Borders

Greg Abbott Screwed Over Truck Drivers in a Misguided Attempt to Increase Border Security

The new inspection initiative duplicated screenings that were already being carried out, irking trade officials and truckers—even those who have supported Abbott up until this point.

|

UPDATE: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott repealed the enhanced inspection measure on Friday evening after signing a security agreement with the governor of the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. The original story follows:

Last week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced a series of measures intended to fortify his state's border with Mexico and target undocumented immigrants crossing into the United States. In addition to the more performative stunts Abbott is implementing, the Republican governor is directing the Texas Department of Public Safety "to conduct enhanced safety inspections of vehicles as they cross international ports of entry into Texas," citing drug smuggling and migrant trafficking.

Though seemingly one of the more commonsense components of Abbott's order, truckers, local business owners, and international commerce experts are raising concerns. The enhanced inspections, which bolster efforts already carried out by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), have brought traffic to a standstill in the name of stopping the illegal transportation of drugs and migrants. "We weren't taken into consideration," said Ernesto Gaytan, chair of the Texas Trucking Association (TXTA), telling Reuters that migrants rarely attempt to enter the U.S. on commercial trucks at ports of entry.

The TXTA has argued that the new stricter screening requirements are redundant. Trucks and cars already face "multiple layers of scrutiny at the border," meaning that increased vetting is yielding little security benefit. What it is yielding is severe congestion and long delays at ports of entry.

"Unfortunately, this new initiative duplicates existing screening efforts and leads to significant congestion, delaying the products Americans rely on from our largest trading partner, Mexico," reads a statement from the TXTA. Mexico's National Chamber of Freight Transport reported that its member companies were losing millions of dollars each day due to delays. The Texas International Produce Association implored Abbott to modify his policy, with CEO Dante Galeazzi writing that "U.S. trucking companies are losing money as they sit around for days with no loads to haul." Galeazzi reported hearing "that a trucking company is refusing to send trucks south of San Antonio out of concern there will be no cargo available." Perishable goods run the risk of spoiling during long waits in the Texas heat.

Far from being a localized issue, the delays imposed by Abbott's new inspection measures have also irked federal border officials, who warn about broader supply chain challenges. CBP described recent wait times "exceeding five hours and commercial traffic dropping by as much as 60 percent," noting that its officials already "comprehensively" inspect and clear vehicles to enter the U.S. "The strength of the American economy relies heavily on the efficient flow of cross-border commerce," said CBP.

Truckers have opted to voice their frustration with the excessive inspections in a variety of ways. The Tucson Sentinel reported that drivers have been traveling as far as 20 hours away to cross the border in Nogales, Arizona, rather than deal with long waits in Texas. As a result, wait times at the Nogales Mariposa Port of Entry had doubled as of Thursday. Mexican truck drivers blockaded the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge in protest, barring all southbound movements by U.S. drivers.

As of Thursday, Abbott had signed agreements with the governors of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila, relaxing the enhanced inspections taking place at their borders in exchange for the Mexican officials promising to do more to combat illegal immigration. Stringent inspections will continue at the border Texas shares with Tamaulipas.

Though congestion seems to be easing as a result of Abbott's agreements, the governor was still willing to risk gridlock and disruptions to trade to implement a meddlesome border-securing measure. These disruptions have left a sour taste in the mouths of trade officials and truckers—even those, like the TXTA, who have supported Abbott up until this point.

NEXT: Outer Range Adds Eerie Supernatural Twist to Modern Ranch Drama

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As of Thursday, Abbott had signed agreements with the governors of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila, relaxing the enhanced inspections taking place at their borders in exchange for the Mexican officials promising to do more to combat illegal immigration. Stringent inspections will continue at the border Texas shares with Tamaulipas.

    So it worked.

    1. "promising" is the core politician competency. Only fools believe them.

    2. That was certainly the understanding which I had at the end of the article, yes.

      1. And everyone is talking about it, which is the real point.

        I mentioned before, politics is theater. And national politics is Kabuki theater -- the art form where you have to make very grand gestures so even the people in the back of the room understand what emotion is being conveyed.

        Fiona doesn't care, though. She's just padding her porfolio as an ASU journalism major. Reason pays her to parrot this topic, she can just rehash the same idea over and again, and when she wants to work for a real publication she can say she has been published x number of times in a "magazine".

