Heads up Mr. President – you’re President of Arizona, too

By Brian S

44140130_17450748001_0324dv-mex-border-security-SJ-s260608AT1VW104Most folks would agree that it’s generally bad form to insult someone in their home, especially if they happen to be a neighbor.  And those rules apply to everyone, from you and me to heads of state.  But apparently no one has ever taught this finer point of etiquette to Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico.  He decided to criticize Arizona today from the south lawn of the White House, for – as Major Garrett in this clip notes – a law that has yet to take effect in Arizona.

.

There’s something especially hypocritical in Calderon’s criticism of Arizona’s response to his government’s complete failure to keep its citizens from unlawfully invading the United States.  And that’s not even the worst problem – the ongoing drug war between Mexico’s narco-syndicates and Calderon’s government has turned the border between Mexico and the United States into a war zone. Juarez, Mexico – the world’s deadliest city and a stone’s throw across the Rio Grande from the US – is ground zero of that war.  To put things in perspective, in 2008, there were over 1400 homicides in Juarez. The deadliest city in America in 2008, New Orleans, came in with 179 homicides, close to one tenth of the number of killings in Juarez.  This violence has spilled across the border, resulting in violent crimes and the deaths of Americans, including American law enforcement.  Would it be appropriate for President Obama to visit Los Pinos and criticize Calderon for his inability to maintain law and order in Juarez?  I don’t think so.  And apparently President Obama agrees with me. When he visited Mexico City and engaged in a joint press conference with Calderon, the President went out of his way to  praise Calderon for his “courageous” (yet ineffective) efforts against the narco-terrorists and then proceeded to criticize America by implying that we had not done “our part” in solving Mexico’s problem. Our failure, apparently, is the result of both America’s appetite for illegal drugs and our gun laws.  As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.  Read the transcript – search for the paragraph that begins I have said this before…”  The President went out of his way not to criticize a country while enjoying their hospitality, and instead chose to criticize his own – something he seems to enjoy doing.  It’s a shame President Calderon couldn’t have returned the courtesy while enjoying our hospitality today.  It’s also a shame that President Obama didn’t call him out on it.  Because, like the drug problem, and to paraphrase President Obama, no one can pretend the illegal immigration problem that prompted Arizona’s law is the United States’ responsibility alone.

.

.

When it comes to illegal immigration, it takes two to tango.  At least 6 million of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States today come from Mexico.  Regardless of how one feels about the Arizona immigration law, no one can argue that at least half the blame for the illegal immigration problem rests squarely at the feet of President Calderon and his government.  The border has two sides.  Stopping illegal immigration requires efforts on both sides of that border.  Right now, Mexico doesn’t appear to be pulling their weight.

.

In his criticism, Calderon said Arizona’s law opened Mexicans up for discrimination.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it does, is Calderon really the best person to criticize it on those grounds? I don’t think he would consider Mexico’s own immigration laws discriminatory, despite Mexican law that allows the government to bar immigrants who would upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”  As the article I just quoted notes, the Mexican immigration laws make ours look ridiculously lax – even if one includes the Arizona law (which, as I noted above, still hasn’t taken effect yet).  Mexico even bars foreign visitors from interfering in internal Mexican politics – so perhaps President Obama’s good manners were simply his effort at trying to keep from getting arrested for interfering with Mexico’s internal politics.

.

Personally, I would like to see President Obama take a page from Mexico.  Regardless of his personal feelings or his Administration’s response to Arizona’s law, President Obama is also President in Arizona.  And I would like to think that, at the very least, he would take umbrage with the idea of any non-American – especially the leader of a country that has criminalized foreign dissent within their borders – criticizing a law enacted within the United States by the people of a state.  This law was passed with support from over 70% of Arizonans.  Regardless of whether you or I like the law, or whether the President likes it, it’s a valid law in Arizona (until a court says otherwise), and it was enacted as part of the federally protected and insured republican government of the state of Arizona.  The President should call out Calderon for his inappropriate comments, and he should do it publicly, as Calderon did.

