"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

U.S. Tipping Mexico to Minuteman Patrols


It's time to start a serious hunt for a patriot to run for president the next go around.

I think that the current president may be actively pursuing a policy that is selling us out as a nation and as a people.

I have long suspected that the only viable explanation for the president's extraordinary refusal to secure our borders was because he was enamored of the concept of a "borderless world," often called "One World" by its supporters.

The idea of a borderless world as the ultimate solution to war was promoted in the middle of the last century in a book called "Iron Mountain." The book was thought to be pure fiction by some, and a serious proposal by others. Whichever it was, it struck a chord with many people, especially those in the camp of the leftists.

The "borderless world" seems to me to be an idea that appeals to George Bush, given his admiration for the European Union and the various so-called "free trade" agreements he supports between North and South America.

There's nothing wrong with free trade, mind you - in fact, if permitted, it would greatly increase prosperity and freedom around the world - but as Thomas Sowell, the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University (and protege of Walter Williams!) has pointed out, the consequences of the free exchange of goods are very different from the free exchange of peoples.

On April 24, 2006, Joseph Klein published an article in, called "The UN's Borderless World." In it, the author explains that "...if the UN advocates of open borders have their way, the developing countries would get to transfer their economic underclass... to the "destination" countries, which would be expected to subsidize them. The developing countries would also receive compensation from the destination countries where their skilled nationals have migrated in order to find gainful employment that is not available back home."

As it stands with the de facto non-existent border between us and Mexico, it is the United States that bears a disproportionate - in fact virtually 100% - burden of the security risks and economic costs that are part and parcel of this unregulated movement of members of Mexico's (and others) underclass into our country.

While many of us want a sovereign nation with a secure border and control over who comes into the country, the UN - and, it would appear, our president - do not see it that way. The UN has a vision of the "borderless world" where immigration is seen as an international human rights issue (could that be where the illegal aliens got the expression "immigrant rights?") that would be used as a tool to enable the poor of underdeveloped nations to freely enter the developed nations. This concept comes from the UN's dogma that international treaties should trump national sovereignty prerogatives. This would include a treaty that promotes the internationalization of immigration policy called the"International Convention on the Protection of the Rights oif All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families."

This convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1990, but went into effect only in 2003, after the twentieth signing country formally ratified it. It is heavily biased against countries like the United States, which currently receives the bulk of all such "irregular migrants" - that's what the UN calls the illegal aliens.

Last fall, a report was prepared by the Global Commission on International Migration (and set up with Kofi Annan's help) to help get the ball rolling at the United Nations High Level Dialogue. The Commission cautioned that the use of restrictive national policies are "neither desirable nor feasible, and may jeopardize the rights of migrants and refugees."

Well, do our president's actions re: the refusal to secure our borders, his cozying up to Fox, and his hostility towards the Minutemen, seem to be consistent with the UN's agenda to establish a "borderless world"?

I think they do. I think that if this can be proven, that the president has violated his oath of office and has pursued a policy which could be interpreted as an impeachable offense.

We have nearly three years before the next presidential election - that should be time enough to find a candidate who believes in the sovereignty of our nation and who believes that our Constitution trumps international treaties.

Take a look at what the president, via Homeland "Security," has been doing lately about the attempts of law-abiding citizens to bring some sanity and order to the southern border, and then please, find some other explanation - something besides an active policy that will dissolve our national sovereignty - for the president's refusal to secure the borders.

Here it is. I've left in links etc. for your convenience.

Oh, and another article, "U.S. Alerting Mexico to Minuteman Patrols," has just been posted at More of the same.

U.S. Tipping Mexico to Minuteman Patrols


While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen -- and telling the Mexican government where they are.

According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the
U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday. "This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Minuteman members were not so sanguine about the arrangement, however, saying that reporting their location to Mexican officials nullifies their effectiveness along the border and could endanger their lives.

"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of
criminal cartels
. "They just basically endangered the lives of American people."

Officials with the Mexican consulate in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Monday.

Martinez said reporting the location of immigrant apprehensions to consulate representatives is common practice if an illegal immigrant requests counsel or believes they have been mistreated. "Once an illegal alien is apprehended, they can request counsel," he said. "We have to give their counsel the information about their apprehension, and that includes where they are apprehended, whether a Minuteman volunteer spotted them or a citizen."

Martinez said Mexico's official perception of the civilian groups is that they are vigilantes, a belief the Border Patrol hoped to allay by entering into the cooperative agreement.

One of the documents on the Web site, "Actions of the Mexican Government in Relation to the Activities of Vigilante Groups," states that Mexican consulate representatives stay in close contact with Border Patrol chiefs to ensure the safety of migrants trying to enter
the U.S., those being detained and the actions of all "vigilantes" along the border.

"The Mexican consul in Presidio also contacted the chief of the Border Patrol in the Marfa Sector to solicit his cooperation in case they detect any activity of `vigilantes,' and was told to immediately contact the consulate if there was," according to the document.

"Presidio" refers to Presidio County, Texas, which is in the Big Bend region and a gateway to northern Mexico.

The document also describes a meeting with San Diego Border Patrol sector chief Darryl Griffen.
"(Griffen) said that the Border Patrol will not permit any violence or any actions contrary to the law by the groups, and he is continuously aware of (the volunteer organizations') operations," according to the document. "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to
notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented Mexicans."

The documents specifically named the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and its patrols, which began monitoring Arizona's southern border in April 2005, as well as Friends of the Border Patrol, a Chino-based nonprofit.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union
representing more than 10,000 Border Patrol agents, said agents have complained
for years about the Mexican consulate's influence over the agency.

