning as to why it's happening. 

Specifically here, he expounds on the Texas-Mexico manufacturing landscape:

Because of demographics, this cannot be an entirely American effort.  Mexico has the demographics to assist.  Canada doesn't really.  Mexico is also changing it's tune on dealing with the drug cartels. It has to do so and despite the current relations blip, it will inevitably require increased cooperation between the two countries.

Assuming Peter Zeihan is even only partly right (and I believe he's more than just a little bit right), the economic integration of the United States and Mexico is inevitable.  Mutual interest means that co-operation in the short term will aid economic synergy in the medium to longer term.

The Future

With both countries needing to industrialize or re-industrialize rapidly, the need to begin several things in earnest is strong.  Economic and security cooperation must not only start right away, they need to start hand in hand.  They are interlinked and inseparable;  Mexico not be considered a secure place for lower end industrialization if it is overrun with cartels. For its part, the United States, with an emphasis on higher end industrialization and not the best demographic situation, cannot do lower end manufacturing internally, at least not all of it.  It's in both nations' best interest to make Mexico safer and the border more secure so that rapid industrialization and mutual beneficial trade can occur.  For the United States this also helps significantly (though not completely) neuter China economically. Its a win win win.

How this happens depends on a lot of things.  To me the obvious way forward is to not parcel the pieces together and deal with each issue independently. 

(1) Work with Mexico to build the wall as a mutually beneficial exercise as part of a broader effort.

Focus on it as part of holistic plan for controlling the flow of drugs, guns and illegal immigrants; it needs to be more than just a wall.  It requires proper documentation of all travelers (yes sneaking drugs and people and guns is going to be more than just at proper ports of entry), hence the wall. But it will also require enhanced enforcement and surveillance of delivery systems (e.g. FedEx, postal systems, shipping).  This will require additional people (maybe those 86,000 newly hired and armed IRS agents could be appropriated to more serviceable roles). It will require a new and innovative way to allow express trade but still monitor for the illegal transfers.

The slowing of the illegal guns to Mexico as Earnest pointed out this morning will weaken the cartels and help Mexico combat them.  The benefit to the United States from that is that weakened cartels will decrease their ability to smuggle drugs into America AND weaken their ability to impinge on future manufacturing zones thus helping trade.

(2) Work with Mexico to develop a high speed trade corridor.

A high speed trade corridor, dedicated to shipments and not human traffic will expedite not only trade but the mutually beneficial trade.  I would not expect the exports to flow entirely one way.  Firstly as a subcomponent of this, it would b good to establish spheres of specialization among the two countries to enhance trade relations.  Peter Zeihan touched on this. Left out however was the idea that American trade goods need to flow into Mexico as well.  The balance of payments cannot be one-sided.  Replacing a massive trade deficit with China to that of one with Mexico only weakens China; it does not strengthen America except in relative terms with China.  Therefore American goods need to flow into Mexico as well.

With manufacturing jobs developing in Mexico and increased Mexican security against the cartels (hopefully in a snowball effect), Mexicans should have more disposable income and thus be able to purchase more American goods.  A growing and more stable GDP in Mexico should allow Mexico more tax revenue to purchase military equipment and police force equipment as well, to help fight the cartels while at the same time mitigating the potential trade imbalance.

In conjunction with this, both countries could improve trade (particularly exports) with the soon to be struggling European countries.  This would be a further boon to both nations' economies.

Improved domestic economic conditions could also significantly reduce illegal immigration to the United States with more jobs and security becoming available within Mexico. There is a language and cultural advantage for Hispanics to remain in a Hispanic and Spanish-speaking country. Ironically, this may eventually shift the illegal immigration problem to Mexico's southern border. 

(3) Plan for the next stage.

It's possible that as this shift occurs, Mexican birth rates inevitably decline as the nation becomes wealthier.   This has been the inevitable fate of industrialized nations.  To sustain it's economic growth Mexico may be forced to allow increased immigration into its southern border to fill the need.  Alternately it could lead to a further southward migration of low tech manufacturing as Mexico itself upgrades to higher tech industrial manufacturing and outsources the lower end of the scale to Central America, while the United States does the same into ultra-high tech.  This in effect would expand prosperity ever southward.  That of course is only one possible outcome but possible nonetheless.