.

To put it another way, in the words of two great Americans in one of our greatest films – “Hey! He can’t do that to our pledges! Only we can do that to our pledges!”

.

Like the drug problem, illegal immigration is going to take work on both sides of the border.  Mexico isn’t pulling its weight.  Yet they criticize us for our response to it with impunity – in our house.  That’s just galling.  And to add insult to injury, the President of the United States ignores Calderon’s attack on Arizona, and proceeds to use it to set up an attack on Republicans in the Senate! Say what you want about George W. Bush – at the very least, you always knew he was on our side.  After seeing this press conference, I’m starting to think President Obama believes illegal immigration is America’s fault – if only we weren’t so much more successful than Mexico, they’d never want to come here. Is there any problem we face that isn’t our fault in his world?

.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of being conciliatory.  Sometimes the best way to move forward is to admit that both sides have made mistakes.  But there are also times when you’ve got to back up your people.  Like the baseball manager who gets thrown out of a ball game by arguing with the umpire over a call he knows was made correctly just to back up his player, when you’re the boss,  sometimes you’ve got to do the right thing and call out someone – even a head of state – who oversteps his bounds.  Rudy Giuliani had no problem turning down a check for $10 million from a Saudi Prince who came to New York and criticized the United States during his presentation speech.  He was mayor of New York.  Why can’t we expect the same thing from President Obama?  Isn’t that part of his job?  Sticking up for America when we’re being criticized by hypocrites?  What’s next? Hu Jintao criticizing us about human rights at the White House?

.

I would call this whole business unbelievable but, unfortunately, I can believe it.

.


Comments

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    “Undocumented Democrats Seeking Amnesty”

  • edmundburkenator says:

    LL, what do you like in your tea?

  • Squiddy says:

    “Squiddy, we don’t use the term “illegal immigrant” on this blog. Please refer to them as “undocumented Democrats.” Thanks.”

    Oh crap, no doubt I’m on some quasi-government watchlist now …

    I will say, wrt to the drug discussion above – I surrender – like Prohibition gave rise to organized crime, the marijuana prohibition is stoking the on-going disaster on the southern border. It’s time to suck the oxygen out of the room, and put out the fire, by delegating to the states the ability to legalize the sale and cultivation of marijuana in the US. Would keep billions in our economy, and at least substantially de-fund the cartels.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    I’m a green tea drinker Ed, why do you ask?
    *
    If you want my opinion on the tea party movement, just ask. I can venture a guess at yours.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    So Stoner, I get the point that you’re not fond of Calderon, but what do you expect to take his place after, as you predict, the drug cartels “blow his misinformed ass up”? You seem outraged that he’s going after the drug cartels and endemic corruption.

    LL – what relevance do Mexican federal laws have to this situation? Are there millions of Yanks living in an underground economy in Mexico, trying to make a little money while fearing the knock on the door? That’s news to me. I frankly don’t think the problems are the same in Mexico, and it’s not because they have tough immigration policies (if they do). The difference is the relative state of the economies on both sides of the border. If Mexico were the more prosperous economy, and it was nearly impossible for unskilled Americans to get visas to work there, a lot of us would be sneaking across the Sonoran desert to try to feed our families.

