The Immigration Lawyers are going to have fun with this. If they don't have money to invest, everyone else will be claiming asylum. Would Obama send the US Army over the border after the cartels? Special Operations could easily track down and neutralize the leaders.

Mexican businessman Jorge Hernandez abruptly relocated his family to Houston last year, terrified that family members would be abducted by kidnappers.

He had ample reason to be afraid. He left in August, days after a father was kidnapped for ransom as he dropped his child off at the same school Hernandez’s children attended in a north Mexico city.

“One night, I told my wife ‘Pack the bags — we’re leaving,’" Hernandez said. “The fear we felt caused us to get in the car and drive for 12 hours to get to Houston.”

The 43-year-old businessman joined a growing number of affluent and middle-class Mexicans fleeing comfortable lives in Mexico for the comparative safety of Houston and other major Texas cities. They are desperate to escape an unprecedented wave of lawlessness in their home country where warring drug cartels — whose fighting claimed more than 6,000 victims last year — have also taken up kidnapping as a lucrative business.

Monterrey, the nation’s third-largest city and Mexico’s industrial powerhouse, had two kidnappings a day last year, according to the El Manana newspaper.

Businessmen like Hernandez have been joined by hundreds or perhaps thousands of middle-class Mexicans seeking asylum at U.S. ports of entry across from Mexican border towns where violent gunbattles have raged. Last year, 2,231 Mexican citizens sought asylum in the U.S., a significant increase from 1,366 in 2006.

“It seems to me there are more people coming now than there have been in the last couple of years, and the flow is increasing,” said John W. Meyer, a Houston immigration lawyer hired by Hernandez to process his visa.

How to get a visa

Meyer and other attorneys held a seminar last month in The Woodlands to explain the process of obtaining a business or investor visa — and drew a crowd of 65 potential clients from Mexico.

Among the popular visas for these new arrivals is the L-1a, or inter-company transfer visa, used by businessmen whose firms have a U.S. presence.

There’s also the investor visa, which requires an applicant to invest $1 million in a new enterprise that creates 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers. The newcomers are also applying for the NAFTA TN visa — named after the North American Free Trade Agreement — which allows Mexicans and Canadians to work for U.S. companies in certain professions.

Most of these Mexican expatriates are business owners who can afford to commute to Mexico several days a week and can enroll their children in private schools and buy homes in Houston.

Many Mexicans who qualify for work or investor visas have settled in neighborhoods near the Galleria and The Woodlands, officials said.

“We’ve seen some of that increase over the last couple of years,” said Nick Wolda, president of the visitor’s bureau in The Woodlands. “For the Mexican audience, The Woodlands is a desirable location: the schools, the parks, the pathways. What we’re finding is people coming here are investing in businesses, or being transferred from companies.”

Rise in asylum claims

Meanwhile, many Mexicans in border towns wracked by violence are crossing international bridges and requesting asylum. “We have seen an increase in the number of asylum claims at our ports of entry, and this is one factor among a number that we are seeing as part of the situation along the border,” said Mike Friel, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In El Paso, asylum claims by Mexican citizens have increased from 12 in fiscal year 2005 to 80 last year, according to CBP records.

“We’re seeing complete families fleeing from our sister city Juarez. They are middle-class business people. ... Their loved ones are being kidnapped, and they are asking extremely high amounts of money,” said Elvia Garcia, outreach coordinator for the Paso Del Norte Civil Rights Project in El Paso.

Garcia said other nonprofit legal agencies in El Paso have been inundated with calls from hundreds of Juarez residents who have crossed the border on tourist visas and now want to seek asylum.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6300615.html

(03-09-2009 09:04 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Would Obama send the US Army over the border after the cartels? Special Operations could easily track down and neutralize the leaders.

There is historical precedent for this - Pancho Villa.

My family in Laredo stopped going across the river two years ago, unless it was required by business. Not all the kidnap victims are from wealthy families - many are what we would consider middle class.

(03-09-2009 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 09:04 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Would Obama send the US Army over the border after the cartels? Special Operations could easily track down and neutralize the leaders.

There is historical precedent for this - Pancho Villa.

