So much hyperbole has been written about the violence of the Mexican drug wars spilling over the border, that I'm finding it hard to reconcile this ginned up media hype and the reality of living in a border region of the US.  There is elevated violence across the border to the south, but to say it is 'spilling' onto US soil appears, from my perspective, to be melodramatic fodder, designed to entertain those of us from northern climes, who dream of a more exotic America to the south.  Alternatively, it might be construed as a marketing pitch from manufacturers of security, surveillance, military and law enforcement gadgetry and services.  For those of us who live here along the border, things seem to be not so different than any other city, and in many cases, it's much better.  Josh Marshall recently linked to this compelling article in Austin's Texas Observer which is well worth the read in order to gain some perspective on this issue.  

While we were susceptible to the fears being hawked like poppies on veterans day in post 9/11 America, there was a massive shift taking place in security infrastructure on all our borders, but more especially on our border with Mexico.  There are problems with illegal immigration, most of which are not being dealt with effectively or economically through US immigration and border policy.   What is US imigration/border policy...  Stem the influx of illegal aliens entering the States and stealing low paid American jobs... check.   Curtail the flow of illegal drugs across a porous border with Mexico... check.  Remove a possible channel of ingress for terrorists, crawling through miles of arroyos in order to penetrate the heartland of our nation... check.  {{{{rewind}}}}    Are we successful in any of these policy goals, and to the extent that we are, can our policy be refined?  There is no economically feasible way forward in stemming the flow of narcotics into the US via our current policies.  The economics of the drug business, requires an escalation on the part of the traffikers for each escalation on our part in securing our borders.  It's a numbers game we are destined to lose.  I'm sure the government would like to tell us about the successes intercepting terrorists in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts if only it wouldn't compromise national security.  In the end, the terrorists are more refined in their approach and with better financial and intelligence resources than the poor Mexicanos wading the river in search or a minimum wage job.  Ironically, the contracting US economy probably does as much or more in stemming the tide of illegal immigrants into the country as the availability of jobs shrinks, as do our policies.  In addition, there is reason to believe that clamping down on illegal immigration from Mexico to the US will result in a net drain on the US economy, and that our money is better spent on other venues than building fences, and patrolling borders.


Are secure borders a pipe dream?  What are the net effects of our current border policy?  Who benefits from current US policy?  What is the price you are willing to pay for secure borders?    In our zeal to stem this tide of 'undesirables' we've built walls, increased our border patrol infrastructure, and stationed armed guards throughout the region in an attempt to dial back the danger level to 'code yellow', (LOL).  Border Patrol statistics reveal an increased fatality rate of illegal immigrants along with a concurrent decrease in arrests.  Those increased deaths are one result of the increased vigilance on our borders, so I suppose we can attribute the increase in dead Mexicans in our southern deserts as a direct result of our policy as well as keeping more undocumented workers out of the country. 

Before the post-9/11 changes in border policy and infrastructure,  we managed to kill an 18 year old American, Esequiel Hernandez, who unfortunately was caught tending his goats near the border while carrying a 22 caliber rifle, which he used to scare away, or kill, the wild dogs who were threatening his herd.  This was the first and only incidence of the US military killing a US citizen on US soil since the Kent State killings in 1970.  I wondered at the time of Hernandez's killing whether it might have made more of an impact on Americans and our acceptance of US border policy, if the victim had been a college educated, Caucasian out for a stroll with his .22 rather than a poor, rural Hispanic teenager.  Ironically, Hernandez's killer was another Hispanic American, whose military career died that day on the banks of the Rio Grande,  just as surely as did Esequiel Hernandez.   

There is a lot at risk here in the border states.  What that means, is not necessarily what you might think.  The risk, to those with fiduciary interests in the newly created federal revenue streams resulting from border policy, is dictated by the withdrawal or redirection of Department of Homeland Security funding to fund more effective programs and policies.  Not unlike the insurance industry and the Single-payer option, finding common ground between the status quo and reality based policy comes with financial costs for those industries all ready positioned at the existing revenue trough.  Like the proverbial monster, the 'financial streams' we've created to wage the war on drugs and terror alike have taken on a life of their own.  Without an infusion of 'reality' we'll soon find ourselves buried under an avalanche of infrastructure that is inordinately expensive and does not fulfill its' original mission any more than fast food can be said to be fast, cheap, or nutritious.

We've learned something about public relations and marketing in the last 40 years.  Some of the more obvious of these are:

1. Never let the press take pictures of body bags or coffins of returning GIs killed in the line of  duty.  We wouldn't want to upset the folks back home during their dinners.
   
2. Don't waste time in court, allowing the media to call attention to misdirected governmental decisions and ultimately failed or failing policy.  (the Hernandez case was settled out of court for $1.9M, thus avoiding scrutiny of some of the other larger issues at play in the loss of this young man's life.
3. Give your policies catchy names, that don't necessarily have anything to do with the reality of the legislation.  (See the Bush administrations' 2002 New Source Review of the Federal Clean Air Act).
4. Get the media on your team, selling Americans the SOS du jour.

 
Vice President for Counter terrorism and Corporate Security at Strategic Forecasting, Inc. whose client list includes Fortune 500 companies and international government agencies.  Perhaps a little armed conflict spilling over the border might be useful in drumming up some new contracts?  These guys are beyond being embedded in our defense industry, they are the defense industry.  Stratfor's founder, Dr. George Friedman, wrote this unfortunately titled analysis of war in the 21st century

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes ... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.  -- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795.

only
Watch Berlin Wall Dismantled at EncycloMedia.com


"Obliterating forever the symbol of a divided world".  But not all such symbols.

We've had ideologues dictating policy for the past eight years.  Even our current Commander in Chief, has been walking a fine line if not waffling between 'taking options off the table' and 'considering all options' in the pursuit of solutions to these and other admittedly complex problems.  Isn't it time we took a cold, hard look at our security, immigration, and drug policies in order to come up with some realistic ideas without excluding whole subsections of potential solutions on the grounds that they are not 'politically feasible'?  How about we consider all solutions that might work in a less ideologically dominated political world, without factoring in the 28% of the population that is too entrenched in their own particular world view to lend any insight into these problems?  I think Americans can handle a little reality with the fluff.  Just an idea that's been gnawing on my medulla oblongata fer a while now.