    Edmund has this Burkian way of taking a few words to make a looming point. Getting full control of the southern border would cost more than we have. You can’t stop migration when the economic gradient is as steep as it is on either side. You can, however, be smarter about managing the flow and knowing who’s here, how long they’ve been here, whether they’re paying taxes and have insurance, etc. This administration is more aggressive on border patrol than its predecessor or any other administration in my lifetime (which is getting to be boringly long). Recent stats show that there still, even in hard economic times) is a robust flow of illegals.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Edmund has this Burkian way of taking a few words to make a looming point. Getting full control of the southern border would cost more than we have.”
    *
    You speak as though you’ve already done this analysis. How much would it cost, exactly, and what does getting “full” control of the border mean in the context in which you used it?
    *
    The other side to this is the benefit which is extremely difficult to calculate because one would have to factor for low probability high impact events (see: gulf oil spill). What do you think the economic impact would be if a member of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or whomever could manage to release a smallpox agent at the Dallas airport? Or perhaps something less elegant, like ten committed extremists unleashed in downtown DC with AK47s? We know they’re crossing from Mexico, as we have some already in custody. Shifting to something more benign, how much capital flight would you estimate takes place as the result of illegal immigration?
    *
    There are ways to go about this without garrisoning tens of thousands of troops on the southern border. Anyone with 500 bucks can find a coyote that will take them across the border, our intelligence apparatus should be able to identify these people pretty quickly. If this were my task, I would use our operators to identify and kill cartel members and their coyotes en masse, which is something we’ve become quite effective at over the past several years.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Cato, what you describe is different from securing the entire border in my view. I would be in support something that you forward in your last paragraph. Could it be that this was the subject of talks over the last days with the Mexican President? We won’t know until later.
    .
    Capital flight as a result of illegal immigration? Could you give me a scenario? I can’t formulate one where a significant amount leaves unless we are talking about the monies in the drug trade — which I do believe is significant. That is different from capital leaving because of immigration.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    Flight was perhaps a poor choice of word. I mean monies earned in the US (both legitimate and drug trade money) and sent back to Mexico, El Salvador, etc. In addition to this, I would also point out that you need to factor for entitlement benefits paid out to undocumenteds by state governments (education, health care, food stamps, etc.), lost tax revenue to both state and federal government as a result of wage depression, the cost of unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs to illegal immigrants and the costs of incarceration for the estimated 243K alien criminals.
    *
    Rice University published a study a long time ago (1997) which pegged the annual net cost at 20 billion (not factoring for wage depression or job losses/underemployment). If you take their assumptions and extrapolate them to the present we’re looking at a number in the neighborhood of 55 billion in net direct costs. There was a 2008 study from some outfit called ESR research (which I haven’t examined very carefully) that looked at the costs of immigration (both legal and illegal) through the lens of reduction of native incomes caused by immigrant workers. It estimated the total cost of the government at 346 billion, and attributed 100 billion of that figure to the fact that we were losing tax revenue by importing cheap labor. Karl Rove once famously said “I don’t want my seventeen-year-old son to have to pick tomatos or make beds in Las Vegas” (note to Mr. Rove: that’s *exactly* the kind of job your seventeen-year-old needs).
    *
    In any event, those are all big numbers. Yes we need to control the border, but moreover we need to demagnetize America. Jobs and benefits are the magnets, turn those off and the illegals will go home.
    *
    And yes, I would be very aggressive with facilitators. The message to coyotes and cartels should be “we don’t give a damn where you live or what government protects you, we’re going to leave you wherever we find you.” Ditto to those who knowingly employ illegals in the sense that we should make it clear that if we catch them at it we’re going to put them under the jail.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    I know of no historical example where economic migration was ever efficiently stopped by barriers or armed force. The trick is to channel the inevitable force of economic migration into useful, societally acceptable outcomes. To do that, we need a much more sophisticated immigration process than we have. This is a difficult, complex issue, and the average pol isn’t willing to put in the time, energy or learning process to act in the interests of the Nation.

    As far as remittances being a negative, I don’t get that. Remittances aren’t enough to stimulate economies in Central America, but they probably better off with them or without them. And, a key to minimizing economic migration is to decrease living standard differentials between the US and Canada, on the one hand, and economies to the South. I can’t get my head around remittances being any species of “capital flight” (and I guess you have modulated your phraseology on that point) or, for that matter any sort of negative
    economic event.