My family in Laredo stopped going across the river two years ago, unless it was required by business. Not all the kidnap victims are from wealthy families - many are what we would consider middle class.

We can't do another Blackjack Pershing style intervention. That would be politically impossible.

I was thinking small groups of Special Operations forces go down there and pop the Kingpins. Remember it was a Delta Force sniper that shot Pablo Escobar.

As I've said before, ya'll are into dire predictions - so what do you think is going to happen to Mexico?

I honestly think the best thing the US could do (and will never, ever happen) would be to legalize drugs. The economic side of the argument is solid and we have precedent (prohibition and the mob in the US). Once it's legal, you can (1) tax it and (2) you eliminate the black market, since people can buy from legal sources. You also solve prison crowding, since the vast majority of inmates are on drug-related charges. You can stop spending billions of dollars per year on a war on drugs that isn't working and gets innocent people killed (the infamous no knock raids). Gang membership would drop, as their main source of income would also be eliminated. With no economic support from US buyers (a large portion of the mexican drug trade heads north of the border), the cartels would have to rely on their own populace. If Mexico did the same, they'd be SOL.

Now, the moral argument is always "are you seriously going to sell crack at walgreen's??" and I admit that on its face it sounds impossible (and as I said will never happen). But what would happen if this were the case?

First, I have to point out that all the major drugs that people abuse today were once legal and even a semi-accepted part of society (19th century snuff boxes, laudenum, opium pipes, etc). There are certainly plenty of great reasons NEVER to do these drugs and it is not my argument that we should encourage it. But it's interesting to note that as soon as each drug was made illegal, 1) an underground market was created that was completely unregulated and 2) all these drugs become more and more potent as suppliers needed to pack a lot into a little space, i.e., the dealers could "cut" the potent supply with something else. These vastly more potent drugs obviously have a much much higher risk to them, both in terms of overdose and addiction.

Now, if you legalize these drugs and allow them to be manufactured under regulation, you can reduce the potency (1) and also ensure at least some level of safety (i.e., not laced with rat poison). You can also now take the billions of dollars you save from the war on drugs AND not incarcerating drug offenders and put it towards addiction treatment centers, or even into developing the new vaccines which block certain receptors so you can't get high (personally I'd volunteer for such a thing).

Even if you saw a significant increase in casual drug use after legalization, you'd have the infrastructure (billions of dollars worth of treatment centers) to deal with it, and you'd have eliminated overcrowded prisons, gang violence, mexican drug cartels, and no-knock raids.

I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

(03-09-2009 02:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 09:04 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Would Obama send the US Army over the border after the cartels? Special Operations could easily track down and neutralize the leaders.

There is historical precedent for this - Pancho Villa.

My family in Laredo stopped going across the river two years ago, unless it was required by business. Not all the kidnap victims are from wealthy families - many are what we would consider middle class.

We can't do another Blackjack Pershing style intervention. That would be politically impossible.

I was thinking small groups of Special Operations forces go down there and pop the Kingpins. Remember it was a Delta Force sniper that shot Pablo Escobar.

Well, everyone grab hold of your nitroglycerin.

To a large extent, i agree with Emmiesix.

OK, now, back to reality. The US is not going to legalize drugs anytime soon, whether or not it makes sense.

So what do i think is going to happen to Mexico?

I foresee more violence, an increase in the prevalence of corruption, and possibly a civil war.

(03-11-2009 10:00 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I honestly think the best thing the US could do (and will never, ever happen) would be to legalize drugs. The economic side of the argument is solid and we have precedent (prohibition and the mob in the US). Once it's legal, you can (1) tax it and (2) you eliminate the black market, since people can buy from legal sources. You also solve prison crowding, since the vast majority of inmates are on drug-related charges. You can stop spending billions of dollars per year on a war on drugs that isn't working and gets innocent people killed (the infamous no knock raids). Gang membership would drop, as their main source of income would also be eliminated. With no economic support from US buyers (a large portion of the mexican drug trade heads north of the border), the cartels would have to rely on their own populace. If Mexico did the same, they'd be SOL.

