Facts on Mexico-Southern States USA

IT'S TIME YOU HEARD THE FACTS ON MEXICO AND THE USA BORDER STATES

HERE IS MARK STEYN ON THE MATTER:

　

There are, give or take, 200 countries in the world. If you had 20 million "undocumented" immigrants more or less proportionately distributed between those 200 countries--Irish, Uzbeks, Belgians, Botswanans - then maybe they would be assimilable, although even then it would be an unprecedented challenge. But borderland immigration is different. In British terms, consider not the rapidly Islamizing East London or Yorkshire, where Muslims are aliens replacing a native population, but think instead of Ulster: when Ireland came under the English Crown, Scots Protestants settled the north. When the south seceded to become the Irish Free State in 1922, the United Kingdom got a land border for the first time in its history. The loyalists could have had all nine counties of historic Ulster for their Northern Ireland statelet, but insisted on a mere six because they knew they did not have the numbers to hold the other three. And even in the six counties thousands were murdered in the decades ahead. A border settles things, but only conditionally: for Irish nationalists in Fermanagh and Tyrone, the line meant nothing. This was Ireland, not Britain, and they had been there first.

That's how many Mexicans feel about the southern frontier: Arizona is Mexico, not the United States, and it was Mexico first. You don't have to be a large minority to cause an awful lot of trouble - as the British found out on a small patch of turf where Irish nationalists were outnumbered two-to-one by Unionists. And you don't even have to believe so fervently

that you're willing to kill and bomb. You just have to believe enough to live it, in your daily routine.

In the Arizona of tomorrow, Hispanics will be not a minority but a majority: they will not assimilate with the United States because they don't need to. Instead, the United States will assimilate with them, and is already doing so, day by day.

MAYWOOD CALIFORNIA

In July 2010, Maywood, California, became the first city in America to lay off its entire workforce, including the police and fire departments, and contract out all services. It did this because the city was so mismanaged that its insurers cancelled the coverage and every alternative provider declined to accept the city's business. I was interested to discover, via the 2000 census, that the city is 96.33 percent Hispanic. Celebrate lack of diversity! What will it be by the time the 2010 census numbers are out? 98.7 percent? Maywood does not seem an obviously Spanish name, and in fact the city was named for Miss May Wood, a young lady who worked for the real estate developers responsible for the original subdivision that led to the incorporation of the city in 1924. If you lived there in the boom years of the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties, you'll remember a blue collar town with good jobs, a civic culture, and a population that reflected the ethnic mix of the time. Then the jobs disappeared, and the civic culture declined, and Maywood turned 96.33 percent Hispanic in little more than two decades. So much for the melting pot.

Today, one third of the population is estimated to be "illegal." I put it in quotations because possession is nine-tenths of the law and in this case there's no doubt who possesses Maywood. How many other towns will similarly transform, and how fast?

Culture is not immutable. But changing culture is tough and thankless and something America's ever weakening assimilationists no longer have the stomach for. So go with the numbers: the Southwest will be Mexican, and Washington's writ will no longer run. The Mexican-American War established the borders of the America we know today. It took a couple of centuries, but illegal immigration has reversed the results of that conflict. America won the war, Mexico won the peace.

For Eloi America, it's a short step from ethnocultural penance to ethnocultural masochism. Los Angeles, New York, and other "sanctuary cities" have formally erased the distinction between U.S. citizens and the armies of the undocumented. This is the active collusion by multiple jurisdictions in the subversion of United States sovereignty. In Newark, New Jersey, it means an illegal-immigrant child rapist is free to murder three high-school students execution-style for kicks on a Saturday night. In Somerville, Massachusetts, it means two deaf girls are raped by MS-13 members. And in the 7-Eleven parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia, where four young men obtained the picture ID with which they boarded their flight on September 11, 2001, it means Saudi Wahhabists figuring out that, if the "sanctuary nation" (in Michelle Malkin's phrase) offers such rich pickings to imported killers and imported gangs, why not to jihadists?

So here is another proposition for the proposition nation: Is it more likely that these trends will reverse - or that they will accelerate? Consider life in a permanently poorer America with higher unemployment, less social mobility, and any prospect for self-improvement crushed by the burden of government. Will that mean more or less marijuana? More or less cocaine? More or fewer meth labs?