"It worries me (that the Mexican government) seems to be unduly influencing our enforcement policies. That's not a legitimate role for any foreign nation," Bonner said, though he added, "It doesn't surprise me."

Border Patrol agents interviewed by the Daily Bulletin said they have been asked to report to sector headquarters the location of all civilian volunteer groups, but to not file the groups' names in reports if they spot illegal immigrants.

"Last year an internal memo notified all agents not to give credit to Minuteman volunteers or others who call in sightings of illegal aliens," said one agent, who spoke on the condition he not be identified. "We were told to list it as a citizen call and leave it at that. Many times, we were told not to go out to Minuteman calls."

The document also mentions locations of field operations of Friends of the Border Patrol, which patrolled the San Diego sector from June to November 2005. Mexican officials had access to the exact location of the group founded by Andy Ramirez, which ran its patrols from the Rough Acre Ranch, a private property in McCain Valley.

Ramirez said that for safety reasons, he disclosed the location of his ranch patrol only to San Diego Border Patrol and law enforcement officials. The group did not apprehend or spot any undocumented migrants in that area.

"We did not release this information ... to the media or anyone else," Ramirez said. "We didn't want to publicize that information. But there it is, right on the Mexican government's Web site, and our government gave it to them."

Visit the Mexican Government's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web Site. Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes.


  • At Tue May 09, 06:52:00 PM PDT, Blogger Eleanor © said…

    Cubed -

    Consider the plight of Europeans under the EU. Most don't want the institution or lose their national identities, or be ruled by a far-away entity in Hague, yet the EU Commissioners carried on after a "No" vote and the elected officials of the "sovereign nations" did nothing. What does that tell you? The vote was all for show. The EU is being rammed down the throats of ordinary citizens whether they like it or not.

    Is the situation the same on this side of the Atlantic? I believe it is. Big business and governmental agencies of all three major North American countries and some in Central America are ramming through, glossing over, and ignoring the stated wishes of their electorates.

    If the trend continues, North America will be one entity. Europe will be another, and, in time, all the world will be joined under one banner. It is unclear whether the said banner will be that of the United Nations, or another group of nations that have banded together, voluntarily or through conquest, or through another means of organization.

    It appears that the nation state is on its way out and the intermixture of citizens of various countries in Europe, for example, and the intermixture of, say, Mexicans and Central Americans among U.S. citizens will have the effect of diluting national loyalty and cohesion.

    Could this be the plan all along? "We are the world" has a brand new meaning.

  • At Wed May 10, 08:53:00 AM PDT, Blogger Cubed © said…


    I agree 100%! Take a look at the post I have above.

    I absolutely believe that the only explanation for the president's behavior - his abject refusal to listen to us on the border/illegal immigrant issue - is, as the title of the post states, to dismember the United States as a nation-state.

    The government has become a monstrous entity bloated with a level of power that it has accreted to itself over the years, but has no valid claim to.

    You may already have seen the article referred to there.

    I am more and more quickly coming to the conclusion that the borders issue, and even the "war on terror" issue are just tips of the iceberg in a larger ambition.

    If the world is ever to become some sort of unified enetity, it can legitimately do so only with the voluntary participation of the citizens of the countries involved; for governments to force this thing down our throats will have unintended consequences vis a vis the government plan, since there is no way in hell they can override human nature in the manner they now propose to do.

    Nature must take its course. Unfortunately, I think that the president has a long history of the love of the "One World" concept behind him, and I believe that much of what is being thrust upon us now is a function of his desire to establish a "legacy" before he leaves office.

    There is an expression that says before engaging in a project, it's best to "prepare the path." Well, our path to the dissolution of the nation has been prepared by our government-run school system for the last 150 years, where the goal was to create not thinkers armed with facts, but a population submissive to government and compliant to its wishes.

    They have won, and unless the rag-tag elements of thinkers act quickly, we will lose.

  • At Wed May 10, 10:01:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This made me angrier than I've been for some time. I'm talking "just had a conversation with the ex-wife on the phone" mad.

    I gave up on making excuse for Bush about a year ago on this issue. It's blatantly obvious to me that he has an agenda on this issue that is directly at odds with the vast majority of the voting public. He's a savvy enough politician that he can adjust and respond to other gaffes, but this issue he just ignores.

    I'm sure he's counting on us to stew in impotent anger long enough for him to accomplish whatever he's got it mind. I hate to say it, but it may become necessary to have some Vietnam Style protests. The kind that used to make them park rows of buses around the White House and post police officers shoulder to shoulder.

    Civil protest is falling on deaf ears.


  • At Wed May 10, 05:25:00 PM PDT, Blogger Cubed © said…


    You're in the company of a lot of people; I was so damned mad I could hardly think, let alone type. Have you ever been so angry that you had to work out on the machine for 30 minutes before you could compose something?

    At first, I used to think I was sounding like a conspiracy theorist when I talked to myself (in whispers) about what it seemed to me that Bush was doing, but now, I truly cannot see any other explanation for his actions - or rather, his inactions.

    I'm not sure why you hate to say it (re: Vietnam style protests); I remember them well! It might help delay his race to put his "legacy" in place long enough to elect someone who gives a damn about our national sovereignty and security to the Oval Office.

    The fact that we have about three years to go can work for those of us who oppose what he appears to be doing as well as it works for him to complete what he appears to be doing.

    That sounds convoluted; I hope I made enough sense to be understood.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home