All of this is hypothetical of course, but the current paradigm offers a massive opportunity for both nations, far greater than allowing the status quo to continue.  For its part the United States should push these ideas where it can but not in such a way as to demand specific actions by Mexico.  Pointing out the mutual benefit (using the carrot) will yield far more than threats (the stick) ever will.

Hypocrisy not just on China

Let's Go Brandon criticized president Trump for racism when he blocked travel from China. Now he's doing the exact same thing.  The hypocrisy doesn't end there.  While he's blocking travel from China, it seems that anything that can be done to enhance illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America is good with Democrats. I dunno, allowing in some unabated while blocking others outright seems selective and racist to me.

American tech crunch

 Peter Zeihan discusses the onshoring of tech jobs, which seems to be coming.

Border security in Mexico is working

3:05 -- "...closed the crossing's large metal gates to keep them out."  Sounds a lot like walls and barriers work.

Saturday Learning Series - geography (Mexico)

The geography and flag of Mexico.

Trump winning: Mexico

Tariffs on Mexico to combat border security failures will work.

Border wall hammer time

President Trump is going to drop the tariff hammer on Mexico for not stopping the illegal immigrant flow.

Bordering on Insanity

While Democrats favor sanctuary cities, no border wall, allowing illegal immigrants to vote and receive free health care, and even abolishing ICE, some sanity is perhaps starting to take hold. While American immigration and enforcement is bordering on insanity it may finally be starting to head in the right direction.  This as a result of a federal Appeals Court decision (via Gateway Pundit):

A panel of three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit cited many different reasons for allowing the migrants to stay in Mexico while they wait for an immigration judge to hear their cases.

...Last month Judge Richard Seeborg blocked President Trump’s policy of returning asylum seekers to Mexico as they wait their turn for an immigration judge to hear their cases. 

Judge Seeborg, an Obama appointee in San Francisco, granted a request by a civil liberties group that sued the Trump Administration on behalf of 11 asylum seekers from Central America.

The lawsuit claims the Trump Administration violated US law by failing to properly evaluate the dangers that migrants face in Mexico — it also accuses DHS officials of depriving migrants of their right to apply for asylum.

Tuesday’s ruling in favor of the Trump administration will stay in effect until the case continues before the appeals court.

This is a far cry from an all encompassing victory, but it does at least acknowledge the rule of law and coming from the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, it's a surprise.  With the New York Times recently recognizing that there is indeed a border crisis and that there is a need for a wall, perhaps the fog of the progressive liberal daze for more progressive voters, regardless of legality, is starting to lift.  But don't hold your breath.  Things may just have gotten so bad that they have merely decided to gear down their drive for a little while.

Trump in Mexico - Winning Hearts and Minds

Donald Trump in Arizona later tonight is expected to make a pivot speech on illegal immigration.  He's expected to soften on illegal immigrants who have been in America for a long time and not broken any laws.  He's doing so after returning from Mexico for an impromptu meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, at the latter's invitation. Trump did so in a bold attempt to win hearts and minds - in America, not Mexico. But in doing so, he was able to find common ground with Niento - the start of any good negotiation.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton declined the same invitation and took pot shots at Trump for going. But this was a win for Trump. He appeared presidential - something Clinton and other Democrats have been claiming he was incapable of being. He was reasoned, and balanced. That alone is a huge win. It also plays to Hispanics in America who might be scratching their heads as to why Clinton didn't also accept the invite from Niento. Clinton cannot reverse herself and attend now - it will appear indecisive and also smack of me-too-ism. She's unlikely to do so anyway - she seems to be afraid of any sort of interaction where she cannot control the conversation to her script. One wonders how she might react to an actual invite if she were president. Trump also seemed in control of the entire press conference; presidential.

Trump once again played to his strengths and reinforced his self-defined image as a negotiator. There was agreement on 5 points. If he can negotiate with someone who he has more or less been insulting for a year, perhaps there's truth in his claims about his renegotiation bad deals America has made. Hopefully Obama's Cuban capitulation ends up on that list.

It's also shows that Trump is willing to take a risk, and succeed. This was a clear cut win for Trump. Despite a late tweet from Niento that he did declare to Trump that he would not pay for the wall, Trump did say it was not discussed. It is important to parse that - if Trump did not return the conversation then it was not a discussion. In any case, it will be interesting to see the details of Trump's immigration speech in Arizona shortly, on the heels of the Niento meeting.