MEXICO AND USA DRUGS

Mexican cartels account for approximately 70 percent of the narcotics that enter the U.S. to feed American habits." Arizona already has a kidnapping rate closer to Mexico's than to New England's. Are the numbers likely to rise or fall in an ever more Mexicanized United States? If you're lucky, San Diego will seem no worse than Cancun, eastern resort capital of the Caribbean Riviera and generally thought of as relatively far from the scene of Mexico's drug wars. Yet even in Cancun, within the space of a year, the head of the city's anti-drugs squad was murdered; the chief of police was arrested on drugs-trafficking charges; and then the mayor was, too. We will start to read similar stories of wholesale corruption and subversion from the cities of the American Southwest. And similar tales of depravity, too: in 2010, the bodies of four men and two women were found in a cave on the outskirts of Cancun. They had been tortured. Their abdomens were branded with a "Z." The mark of Zorro? No, the Zeta drug cartel. Three of them had had their chests ripped open and their hearts removed.

As I said, Cancun is regarded as one of the towns least afflicted by drug violence. More than 4,000 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq between 2003 and 2010. In 2010 alone, some 13,000 Mexicans were killed in the drug wars. More than 3,000 died in just one town - Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso. America will be importing not just drugs from Mexico, but the dominant players, the municipal outreach, and the business practices.

NOT JUST ECONOMICS

It's foolish to assume "globalization" is a purely economic phenomenon. In 2006, a group of Muslim men raised in suburban Ontario were arrested and charged with a terrorist plot that included plans to behead the Prime Minister. Almost simultaneously, the actual heads of three decapitated police officers were found in the Tijuana River. In 2010, four headless bodies were left dangling from a bridge in the picture-postcard tourist town of Cuernavaca. The same year, authorities arrested a leading hit-man beheader for one of the Mexican drug cartels. He was fourteen years old, and a U.S. citizen, too (the anchor baby of an undocumented Californian). The drug cartels weren't Muslim last time I checked, but decapitation isn't just for jihadists anymore: if you want to get ahead, get a head.

STONING

How about stoning? Isn't that something they do to women in Iran? Yes, but a good idea soon finds an export market. In 2010, the body of Gustavo Sanchez, mayor of Tancitaro, in the Mexican state of Michoacan, was found with that of an aide in an abandoned truck. Both men had been stoned to death. Tancitaro isn't anywhere important: it's a town of 26,000 people. Nonetheless, in the year before the mayor's fatal stoning, the city council chief was kidnapped and tortured to death, and Sanchez' predecessor and seven other officials resigned after being threatened by drug gangs and left unprotected by local cops. The entire 60-man police department was subsequently fired. In Santiago, they found their mayor's corpse with his eyes gouged out. Mexico is degenerating into a narco-terrorist enterprise with a sovereign state as a minor subsidiary. George W Bush liked to say of Iraq that we're fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here. In Mexico, America has no choice in the matter: the decapitations and stonings and eye-gougings will move north of the border.

Of course, the real narco-state is not Mexico but America: if we didn't take drugs, we wouldn't need someone to supply them, and running a cartel wouldn't be such a lucrative enterprise. America's hedonist stupor has real consequences for others, and we will be living with them north of the "border" all too soon. But it's not necessary to argue about the drug cartels, or the gang killers, the child rapists, the drunk-drivers. Even without these, the central fact of Hispanic immigration - the wholesale transformation of innumerable American municipalities at unprecedented speed would place a huge question mark over the future. Don't take my word for it, take the New York Times'. In 2009, it ran a story of immigrants in Langley Park, Maryland, "Struggling to Rise in Suburbs" (as the headline put it). "Usual sludge, but in the middle of it, helpfully explaining Langley Park to his readers, the reporter, Jason DeParle, wrote as follows: "Now nearly twothirds Latino and foreign-born, it has the aesthetics of suburban sprawl and the aura of Central America. Laundromats double as money-transfer stores. Jobless men drink and sleep in the sun. There is no city government, few community leaders, and little community."

At which point I stopped, and went back, and reread it. For it seemed to me at first glance that Mr. DeParle was airily citing laundromats doubling as money-transfer stores, jobless men drinking and sleeping in the sun, and dysfunctional metropolitan government all as evidence of "the aura of Central America." And that can't be right, can it? Only a couple of days earlier, some Internet wags had leaked a discussion thread from the JournoList, the exclusive virtual country club where all the hepcat liberals hang out. In this instance, the media grandees were arguing vehemently that Martin Peretz of The New Republic was, in the elegant formulation one associates with today's J-school alumni, a "crazy-ass racist." The proof that this lifelong liberal is a "f... racist" came in his observations on our friendly neighbor to the south: "I am extremely pessimistic about Mexican-American relations," said Mr. Peretz. "A (now not quite so) wealthy country has as its abutter a Latin society with all of its characteristic deficiencies: congenital corruption, authoritarian government, anarchic politics, neartropical work habits, stifling social mores, Catholic dogma with the usual unacknowledged compromises, an anarchic counter-culture and increasingly violent modes of conflict."