I actually am okay with this to a degree... however... if it will never happen, then it really isn't a solution.

Yes, you'd eliminate the black market for drugs... but that market didn't really exist when the Mafia was at its peak... so i'm not convinced that something new wouldn't take its place. 50 years ago, NOBODY would climb a sheer cliff or jump off of a bridge with ropes tied to their ankles... now they do it at kids birthday parties. People will always seek the thrill of the illegal, no matter where you set the bar imo.

I'd also argue that MANY TIMES more innocents are killed in gang or drug wars than by no-knock raids... so while I share your distaste for police out of control... they are the effect... not the cause.

I'm no expert... and perhaps I'm being misled... but I'm not aware of many deaths associated with tainted drugs that weren't a planned attempt to murder someone. In fact, I've heard more frequently about ODs from people taking more than they "should" in order to get a better high. Nothing about legal drugs would stop that. People OD on OTC diet pills, much less prescription drugs.

I think if you legalized MJ, you'd cut out many of the same problems without greatly increasing the risk to the population. People say its an entry drug... and they may be right... but not everyone who tries MJ tries other things... and if we stopped worrying about a RELATIVELY harmless drug (at least as compared to alcohol) we could focus on the truly harmful ones.

(03-11-2009 10:00 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  As I've said before, ya'll are into dire predictions - so what do you think is going to happen to Mexico?

I honestly think the best thing the US could do (and will never, ever happen) would be to legalize drugs. The economic side of the argument is solid and we have precedent (prohibition and the mob in the US). Once it's legal, you can (1) tax it and (2) you eliminate the black market, since people can buy from legal sources. You also solve prison crowding, since the vast majority of inmates are on drug-related charges. You can stop spending billions of dollars per year on a war on drugs that isn't working and gets innocent people killed (the infamous no knock raids). Gang membership would drop, as their main source of income would also be eliminated. With no economic support from US buyers (a large portion of the mexican drug trade heads north of the border), the cartels would have to rely on their own populace. If Mexico did the same, they'd be SOL.

Now, the moral argument is always "are you seriously going to sell crack at walgreen's??" and I admit that on its face it sounds impossible (and as I said will never happen). But what would happen if this were the case?

First, I have to point out that all the major drugs that people abuse today were once legal and even a semi-accepted part of society (19th century snuff boxes, laudenum, opium pipes, etc). There are certainly plenty of great reasons NEVER to do these drugs and it is not my argument that we should encourage it. But it's interesting to note that as soon as each drug was made illegal, 1) an underground market was created that was completely unregulated and 2) all these drugs become more and more potent as suppliers needed to pack a lot into a little space, i.e., the dealers could "cut" the potent supply with something else. These vastly more potent drugs obviously have a much much higher risk to them, both in terms of overdose and addiction.

Now, if you legalize these drugs and allow them to be manufactured under regulation, you can reduce the potency (1) and also ensure at least some level of safety (i.e., not laced with rat poison). You can also now take the billions of dollars you save from the war on drugs AND not incarcerating drug offenders and put it towards addiction treatment centers, or even into developing the new vaccines which block certain receptors so you can't get high (personally I'd volunteer for such a thing).

Even if you saw a significant increase in casual drug use after legalization, you'd have the infrastructure (billions of dollars worth of treatment centers) to deal with it, and you'd have eliminated overcrowded prisons, gang violence, mexican drug cartels, and no-knock raids.

I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

Agree 100%.

(03-11-2009 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  OK, now, back to reality. The US is not going to legalize drugs anytime soon, whether or not it makes sense.

So what do i think is going to happen to Mexico?

I foresee more violence, an increase in the prevalence of corruption, and possibly a civil war.

I think the cartels will "get the message" and back off from the Border violence, because they know that if it spills over the Border on a large scale, the US will intervene. But the battles will continue--just out of the eye of the media. The usual bribes and corruption will ensure the drugs keep going north.

Meanwhile the Mexican elite will continue to come North. Everything is going to hell, so why should they stay? This will set up the PRD (the Mexican Leftist Politcal Party) to take the 2012 Presidential Election. They barely lost in 2006.