Does Mexico secretly want a wall?

Mexico seems like it wants to ensure a Trump presidency.  First there was Vincente Fox saying he's not paying for the wall.  No Mexico's finance minister is saying the same thing;

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - There is no way Mexico would fund Donald Trump's "terrible" plan to build a wall along its border with the United States if the Republican front-runner wins the U.S. presidential election, the Mexican finance minister said.

Trump, the New York billionaire developer and former reality television star, sparked outrage in Mexico when he vowed to force Latin America's second largest economy to pay for a wall along the southern U.S. border to stem the flow of illegal immigration and drugs.

In a televised interview late on Wednesday, Finance Minister Luis Videgaray categorically rejected the proposal.

"Under no circumstance will Mexico pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing," he said. "Building a wall between Mexico and the United States is a terrible idea. It is an idea based on ignorance and has no foundation in the reality of North American integration."

Saying there's no problem ignores the reality on the ground in America.  There is a problem, and it requires a solution. Mexican officials pretending no problem exists helps Trump.  Saying you won't pay for it, in the face of an angry and frustrated electorate worried about crime, drugs, and jobs inflames that frustration and also helps Trump.  It's not clear how Trump expects to get Mexico to pay for the wall - his answers have been ambiguous, evasive and frankly grade school.  Nor is it clear that people buy that Mexico would actually agree to pay for it, no matter what trade leverage Trump alludes to having.  People might not even care about that part.  Then again, they might want to see him try.  But they want a broken immigration fixed almost as much as they want jobs.

Clearly Mexico either doesn't get it or wants to deal with Trump.  If they really don't want him to win, they'd tackle the problem head on (in other ways) rather than antagonizing Trump supporters or even undecided voters.  If Mexico is so against it, maybe there is something to Trump's steadfast insistence on it. So might go the thinking of a lot of Americans.

If Mexico really does not want a wall, do they even care that people are fleeing to America?  What sort of message that send to Mexico's poor?  Go away. That's what it's telling them. But why then, antagonize Trump when he's winning primaries?  That almost ensures that if he wins the presidency it's going to happen.  His ego won't allow otherwise.  That makes Mexican reactions so perplexing.

Pope wants to enter America across the Mexican border

Maybe I should not have quit.

According to RollCall:

Lawmakers and immigration activists expect the pontiff’s message will resonate beyond Capitol Hill and inspire members of Congress and their constituents. The pope's U.S. schedule includes an address to Congress on Sept. 24 and a meeting two days later with immigrants and Hispanic families at Philadelphia’s Independence Mall.

“He’s been clear on our failure to respond appropriately to immigrants and refugees,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told CQ. “I don’t think anyone will have any doubt on where the church stands on immigration after the pope visits the United States.”

Pope Francis has been vocal about the treatment of immigrants since he became the head of the Roman Catholic Church in March 2013. Last year, he called the surge of Central American children crossing the border into the United States a “humanitarian emergency.” In a June encyclical letter on climate change, Francis noted the “tragic rise” of immigrants fleeing poverty.

Is the Pope socialist? I believe so. Regardless, this is all a humanist agenda masquerading as Catholic doctrine. Environmentalism, immigration. Is this really what the Pope needs to focus on when Christians are being persecuted around the world? And why the publicity stunt?

As an aside - It's ironic that certain Democrats feel it's important for Catholics to heed their Pope when it comes to immigration, but it's a totally different story when it comes to abortion.

China leads in immigration now too

Reading the WSJ today, it appears that China has overtaken Mexico as the number one country for immigrants entering the United States as of 2013.  It's not as surprising as it would seem at first blush.  This is after all census data. Illegal immigrants are mostly not answering the census I'd wager.  so the numbers are skewed.  India it turns out appears to be ahead of Mexico in the immigration volume game as well.  Again, not a surprise.

For a decade, immigration from China and India, which boast the world’s largest populations, has been rising as increasing numbers move to the U.S. to study, work and unite with families already in the country.

Meanwhile, immigration from Mexico has been declining due to improvements in the Mexican economy and lower Mexican birthrates. More recently, the U.S. recession also reduced illegal immigration from Mexico.