Martin Peretz's assumptions about "the aura of Central America" are not so very different from Jason DeParle's, but Mr. Peretz brought down the wrath of his own side's politically correct enforcers. Even though his remarks are utterly unexceptional to anyone familiar with Latin America. But since when have the PC police cared about observable reality? Langley Park is a good example of where tiptoeing around on multiculti eggshells leads: there is literally no language in which what's happening in suburban Maryland can be politely discussed, not if an ambitious politician of either party wishes to remain viable. America is a land where the NAACP complains about the use of the widely known scientific term "black hole" on a Hallmark greeting card, and Hallmark instantly withdraws the card; a land so obsessed by race that, in order to reverse an entirely fictional manifestation of "racism," it invented the subprime mortgage and sat back as it came within a smidgeonette of destroying the housing market, banking system, and insurance industry. But, even if it had, at least we'd have demonstrated our anti-racist bona fides even unto self-destruction, so that's okay.

To exhibit any interest in immigration or its consequences is to risk being marked down as, if not a "racist," at least a "nativist."And "immigration" isn't really what it is, is it? After all, in traditional immigration patterns the immigrant assimilates with his new land, not the new land with the immigrant. Yet in this case the aura of Maryland dissolves like a mirage when faced with "the aura of Central America."

Two generations ago, America, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the developed world took it as read that a sovereign nation had the right to determine which, if any, foreigners it extended rights of residency to. Now only Japan does. Everywhere else, opposition to mass immigration is "nativist," and expressing a preference for one group of immigrants over another is "racist" Until the Sixties, governments routinely distinguished between Irish and Bulgar, Indian and Somali, but now all that matters is the glow of virtue you feel from refusing to distinguish, as if immigration is like a UN peacekeeping operation - one of those activities in which you have no "national interest."

Very few elderly, established residents of Langley Park knowingly voted for societal self-extinction, yet in barely a third of a century it's become a "fait accompli". And in a politically correct world there is no acceptable form of public discourse in which to object to it.

And so it just kinda happened. Another proposition: When large tracts of the United States take on "the aura of Central America" - Laundromats doubling as money-transfer stores, jobless men drinking and sleeping in the sun, civic collapse, to cite only New York Times - observed phenomena - will such a land still be the United States? Or will it increasingly be the northern branch office of Latin America? None of us can say for sure, but, underneath the smiley-face banalities about hard-working families wanting a shot at the American Dream, I think most of us know which way to bet.

Human capital is the most reliable indicator of what society you'll be. Even liberals, even Martin Peretz, even the New York Times acknowledge that, at least in unguarded moments. For almost half a century, the human capital of the United States has transformed faster than at any time since the founding of the republic.

"Poor Mexico," Porfirio Diaz, the country's longtime strongman, is supposed to have said. "So far from God, so close to the United States." Today Mexico is America's southern quagmire - farther from God than ever, and not close to the United States but in it.

After the Arizona court decision, Jon Richards published a cartoon in the Albuquerque Journal. It showed three Indians standing on the shore watching the Mayflower approach. "Are they legal?" wonders the chief. "What do we do if they have babies?" asks his squaw. "Is it too late to build a fence?" says the brave."

What is the message of this cartoon? That America has always been a land of immigrants? Or that the tide of illegal settlement is going to work out as well for the United States as it did for the Algonquin nation? Is Richards' cartoon just the cheap triumphalism of a self-loathing Anglo's cultural relativism? Or is it actually a portent of the future? The latter isn't so hard to imagine: a largely impoverished Hispanic Southwest, with a few tony Anglo gated communities--or, if you prefer, "reservations:'

..........

So it would seem the only way the USA is going to keep illegal Mexicans from turning back the clock of history, and once more making the southern border States into Mexico States, is to build a WALL like the Jews have done around their land. The only way to stop the flow of Mexicans walking over to the USA, is to build a WALL across the USA/Mexican border, a wall 10 feet high with barbed-wire twirling on the top, and if they manage to get to the barbed-wire, automatic sunk bombs explode on them with fountains of red paint, bells and whistles going off, and tear-gas pouring on the would be illegals into the USA.

Then of course with the wall built, they would come by boat or raft, or whatever from the West coast, in the blackness of night, to "get into" the land of promise and fortune; and believe me some would indeed try it, and many would make it in, and the circle would be unbroken.

..........