Randal Archibold discovers consequence of NYT policies: border deaths

Randal Archibold of the New York Times offers the two-screener "At the U.S. Border, the Desert Takes a Rising Toll", mostly about one Mexican who tried and failed to be smuggled across the desert, dying along the way. While the emotionalism isn't as incredibly high as it could be, it certainly appears to be an attempt to make the reader want to do something to end these border deaths.

And, in fact, there are only two things that would greatly reduce the number:
1. Open the border completely and pass out citizenships or at least work permits at the border, or
2. Stringently enforce our immigration laws so even people in deepest Mexico realize that trying to cross won't work: they won't be able to find work and they won't have access to non-emergency public services.

The U.S. is never going to do the first, leaving the second as the only realistic option to reduce the number of incidents.

Oddly enough, the New York Times is somewhere between the two. In fact, by excusing illegal immigration every chance they get, they help the U.S. become a sort of attractive nuisance [1]. Every time someone tries to build a fence around a neighbor's swimming pool, the NYT advocates cutting holes in the fence.

In brief, the NYT is partly responsible for the border deaths they decry.


U.S. Citizens would not do the first but alot of our treasonous policiticians would do the first as they keep crying they can not deport every illegal in our country. Let's see - each state takes the $3billion they now spend on illegals expenses and uses that instead to deport illegals in their state - I think that would leave us with almost no illegals and a safer country. Would not mind my tax dollars going to that effort.

Lonewacko, Ranks right up there with the famous 60 Minutes sentimental sob fest of a few years back about the 19 year old kid who died in a delirium due to thirst while crossing the border. 60 minutes interviewed this Clinton Administration official who was regretting that there was a border fence near the major crossing points. It was a pretty effective bit of agitprop right up until it mentioned that the young man was crossing the border so that he could afford to pay for a new roof for his parents and 5 younger siblings. As truely sad as one had to feel for a kid who was trying to help his parents, I was also very angry. I calculated that this kid's younger siblings were all born after the inacting of the idiotic Mexico City policy by the Reagan Administration in order to pander to the Moral Majority and the Catholic Church. In the name of opposing abortion in third world family planning programs, our government undermined the very real progress that countries like Mexico was having in controling their population explosion, curbing teenage pregnancy and improving the status of women. Second you had to blame the bipartisan betrayl of the Simpson-Mazzoli compromise by the Cheap Labor/Cheap Votes lobbies. These acts completely sent the wrong message to parents like this kid's, who got the idea that they could continue to irresponsibly have more children in the belief that they could go to El Norte for work.

llamajockey...I very much enjoy your comments here (speaking for this one reader) but about your attempts at logic there (^^), I question if not utterly disagree with you. You appear to be saying, by deduction, that it'd be alright if that now deceased "kid" from Mexico along with his five siblings had been murdered by abortions rather than the one dying of thirst years later in the desert. I agree with your other points, however, that the RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CHILDREN ARE THOSE OF THEIR PARENTS. In Mexico, as with other cultures similar to Mexico's, there's a "community" sorta detachment from the children adults bear, as in, "someone will feed/tend to them" (and people who give birth to many children then avoid personal responsibility for the children, and that has now led to many there now placing the responsibility not on their neighbors/towns but on the United States ["El Norte will take care of them"]). Mexico has something like the age of 12 for "consent" (so males allege) for sexual contact with males (of any age upward). So, it is MEXICO'S CULTURE (as also throughout Central and South America, largely, for many there) that causes their overpopulation and irresponsible reproduction that expects "someone else" to assume responsibilities for caring for all those children. The Catholic Church tries to teach morality and ethics in the context of Christian faith and theology, but, it does not do a very good job of advising the overall populations in which the Church is active as to personal responsibility such as, importantly, chastity. Instead, the Church has become a feeding/resource center for many there and they then carry on with their personal whims and behaviors otherwise (and they carry that attitude and those behaviors with them to the U.S.). It's a fallacy that Hispanics/Latinos are "family values" folks. Well, perhaps within their own "values" they may be, but those "values" involve sexual promiscuity, a lot of occult beliefs and practices and more that is certainly not a reflection of anything most of us in the U.S. associate with "family values" and certainly isn't a reflection of Catholics, of Christians. The Catholic Church does a good job of chastising people who are not charitable but it does a lowsy to failing job in calling people who affiliate with it to Christian morality (sexual chastity for the unmarried, and, for the married, fidelity and responsibility before God and their mates for the lives of their children). But it's also a fallacy to blame Reagan and/or the U.S. in any specific fashion for the woeful problems that exist in Mexico and throughout Latin cultures. Because these problems have been going on in those areas for a long, long time, long before Reagan, long before our last fifty, sixty years of U.S. politics. The problems are ones of behaviors in those cultures that are considered acceptable or at least not noteworthy, that are very much a problem to most

(The rest of what I wanted to say here): The problems are ones of behaviors in those cultures that are considered acceptable or at least not noteworthy in those cultures, that are very much a problem to most in the U.S. and in other Western nations. That these cultures have only known communism/marxism as governments (or worse, dictators in either/both those political schemes), is also the reason why they are so mired culturally in the inability to solve their own problems by individual merit and action. And so they arrive here full of expectations for all the "stuff" and "rights" that the great alternative parent (our nation) is "supposed to" "give to" them. They don't understand what it means not to rely on the state/federal, nor what it means that they have to qualify individually to even enter our nation, and/or remain here after illegally entering. It's a problem of their culture, and why they storm, march, yell and scream in the U.S. about all that they think they're owed here, without regard for where they are that they are not a citizen of. It's something broken in the cultures of Hispanics/Latinos that makes them fall so easily victim to Communism and dictators and therefore to militant revolutions and insurrections.

There is no objective evidence that a guest worker program with workplace enforcement would be a panaceas against illegal border crossings. Latin America is growing in population every year, generating new potential illicit border crossers. Unless conditions change drastically for these people, they will continue to head north. No guest worker program in this country could possible handle the numbers we may expect. The solution for illegal immigration lies in the homelands of illegal aliens, not in the U.S.

why do you care about what the enemy think? or say?

'The solution for illegal immigration lies in the homelands of illegal aliens, not in the U.S.' I hear that a lot and disagree. Whatever solutions might, if ever, happen there will be too slow in coming. The solution is with us--stronger legislation + a will to enforce it. Of course, one can argue that those two things are now a dismal prospect so your view is the way to go. Both would be nice, but it should start with the U.S.