          1. I gotta send these people some money. Babylon Bee I mean.

            1. I quit my job and now. I make $120 an hour working from home doing these simple tasks online. Furthermore, I make $30,000 a month working 3 hours a day online. (as25) Furthermore, I advised you to try. You won't lose anything, try the following website and earn every day...
              .
              For more details:>>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/

    3. Perfect response Unicorn....I had a good laugh reading it this morning. 🙂

    4. Fiona only plays one note over and over

    5. It "worked" in the same way that Trump's tariffs on China resulted in a "Phase 1" trade deal (no "Phase 2" ever came about) wherein China promised to buy several billions' worth of American agricultural products, which it then declined to do.

      Trumpist politicians are easy to manipulate. They engage in unilateral foot-shooting in order to gain "leverage" over counterparties, who then see that the only thing they need to give up is an off-ramp for the Trumpist to claim "victory" and return to the status quo ante.

      An unenforceable promise to "do more" on illegal immigration is worth nothing, save for its ability to convince idiots that Abbott actually "won" something by punishing truckers and Texas businesses.

      1. It worked in that truckers, isolated from the centers of power and non-unionized for the most part, are left picking up the tab for a border crackdown.

  2. 1. Flood the country with illegal immigrants, most of whom will vote for Democrats.
    2. Drive down wages for native-born workers.
    3. Incentivize progressives to enact legislation forcing American citizens to pay a living wage.
    4. Act shocked when native-born workers vote for socialists.

    This is ridiculous. Deport anybody who comes into the country illegally. Or send them to Alex Nowrasteh's house. Either way works.

    1. The greatest threat to individual liberty is legislation banning illegal immigrants from staying in the U.S. Who cares about the fact that most of them vote for Big-Tech-friendly, mask-mandate-supporting Democrats? What matters most is cheap labor for multinational corporations who worship black transgender women!

      1. Is that you OBL?

    2. Democrats want to make it easier for immigrants to become citizens, thus alleviating all your concerns I'm sure.

      1. Nah. If they're citizens you gotta do withholding taxes and all that shit. Better if they fly under the radar. As long as they can vote (Democrat) it's all cool.

        1. Noncitizens can't vote. They can do menial labor for cheap though!

          Why anyone thinks Democrats benefit from this arrangement is beyond me.

          1. Non citizens can indeed vote in NYC and nationwide if the Democrats pass their voter fraud... I mean voter integrity act.

            1. Promise?

              If your team can't win elections, their job is to figure out how to appeal to a majority. Not to disenfranchise people by the millions.

              I believe anyone subject to a government's jurisdiction should be able to vote in its elections. But then I don't hate the most fundamental right of modern civilization like you do.

              1. Saddam Hussein was good at winning elections too.

                You creeps will share his fate.

                1. I love it. Sham elections exist, so we shouldn't have real elections either, and go straight to genocidal tyranny.

                  You don't even know why you want to murder half the country. You've never had it so good.

                  1. Do real elections includes means to stop fraud?

                  2. He doesn't want to murder half the country, Tony. He's not a woke Democrat.

                  3. More Tony being a reductionist, disingenuous, Marxist liar. What a surprise.

              2. Don't come into the country illegally if you want to vote, stupid.

      2. We’re not talking about immigrants. We’re talking about illegals.

      3. LOL. Yeah, I'm delighted to learn that Democrats want to grant citizenship to twenty million illegal immigrants.

      4. Democrats want to make it easier for immigrants to become citizens, thus alleviating all your concerns I'm sure.

        Democrats don't give a shit about immigrants. Democrats want to make it easier for poor, third world, illegal migrants to become citizens, because Democrats believe that that demographic will vote for them.

        1. I concur.

      5. Democrats want to make it easier for immigrants to become citizens, thus alleviating all your concerns I'm sure.

        By 'easier' you mean 'show up'.

        *wonders why wages are stagnant*

    3. Native born workers have a tendency of eating their own! Haven't you figured that out yet?

    4. Bigoted, slack-jawed, economically inadequate, afraid-of-competition, faux libertarian clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      Watching the modern liberal-libertarian stomp them and their stale, ugly thinking into cultural and political irrelevance has been a lifelong joy.

      Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, as always in modern, improving America.

      1. Hey, Dave. How much does Jennifer Rubin pay for head?

      2. Arty, the only reason you’re still breathing is because of understanding. It's understanding that's makes it possible for people like us to tolerate people like yourself. Keep in mind that tolerance is finite. So best you mind your betters (us) so you don’t end up getting Rittenhoused.