    Finally, I’m curious (sincerely curious, not rhetorically curious) about the link between the drug issues and the immigration issues. My mind is far enough along in its study of immigration on the southern border to understand that these two issues overlap to an extent, but my apprehension of it at the moment is that the overlap is largely small and coincidental. In other words, assuming there is a solution to either problem, you could solve one, and not the other. Stated obversely, different measures are necessary to address each problem. The partisans of Arizona’s new law talk a lot about drug violence in support of their statute, but it strikes me as largely ineffectual in dealing with drug issues, and more directed at creating a layer of local law violation to substitute for federal immigration law and policy. In this context, my sense is that the drug issue (which is a real problem) is being used as fuel for an immigration approach, but that, in fact, what Arizona has done may not have a major effect on either problem other than to scam votes out of the electorate for pols looking for a horse to ride between now and November.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    I dropped a word or two above. Phrase in remittance para. should read ” . . . but they are probably better off with them than without them.”

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “As far as remittances being a negative, I don’t get that. Remittances aren’t enough to stimulate economies in Central America, but they probably better off with them or without them. And, a key to minimizing economic migration is to decrease living standard differentials between the US and Canada, on the one hand, and economies to the South. I can’t get my head around remittances being any species of “capital flight” (and I guess you have modulated your phraseology on that point) or, for that matter any sort of negative
    economic event.”
    *
    Capital leaving the US via Western Union and flowing into the economy of El Salvador is a negative factor for the US economy in my view. The question becomes just how big of a negative factor is it, and is it offset by more positive effects. For example, if I were on the other side of this argument I might say that the remittances are more than balanced out by the deflationary effect of immigrant labor on non-traded goods and services (i.e. I’d be paying 100K for that new addition to my home vs. 150K). I’m not making this argument, as I believe that this thirst for cheap labor has injected economic distortions that interfere with true price discovery while creating longer term structural problems for us in both the broader economy and political system, but it’s certainly a valid one.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    Cato – I love some of your financial posts, but this is taking a weird turn. How is a remittance to El Salvador a negative factor for the US economy if a birthday gift to a grandchild in England not? Or a remittance from abroad coming in here? Is it the amount of those transactions, the locations, what? Monetary outflows are neutral factors economically. I don’t see any need to bookend, or counter-balance remittances with deflationary impacts of low-cost labor. By the way, what you call a “thirst for cheap labor” isn’t some exogenous diktat, it’s market-driven. Another way of looking at it is that it’s a “thirst for higher wages.” Most of us conservatives have always viewed that kind of ambition as a positive impact of markets.

    Up to a point, one can distort markets by putting governmental obstacles in the way of movement of capital and labor, but it always comes crashing down in some kind of heap. When one gets into cross-border movements, there are legitimate policy reasons to exercise controls on both capital and labor, but those controls largely are ones necessary, at the minimum effective level, to ensure security and measurability.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Cato – I love some of your financial posts, but this is taking a weird turn. How is a remittance to El Salvador a negative factor for the US economy if a birthday gift to a grandchild in England not? Or a remittance from abroad coming in here? Is it the amount of those transactions, the locations, what?”
    *
    What makes me think about it differently is the sheer amounts of the remittances. The average of the remittance estimates I’ve seen are around 40 billion. Let’s stipulate for a moment that we don’t have 40 billion worth of birthday gifts leaving the country.
    *
    “Monetary outflows are neutral factors economically. I don’t see any need to bookend, or counter-balance remittances with deflationary impacts of low-cost labor.”
    *
    I don’t understand how you can state that it’s neutral without using some sort of bookend. If we use only Mexico as an example I can say that until 2003 the interest paid to US banks by Mexico + profits returned to the US by companies operating down there were approximately 14 billion. This exceeded the remittance amounts. In 2003 these numbers started to exhibit negative divergence.
    *
    “By the way, what you call a “thirst for cheap labor” isn’t some exogenous diktat, it’s market-driven. Another way of looking at it is that it’s a “thirst for higher wages.” Most of us conservatives have always viewed that kind of ambition as a positive impact of markets.”
    *
    I fully understand that this is a market driven phenomenon. However, sometimes what markets want isn’t healthy for them. For example, I like near-zero interest rates. I like getting cheap money and using it to speculate on risk assets. An investment that looks good if I pay 3% to get that money doesn’t look so hot if I paid 10%, and this distorts the pricing of risk. Likewise in the labor market. Did we set ourselves up for this by trying to put a price on labor? Is it really a market positive to transfer wealth from our own displaced working poor to the undocumented labor pool only to have it remitted to Mexico?