The real interesting part of the equation to me is whether the shift is indicative of the labor forces needs in the U.S. Does the U.S. need immigration right now, given the fragile economy? Does it need a more educated immigrant population versus a labor intensive immigrant population (setting aside the implied prejudicial notion of Asian versus Mexican immigrant skill sets - the implied notion is not my intention here)? Assuming the economy does eventually roar back to life, will it be a manufacturing driven recovery? Does manufacturing still need manual labor or does it now need more engineers? And given the slide in Mexican immigration, is that shift part of the reason for declining Mexican immigration?

Another question - how is the illegal immigration situation evolving now? Is it waning, or just as strong as ever? Since it is illegal, who really has a handle on the scope of it?

Fundamentally, does the U.S. - a nation built on immigration - still need it? Or has it matured demographically past that point? Does it still have room to grow through immigration? And if so, how is that driven? In the past immigration was welcome, but while ethnicity was diverse, culturally the immigration was more homogeneous, at least with respect to Christian values. That has changed but to what degree? And if you say it still matters because it's been part of the DNA of the nation since birth, are you going to be called a racist?

Being a melting pot of cultures does not mean you allow the original flavor to disappear. It's still important. If enough Muslim immigrants came to America and wanted to make Sharia law the law of the land, and did so, would it still be America at that point? No, it wouldn't. So it matters. At least I believe it does.

Mexcican Female Vigilante Killing Bus Drivers

Yikes.

Mexican prosecutors said Monday they are investigating claims that a woman who killed two bus drivers last week in this northern border city was seeking revenge for alleged sexual abuse of female passengers.

The claims made in an e-mail from the self-styled "bus driver hunter" echoed deeply in Ciudad Juarez, which has a grim history of sexual violence against women aboard buses.

A woman wearing a blond wig — or dyed hair — boarded one of the school bus-style vehicles that serve as transport in Ciudad Juarez on Wednesday morning. She approached the driver, took out a pistol, shot him in the head and left the bus. The next day, apparently the same woman did exactly the same thing to another driver on the same route.

Over the weekend, media outlets began receiving e-mails from the address "Diana the hunter of bus drivers."

"I myself and other women have suffered in silence but we can't stay quiet anymore," the e-mail said. "We were victims of sexual violence by the drivers on the night shift on the routes to the maquilas," a reference to the border assembly plants that employ many residents in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas. "I am the instrument of vengeance for several women."

The newspaper Diario de Juarez reported that a witness quoted the killer as telling the second victim, "You guys think you're real bad, don't you?" before shooting him.

Vigilantism is not something that should be condoned but this does underscore the point that there is a level of lawlessness in Mexico that has yet to be contained by Mexican authorities. Women in Mexico have been subject to a lot of violence.  That is not new.  But it is in reality just a symptom of a society that cannot afford to properly dispense justice and provide basic protections for its citizens.

The reason I bring this story up is because it serves as a reminder that allowing guns to cross the border into Mexico under the Fast and Furious program was a uniquely terrible idea. How the FBI thought they could keep control of that operation is beyond comprehension. The idea was astoundingly dumb. And yet the scandal has quietly and slowly disappeared.

Bizarro World America

Blame...Canada???

I've always said I wanted to become an American citizen.  The country is truly great.  Other than the Democratic party and it's destructive progressivist influence, what's not to love about the country? I've said that someday I will try to become an American citizen, and even joked that given the left's push for amnesty I might go illegally and end up voting against them once they grant me a path to citizenship.  I'd never do that.  But it seems like Canada is receiving the brunt of the U.S. government's border protection policy.  Mexican gangs are killing people along the U.S. border (apparently with weapons provided to them by the Department of Justice - no kidding), millions of Mexicans have streamed across the border to take jobs provided for illegal aliens, to draw welfare or to commit felonious crimes. Don't try to say they are streaming across the border illegally to engage in legal activities.  They by definition, can't.  Drugs pour across the southern U.S. border with a volume akin to Niagara Falls.  Iran is supposedly sending ships to patrol the Gulf of Mexico.  Clearly the Canadian border needs protection.

Let's start connecting dots

Actual sign (of the times).

