Mexicans And Other Terrorists

Remember the Democratic web ad that included border-jumpin' Mes'kins in a montage of hreats to the safety of you and your family? Incredibly, some Hispanic groups took exception to it.

"This is the same kind of fear mongering we condemn in the extreme media and now we are seeing it at the DSCC," said Lisa Navarrete, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza. "It's appalling."

The list of complainers is actually pretty short; La Raza's a big deal, but the "Republican National Hispanic Assembly" probably doesn't need much of a push to get offended by Democrats.

Here's the funny part - the AP's Suzanne Gamboa actually pressed the aggreived parties on whether they can prove the border-jumpers in the ad are Hispanic, and writes that "the faces of the people climbing over the fence are not clearly visible." This is true, and someone could argue that the Democrats are making the "al Qaeda are crossing the Mexican border because trekking across a blazing desert is so much easier than overstaying a student visa" argument. Someone could argue that, if the ad didn't scream "millions more illegal immigrants." Someone can do a head count, but I don't think the Bush administration has let in millions of illegals from Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Comments

[Zinha]

Do Mexican politicians run fear-mongering ads featuring Guatemalans sneaking into Chiapas?

[W E White]

People at this magazine might want to try to take its name seriousuly. People don't always take the easy way do do things. They might not recognize its easier, they might have reason, right or wrong, to believe it isn't, they might, for instance think, right or wrong, that the easy way will be more closely guarded, better to take another one. Unforseen circumstances might affect things. Could a terrorist have no business in Mexico before he comes to America? Hell, someone might just feel like an outward bound adventure before the killing starts.
Aside from, you know, reason, there's another cause for not being so blithe about the possibility. Most people don't agree with you. They don't agree with you about immightation in general, but more disagree on this point. I disagree with you on this point, while sharing your basic view on immigration. I'm not going to vote Tancredo... but someone less convinvced of the merits of immigration, or just someone irritated by your cavalier attitude, might.

[SR]

"Aside from, you know, reason, there's another cause for not being so blithe about the possibility. Most people don't agree with you."

So magazines are supposed to base their content on what a majority of the public agrees with?

[highnumber]

Aside from, you know, reason, there's another cause for not being so blithe about the possibility. Most people don't agree with you.

All the more reason to blithely dismiss your concerns.

[SR]

"Aside from, you know, reason, there's another cause for not being so blithe about the possibility. Most people don't agree with you."

So magazines are supposed to base their content on what a majority of the public agrees with?

[highnumber]

W E White,

Go read some Mencken, even if just some aphorisms, then come back.

[StupendousMan]

"Democrats are making the "al Qaeda are crossing the Mexican border because trekking across a blazing desert is so much easier than overstaying a student visa" argument."

I'm guessing You don't know exactly how much scrutiny the student visa guys were under before they got the visas in the first place. I'm guessing You don't know how prevalent neutron detectors are around our ports. I'm guessing you're not a covert ops expert either. So are you saying this is a low probablity scenerio?

[StupendousMan]

The captial you(s) signify my inability to type well on a laptop

[John]

Stupendous Man,

Don't bother them with facts. In Reasonite land there is no such thing as national sovereignty and no country has any right to control its borders. If that means letting terrorists into kill us, well there are two responses; one, that would never happen because no terrorist would ever come accross the Southern border (why? well you just have to trust them on that) and two, even if the terrorists did come accross it is your libertarian duty to die for the concept of free and open borders. They already are expecting the poor and unskilled to give up their jobs for open borders. Who are you to complain about dying for open borders?

[SR]

"So are you saying this is a low probability scenario?"

I'm not the original author, but given that the number of terrorist attacks committed in the US by al-Qaeda operatives who infiltrated the country via the Mexican border is zero (whereas most of the 9/11 attackers entered the country legally under their real names), I'd say yes it is a low probability scenario.

[Jennifer]

Without the libertarians in his head to keep him company, John would be a very lonely man.

[76]

John, I thought you knew we corporaterians hated the poor and wanted them to be jobless and unfed, because we won't stop the free market dynamic that would allow better jobs and prosperity in Mexico while replacing our own jobs with different ones because we have a higher population of professionals or semi-pros and the illegals trekking across the desert would dry up and stop wasting BP resources and time so they could catch real crooks coming by.

[dan]

I live in Arizona and for the life of me, I cannot determine who has a Spanish surname by their physical appearence. So how in the heck can the folks at National Council of La Raza? Hispanic is a made up "race" lumping Puerto Rican Blacks, white Argentinans and white and Indian Mexicans together to empower race pimps. With out the fake hispanic racial catagory Mexican Americans would be a smaller group than blacks, PRs would be blacks and Spanards and Argentinans would be whites. Go figure.

[thoreau]

For anybody who thinks that we really need to get tough on illegal immigration, consider that serious enforcement would have severe implications for private property rights.