  • Cato the Elder says:

    BTW I could make a very, very sound argument that if we looked only at numbers illegal immigration is a huge economic positive for the country on a short run basis. What I think is the more interesting problem is the longer term structural challenges we set ourselves up for with current policy, and where is the tipping point? (I don’t know)

  • NoVA Scout says:

    Cato, dear boy, don’t confuse what you (or I) want with a market. Once we start telling markets “what is healthy for them”, we’ve got a real philosophical disagreement about who gets to tell markets how to alter their behavior in response to political opinion.

    Re your latter point, I think most economists do view immigration, legal and illegal, as economically positive for the United States in the aggregate. I doubt that many would change their view even if we could accurately segregate the legal from the illegal impacts. The argument in economic terms isn’t that immigration (of either stripe) is bad for the US. The economic argument is how to maximize the benefits and minimize the negatives. Broadening the legal side of this by bringing those who are here out of the black market would magnify those positive economic impacts considerably.

    It’s a political mess and it is having negative impacts in particular areas. There are considerations beyond the economic and I share your concerns on the security front. But I’m not aware of much economic thought that we do not benefit in the aggregate from mobile labor inputs, whatever the source.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Cato, dear boy, don’t confuse what you (or I) want with a market. Once we start telling markets “what is healthy for them”, we’ve got a real philosophical disagreement about who gets to tell markets how to alter their behavior in response to political opinion.”
    *
    I suspect you and I probably don’t have any fundamental difference at all in market philosophy but we know the answer to that question. The people who get elected are the ones who are allowed to experiment with market behavior modification, at least until the next election. They do it with TARP and ZIRP in the financial markets, they do it with the minimum wage in the labor market, etc. etc. etc. What would happen if they let the market be the harsh mistress that it’s supposed to be? Well, you can go back to what happened right after Lehman went under to figure that out. Yes, I believe the markets would self correct but the amount of pain involved would greatly exceed the collective political will of every elected politican in our history.
    *
    My point is, this patient has been on a morphine drip for about the past 50 years. Government intervention/fraud/inflated assets are about the only thing holding the economy up. If you withdrew the intervention, exposed all the fraud, and sent every swindling bankster to jail you’d finally pop the bubble but assets would suffer a massive negative adjustment.
    *
    Whatever do-gooder pops that bubble is going to have to leave town faster than the Bin Laden clan after 9/11. Which is why it will never happen – it’s just easier to keep blowing bubbles.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Broadening the legal side of this by bringing those who are here out of the black market would magnify those positive economic impacts considerably.”
    *
    My sense is that this is probably correct. We’re going to end up going down the path to citizenship route, sooner or later.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Thank you both for a good discussion.