PRD has support from the cartels, as well as the Cubans, and Chavez. Chavez already sends them lots of money.

It isn't going to be pretty, IMO.

(03-11-2009 08:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 10:00 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  As I've said before, ya'll are into dire predictions - so what do you think is going to happen to Mexico?

I honestly think the best thing the US could do (and will never, ever happen) would be to legalize drugs. The economic side of the argument is solid and we have precedent (prohibition and the mob in the US). Once it's legal, you can (1) tax it and (2) you eliminate the black market, since people can buy from legal sources. You also solve prison crowding, since the vast majority of inmates are on drug-related charges. You can stop spending billions of dollars per year on a war on drugs that isn't working and gets innocent people killed (the infamous no knock raids). Gang membership would drop, as their main source of income would also be eliminated. With no economic support from US buyers (a large portion of the mexican drug trade heads north of the border), the cartels would have to rely on their own populace. If Mexico did the same, they'd be SOL.

Now, the moral argument is always "are you seriously going to sell crack at walgreen's??" and I admit that on its face it sounds impossible (and as I said will never happen). But what would happen if this were the case?

First, I have to point out that all the major drugs that people abuse today were once legal and even a semi-accepted part of society (19th century snuff boxes, laudenum, opium pipes, etc). There are certainly plenty of great reasons NEVER to do these drugs and it is not my argument that we should encourage it. But it's interesting to note that as soon as each drug was made illegal, 1) an underground market was created that was completely unregulated and 2) all these drugs become more and more potent as suppliers needed to pack a lot into a little space, i.e., the dealers could "cut" the potent supply with something else. These vastly more potent drugs obviously have a much much higher risk to them, both in terms of overdose and addiction.

Now, if you legalize these drugs and allow them to be manufactured under regulation, you can reduce the potency (1) and also ensure at least some level of safety (i.e., not laced with rat poison). You can also now take the billions of dollars you save from the war on drugs AND not incarcerating drug offenders and put it towards addiction treatment centers, or even into developing the new vaccines which block certain receptors so you can't get high (personally I'd volunteer for such a thing).

Even if you saw a significant increase in casual drug use after legalization, you'd have the infrastructure (billions of dollars worth of treatment centers) to deal with it, and you'd have eliminated overcrowded prisons, gang violence, mexican drug cartels, and no-knock raids.

I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

Agree 100%.

I agree 95%. My only exceptions would be that I would not regulate drugs, nor would I tax them (at least any more than other products).

Aside from having the effect of ending the civil unrest in Mexico and all the other benefits outlined by emmiesix, legalizing drugs would do wonders for the economy in California. It might even solve their state budget woes.

(03-11-2009 08:45 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I think the cartels will "get the message" and back off from the Border violence, because they know that if it spills over the Border on a large scale, the US will intervene.

I don't think the US would intervene in any significant way south of the border - just talk. The violence will continue until one side or the other is in firm control. Otherwise, i agree with your prognosis.

(03-11-2009 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 10:00 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I honestly think the best thing the US could do (and will never, ever happen) would be to legalize drugs. The economic side of the argument is solid and we have precedent (prohibition and the mob in the US). Once it's legal, you can (1) tax it and (2) you eliminate the black market, since people can buy from legal sources. You also solve prison crowding, since the vast majority of inmates are on drug-related charges. You can stop spending billions of dollars per year on a war on drugs that isn't working and gets innocent people killed (the infamous no knock raids). Gang membership would drop, as their main source of income would also be eliminated. With no economic support from US buyers (a large portion of the mexican drug trade heads north of the border), the cartels would have to rely on their own populace. If Mexico did the same, they'd be SOL.

I actually am okay with this to a degree... however... if it will never happen, then it really isn't a solution.

Yes, you'd eliminate the black market for drugs... but that market didn't really exist when the Mafia was at its peak... so i'm not convinced that something new wouldn't take its place. 50 years ago, NOBODY would climb a sheer cliff or jump off of a bridge with ropes tied to their ankles... now they do it at kids birthday parties. People will always seek the thrill of the illegal, no matter where you set the bar imo.