President Bush's pretend border fence was apparently too much for liberals. Meanwhile illegal immigration is rampant. Forget the liberal agenda for a minute, let's think about what's going on with the bigger picture. The bigger picture involves more than just immigration.  It involves the economy.  The two issues do not exist in respective vacuums - they are interrelated. 

Mexican Immigration Graph

A graph on Mexican immigration from PEW Research. It pretty much speaks for itself, but the article at PEW points out that 11% of the entire Mexican born population that is alive today, currently lives in the United States.

Wow.

Obama's slow response on Mexican flu

Is it possible a flu pandemic might accomplish what Tom Tancredo and other Republicans, as well as millions of illegal aliens could not?  That is, to seal the U.S.-Mexico border.  With Mexico City taking aggressive measures to cancel public events as a result of over 1000 suspected cases and over 60 deaths, President Calderone has declared an emergency and has the power to quarantine.

Cases have been reported in the United States already.  The story is pushing the economic recovery or lack thereof out of the headlines for now.  If the crisis grows it will spell some relief for the administration on the issue of dealing with the economy.

Where is the Obama administration on this? According to the AP;

WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama is being updated on the swine flu outbreak in Mexico.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday the Homeland Security Council is monitoring the situation, along with the State Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gibbs says Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan is leading the White House's response. Mexican authorities say 60 people may have died from the swine flu virus and world health officials worry it could unleash a global flu epidemic.

Gibbs said Obama was not at risk during last week's trip to Mexico.

After 9/11 there were critiques that President Bush reacted too slowly. There were 2752 deaths.  After Hurricane Katrina the complaints were repeated - there were over 1300 deaths. Those who oppose Iraq point to the 4,199 US deaths there. Is the memory of the American people so short that President Obama is going to get a pass on this flu problem?  Granted it's predominantly a Mexican crisis at this point, but given the number of illegal and legal immigrants streaming in from Mexico daily, shouldn't a flag be raised somewhere about a potential danger from the current situation?  At what point does this become a bigger bungle than those three Bush issues combined? The Bush lives lost total 8251 to date, and arguably not all of those deaths can be blamed on him.  The blame for the Katrina deaths certainly goes in large part to then governor Katherine Blanco [CORRECTED]. And 9/11 was the fault of the terrorists who committed the heinous act.  And while some may disagree with the policy and the premise of the Iraq invasion, Bush was acting in what he thought was the best interest of the nation. Arguably those deaths in Iraq, are his responsibility.  They are deaths however for national security purpose however.  Agree or disagree with the policy, the decision was made for what was believed to be the good of the nation.  

Whatever the actual way someone decides to tally the deaths under President Bush, it may pale in comparison to what happens with this flu outbreak (not pandemic at this point).  The point is, this situation, like Katrina, is one that from the perspective of the United States, was one that was seen coming.  The train is coming, America is laying on the tracks.  It's up to the President to get the country off the tracks before the train hits it.  So far, nothing.

Numbers vary but estimates are that from 2,000 to 10,000 illegal immigrants cross the US border every day. Currently 1 in 100,000 people in Mexico has this swine flu.  Which means statistically every 10 days a new case could be entering the country.  Illegally.  The real number is likely higher as illegal immigrants are poor and more likely to be sick than someone not interested in sneaking into America because they have jobs and health care in Mexico. And that rate of disease entry doesn't even include legal migrants.  Is there any airport screening going on?  Are there extra border patrols being added to combat the problem?  Or as a result of the drug wars spilling over the border that has been flaring up for quite some time now?  Secretary Clinton, did blame the flow of drugs on Americans.  But that's not really a solution, it's just finger pointing.

This flu pandemic could get really ugly, quickly.  So far, President Obama's solution has been the head in the sand approach.  It hasn't proved problematic yet but it has the potential to be disastrous.

Exit note: Gibbs felt the need to point out that Obama's health was fine?  I hope that was in response to a question or else the pomposity of the statement would be staggering.

Just Shut Up, Will You?

President Obama speaks on The Tonight Show and he insults the developmentally challenged, Tim Geithner speaks and the dollar plummets, Hillary Clinton speaks and she blames America for Mexico's drug deaths, Chase Freeman speaks and he blasts Israel, Joe Biden speaks and entertains everyone with, well, his intellectual challenges. Robert Gibbs speaks and sinks even deeper over his head.

People - the best thing you can do for the country is to keep your mouths shut.

That is all.