  • G. Stone says:

    LL, what do you like in your tea?

    edmundburkenator
    on May 21st, 2010

    Vodka

  • HisRoc says:

    President Obama repeated the liberal canard that all the illegal weapons in Mexico are coming from the United States. This fiction is being hoisted on us by the Mexican authorities who want to keep the counter-drug cartel aid money flowing, including gun suppression funds known as the Merida Initiative. In fact, the Mexican authorities turn over to the US only a fraction of the illegal weapons that they seize, the ones that they know came from the US because they have access to the ATF eTrace system. The majority of the weapons that they seize we never get to see. According to testimony before Congress by an assistant director of ATF, Willaim Hoover, in 2008, the vast majority of illegal weapons in Mexico come from China. That makes sense, given the popularity of the AK-47 among the drug cartels. However, the Mexican government (and President Obama) would have us believe that it is all America’s fault.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    HisRoc: I haven’t heard Obama or anyone else say that “all the illegal weapons in Mexico are coming from the United States.” This isn’t an issue about “all”. If you want to talk policy, you should leave the exaggeration polemic at home. The issue is that weapons, particularly sidearms, especially in quantity, are more readily available in the US than in Mexico and are migrating across the border. Your point that there are other sources of other types of weapons is worth adding to the discussion, without the overstatement.

  • Squiddy says:

    Yes, HisRoc, because “90%” is soooo much different than “all.”

    Thing is, when you give them an opening like that, it allows them to change the subject – now, the issue isn’t the “…the liberal canard that all the illegal weapons in Mexico are coming from the United States”, the issue is now, at least according to NoVA Scout, that you’re an exaggerator who has nothing legitimate to say.

    Funny that in his previous postings NoVA Scout avers that there’s no possible way to secure the border against illegal aliens, but seems to think it *can* be made secure against weapons being smuggled. Which is it?

    And talk about economic disparity, the cartels with their cash can buy pretty much any weapons they like from weapons brokers anywhere. So, if the problem isn’t “guns bought legally in the U.S. and smuggled to the drug cartels”, why then would someone (Obama, Clinton, NoVA Scout) make the claim that it *is* the problem? Hmm, could it be they’re setting up the predicate to introduce gun restrictions in the U.S.? Of *course* they are …

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

  • HisRoc says:

    Squiddy,

    You’re right. The agenda is to ban weapons in the United States, Second Amendment be damned. According to the statistics that the gun-grabbers like to toss about, 87% of the illegal weapons seized in Mexico between 2007 and 2009 originated in the US. However, when you break down the actual numbers that statistic crumbles. The figure of 87% is based on less than 9,700 illegal weapons turned over to the US. However, Mexico reportedly seized over 75,000 illegal weapons during the same time frame.
    .
    As I said in my earlier comment, the Mexicans have access to ATF’s eTrace system. They can game the statistics by only turning over to the US those weapons that they have reason to believe originated here.
    .
    I, too, found Scout’s dichotomy on border security amusing. Economic imbalance between the two countries makes curtailment of illegal migration impossible. But, drug cartels earning millions of dollars in profits each week can somehow be prevented from importing illegal weapons. Hilarious.
    .
    Here is Scout’s solution: outlaw all privately owned firearms in the United States. Ban the manufacturing and importation of all firearms except for police and military use. The drug cartels will continue to buy automatic weapons on the international arms market (China, et al) and will be free to terrorize unarmed civilian border state ranchers at will.
    Is that about it, Scout?

  • HisRoc says:

    Gosh. I sure hope that my comment above was free of overstatement and that I left the exaggeration polemic at home, although I could be wrong about the millions of dollars in profits each week. The trouble with citing those statistics is that the drug cartels simply refuse to file tax returns. Is it safe to say that they earn a shitload of cash every week?

  • HisRoc says:

    Breaking News. President Obama has ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border. This is so wrong on so many levels. First, the National Guard is trained first and foremost to be a combat force. They are not a border patrol or law enforcement agency. If you want to see how that difference plays out, I ask you to recall when Clinton put Marines on the southern border in 1996-1997. They shot and killed an 18-year old goat herder near the border in Texas. Second, National Guard units are under the same deployment stress as the Regular Army, making rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan. This commitment will just increase that stress on citizen-soldiers who have jobs at home. Finally, anyone who has ever participated in peace-keeping missions will tell you that units need extensive retraining after such missions before they are ready for a combat assignment. The difference in rules of engagement, the lack of practice in small unit drills necessary in combat, and the simple mental orientation of the troops makes them unready for combat duty without extensive training. Big mistake to send them to the border.