I'd also argue that MANY TIMES more innocents are killed in gang or drug wars than by no-knock raids... so while I share your distaste for police out of control... they are the effect... not the cause.

I'm no expert... and perhaps I'm being misled... but I'm not aware of many deaths associated with tainted drugs that weren't a planned attempt to murder someone. In fact, I've heard more frequently about ODs from people taking more than they "should" in order to get a better high. Nothing about legal drugs would stop that. People OD on OTC diet pills, much less prescription drugs.

I think if you legalized MJ, you'd cut out many of the same problems without greatly increasing the risk to the population. People say its an entry drug... and they may be right... but not everyone who tries MJ tries other things... and if we stopped worrying about a RELATIVELY harmless drug (at least as compared to alcohol) we could focus on the truly harmful ones.

MJ is an entry drug in large part because the same guy who sells you MJ also sells you coke, and he has a financial incentive to get you onto the more expensive stuff.

If MJ were legal and coke illegal, the same guy who sells you MJ wouldn't be the same guy who sells you coke. IMO at least, that would make it far less likely for MJ to be an entry drug.

(03-12-2009 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 08:45 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I think the cartels will "get the message" and back off from the Border violence, because they know that if it spills over the Border on a large scale, the US will intervene.

I don't think the US would intervene in any significant way south of the border - just talk. The violence will continue until one side or the other is in firm control. Otherwise, i agree with your prognosis.

Obama may send Guard to help stem border violence

WASHINGTON — President Obama weighed in Wednesday on the escalating drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying he was looking at possibly deploying National Guard troops to contain the violence, but ruling out any immediate military move.

“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers.

“I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind,” he said. “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”

Obama was cautious, however. “I’m not interested in militarizing the border,” he said.

The president praised Calderon, “who I believe is really working hard and taking some extraordinary risks under extraordinary pressure to deal with the drug cartels and the corresponding violence that’s erupted along the borders.”

Obama predicted new policy would be enacted soon.

“We expect to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts,” said Obama. “Our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months.”

This man does not know what in the hell he is doing. You wait 4 months, and no telling what will happen. As far as a "comprehensive approach" just take the existing contingency plans and go off that.

You need some demonstration of force and resolve North of the border. Move a National Guard Headquarters Unit to McAllen. He needs to assure the population and send the right signals. The status quo is unacceptable.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...06226.html

(03-12-2009 08:39 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  “We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers.

“I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind,” he said. “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”

Is that really what's happening? Or is that his threshold? At first, I thought he was implying that it was already happening, but as I'm writing this, I'm guessing it may be the latter. But it was a rather inartful way of putting it. I'm curious if the violence has spread over the border much. If it is, it certainly isn't getting major media play.

You can be sure of this. These Mexican deployments would not be happening if the US wasn't pushing for it diplomatically and at least tacitly supporting it.

I know there are some Americans who have been killed in the US by the cartels, but I'm not aware of any that weren't involved with the cartels (note to self, if I owe the cartels money, pay it).

In related news, Forbes released its list of billionaires: Sinaloa Cartel head El Chapo (not to be confused with El Guapo, who is wanted for questioning in connection with burning the village, raping the horses, riding off with the women, the pruning of hedges and general plundering) is on the list. He's apparently the only billionaire on the list who is wanted by the US. (FYI, Stanford is no longer on the list).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7938904.stm

(03-12-2009 08:39 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 08:45 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I think the cartels will "get the message" and back off from the Border violence, because they know that if it spills over the Border on a large scale, the US will intervene.

I don't think the US would intervene in any significant way south of the border - just talk. The violence will continue until one side or the other is in firm control. Otherwise, i agree with your prognosis.

Obama may send Guard to help stem border violence

WASHINGTON — President Obama weighed in Wednesday on the escalating drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying he was looking at possibly deploying National Guard troops to contain the violence, but ruling out any immediate military move.

“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers.

“I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind,” he said. “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”

Obama was cautious, however. “I’m not interested in militarizing the border,” he said.

The president praised Calderon, “who I believe is really working hard and taking some extraordinary risks under extraordinary pressure to deal with the drug cartels and the corresponding violence that’s erupted along the borders.”