  • G. Stone says:

    Nova

    It was the Obama administration that first floated the grossly inflated numbers of guns making it across the border, that number was 90%. The assertion that the majority of guns ending up in Mexico are from the U.S. has been debunked, over and over. It was a ridiculous assertion to begin with for many reasons, economics being the first, and availability of preferred fully automatic rifles being another . Anyone spending 10 minutes beyond reading Bogus Headlines knows it is absolute crap. If you are inclined to hate guns this myth is for you. If you are interested in the truth then you will discount the bad information as propaganda for the purpose of A. Making Excuses for poor Governmental performance ( both Sides of the Border ) B. A way to advance a gun control agenda on the backs of victims of drug violence.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    Oh, dear, dear. Cato and I were having such a nice adult conversation and now the thing has taken this odd turn re guns. I can see that a lot of the problem is reading skills.

    I could spend a lot of time describing what I didn’t say. But, I don’t have the patience. So I’ll just say this:

    First, I’m a gun owner (multiple) and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I’d be pretty upset about any proposal to outlaw all guns in the United States, a position that HisRoc attributes to me based on . . . well, absolutely nothing.

    Second, we can secure the southern border. It’s a cost/benefit issue. To get that right, one has to understand both sides of the cost/benefit equation in a sophisticated, thorough context. My point has been that part of securing the border is ensuring that there are attractive, usable gates for entry for those who play by the rules.

    The 90% figure is guns traceable to the US of the guns tendered for analysis by the Mexicans. In looking at the stats over the past year, the fact that not every weapon seized by the Mexican government is submitted to US authorities for analysis leads me to believe that the number is lower. It is still a significant number.

  • HisRoc says:

    NoVA Scout,
    .
    Save the back pedaling for the Tour de France. You are quibbling over percentages without addressing the significant statistics. Most of the reading skill problems appear to be yours.
    .
    You fell for a Daily Kos talking point and got called on it. Man up and admit that you were wrong.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    HisRoc, everything isn’t a scheme to take your guns away. Jesus, some of you 2A guys are windbags (and I own several too by the way).
    .
    Ban weapons in the United States? Really?

  • HisRoc says:

    Ed,
    .
    So you are a gun owner. Fine. I am not and have never been a member of the NRA or the GOA. I have to agree with you: most of the 2A folks are windbags. They would rail against denying firearm ownership to mental incompetents and abusive spouses under restraint orders.
    .
    However, as the old saying goes, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.” If you are a gun owner, bone up on the current literature out there by the Brady Bunch. Read what Obama’s Attorney General has said about private gun ownership in regards to DC v. Heller (“should be restricted to members of recognized law enforcement agencies and military forces in keeping with the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment” or words to that effect).

    The Mexican weapons canard is just the latest in several misinformation campaigns by the gun-grabbers to weaken support for private gun ownership in this country. Do they envision a total gun ban during this administration? No. But, they believe that their time is coming.

  • HisRoc says:

    Clarification: I am not now a member of the NRA or GOA and never have been. I am a life-long gun owner (so far) and a concealed carry permit holder. I apologize if the wording in the above comment is misleading.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    They can believe “their time is coming” if they want to, but they would be deluding themselves, just like the right does when they believe “their time is coming”. For ideologues, their time is always just around the corner.
    .
    Here’s a saying I’m coining tonight: if you’re paranoid, maybe you’re just paranoid.

  • HisRoc says:

    Ed,

    Cute. Have you ever seen the play “Butterflies Are Free?” Let me take license with one of the best scenes. “There are no ones so paranoid as those who refuse to be paranoid.”

    Peace, friend.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    What the hell was that all about?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Sorry NoVA, I helped screw up a perfectly good thread.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    Ed – no apologies necessary. You keep people alert around here.

Leave Comment