Obama predicted new policy would be enacted soon.

“We expect to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts,” said Obama. “Our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months.”

This man does not know what in the hell he is doing. You wait 4 months, and no telling what will happen. As far as a "comprehensive approach" just take the existing contingency plans and go off that.

You need some demonstration of force and resolve North of the border. Move a National Guard Headquarters Unit to McAllen. He needs to assure the population and send the right signals. The status quo is unacceptable.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...06226.html

So far, just talk. I think before we see any troops sent anywhere, we will first have to gio through "aggresive diplomacy", wherein our president will warn the mexican president that this has to stop. If there are multiple incidents on Anerican soil involving innocent citizens, eventually a few troops will be stationed on the border, but not authorized to do anything. That's as far as it will go. JMHO.

(03-12-2009 10:16 AM)texd Wrote:  I know there are some Americans who have been killed in the US by the cartels, but I'm not aware of any that weren't involved with the cartels (note to self, if I owe the cartels money, pay it).

In related news, Forbes released its list of billionaires: Sinaloa Cartel head El Chapo (not to be confused with El Guapo, who is wanted for questioning in connection with burning the village, raping the horses, riding off with the women, the pruning of hedges and general plundering) is on the list. He's apparently the only billionaire on the list who is wanted by the US. (FYI, Stanford is no longer on the list).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7938904.stm

American citizens have been kidnapped, usually in Mexican border towns. Some have been killed, some ransomed, some still missing.

Yeah, the kidnappings and killings across the border are pretty well known. I was talking about killings in the States (in response to gsloth's question)

(03-12-2009 05:41 PM)texd Wrote:  Yeah, the kidnappings and killings across the border are pretty well known. I was talking about killings in the States (in response to gsloth's question)

Quote:Mexican officials say the violence killed 6,290 people last year — and more than 1,000 in the first eight weeks of 2009. Warring drug cartels are blamed for more than 560 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2007 and the first half of 2008, and killings in Atlanta, and Birmingham, Ala.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...07497.html

Yes 560. I confirmed the number. And while the victims are usually involved with drugs or illegal alien smuggling, still this puts US civilians in the crossfire.

(03-12-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 08:39 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 08:45 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I think the cartels will "get the message" and back off from the Border violence, because they know that if it spills over the Border on a large scale, the US will intervene.

I don't think the US would intervene in any significant way south of the border - just talk. The violence will continue until one side or the other is in firm control. Otherwise, i agree with your prognosis.

Obama may send Guard to help stem border violence

WASHINGTON — President Obama weighed in Wednesday on the escalating drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying he was looking at possibly deploying National Guard troops to contain the violence, but ruling out any immediate military move.

“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers.

“I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind,” he said. “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”

Obama was cautious, however. “I’m not interested in militarizing the border,” he said.

The president praised Calderon, “who I believe is really working hard and taking some extraordinary risks under extraordinary pressure to deal with the drug cartels and the corresponding violence that’s erupted along the borders.”

Obama predicted new policy would be enacted soon.

“We expect to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts,” said Obama. “Our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months.”

This man does not know what in the hell he is doing. You wait 4 months, and no telling what will happen. As far as a "comprehensive approach" just take the existing contingency plans and go off that.

You need some demonstration of force and resolve North of the border. Move a National Guard Headquarters Unit to McAllen. He needs to assure the population and send the right signals. The status quo is unacceptable.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...06226.html

So far, just talk. I think before we see any troops sent anywhere, we will first have to gio through "aggresive diplomacy", wherein our president will warn the mexican president that this has to stop. If there are multiple incidents on Anerican soil involving innocent citizens, eventually a few troops will be stationed on the border, but not authorized to do anything. That's as far as it will go. JMHO.

I think the Mexican President already has that message. He dispatched 3000+ Mexican Police to the northern border area. But still it goes on.

If Obama isn't going to send the National Guard, Gov. Perry CAN send the Texas National Guard to the Border. The Rules of Engagement would be very limited. Remember, next year is an election year and he needs all the help he can get to beat KBH.