  3. ____________¶¶¶¶
    _______¶¶¶¶¶¶¶_¶¶
    __¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶______¶
    ¶¶¶¶¶___________¶¶
    _¶_______________¶
    __¶______________¶¶
    __¶¶______________¶
    ___¶_____¶¶¶¶¶¶____¶
    ____¶¶¶¶¶___¶__¶___¶
    ____¶___¶___¶__¶____¶
    ____¶_¶_¶¶___¶¶_____¶¶¶
    _____¶¶¶¶_ ¶¶¶______¶¶¶¶
    ______¶_¶¶________¶¶¶__¶
    _______¶¶______¶¶¶¶__¶¶¶¶¶¶
    _______¶¶ __¶¶¶¶¶¶¶__¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
    ________¶¶¶¶_____¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
    __________________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶__¶¶
    __________________¶¶¶¶¶_¶¶¶¶________¶
    __________________ ¶¶¶____¶______¶¶__¶
    ___________________¶¶¶___¶¶______¶__¶
    _____________________¶___¶¶_____¶¶_¶
    _____________________¶___¶¶____¶__¶
    ____________________¶¶___ ¶____¶__¶
    ___________________¶____¶_¶___¶__¶
    ___________________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶_¶_¶¶¶¶¶
    _____________________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
    _____________________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶
    ____________________¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶___¶¶¶¶¶

    1. Gotta' admit, this account is a close second to OBL for pithy, quality satire.

    2. I can’t help but feel a bit proud of this development.

  4. Nothing from Reason on the Twitter board of directors screwing over all their shareholders by blowing up the company with a "poison pill" rather than selling over-value to Musk?

    Really makes the "muh pRiVaTe cOmPaNy!" bullshit a lot harder to maintain...

    1. Or saving the company from a megalomaniac, depending on your perspective.

      1. Thankfully there’s a Saudi prince on the board to oppose this terrible person.

      2. Or ratcheting up the price to be realized by those shareholders.

        Some disaffected, downscale clingers don't seem to have enough business sense to run a lemonade stand.

        1. If Elon spent his energy and money only deploying clean energy tech, he could be known by history as one of the greatest men to ever live. Instead he's spending it on petty whims after popping ambien. O the glories of capitalism.

          1. "Clean energy tech"..no such thing buddy. Do you even have a basic understanding of physics or chemistry? Second law of thermodynamics. And freedom of speech is more important than some mythical need to reduce CO2 2ppm.

            1. There are plenty of energy production methods that don't require burning hydrocarbons. But apparently you think taking carbon that's buried in the earth and putting it in the atmosphere has no effect, so please do continue lecturing on laws of physics.

              1. Not really. There is nuclear energy, but you and your fellow travelers always sue to prevent that. This is because you’re retarded living contradictions, and it’s time to sweep you aside to save this country.

              2. There are plenty of energy production methods that don't require burning hydrocarbons.

                Actually, there is none. The only one that comes even close is nuclear.

          2. "If Elon spent his energy and money only deploying clean energy tech,"

            See, Elon only developed THE game changer for electric vehicles. But that is not enough. For Commies, it is never enough. Develop the perfect car, and the equality engine, it doesn't matter. The second you fail to support the orthodoxy, you haven't done enough. You should have done more. You should have bankrupted yourself on the altar of whatever convenient cause will justify vilifying you.

            The sad bit is that Tony doesn't think he is transparently obvious here in his nonsense.

            1. The problem, I think, is that you as a conservative are a natural follower, and the world doesn't make sense to you except in terms of strong, infallible leaders and purely evil enemies. I don't think Elon Musk is evil, I think he's stupid. I don't think he's done only bad things, I think he's simply too stupid to have as much power as he does.

              1. The problem, I think, is that you as a conservative are a natural follower,

                Says Tony, the guy who goose steps behind his fascist leaders.

              2. The problem, I think, is that you as a conservative are a natural follower, and the world doesn't make sense to you except in terms of strong, infallible leaders and purely evil enemies.

                *stares at this statement, blinking, trying to understand what would have made the person who typed it, type it, without any sense of self-awareness*

          3. Tony “I want my free speech, it fuck the rest of you people. I want someone to shut you up”.

            Fuckkn’ hypocrite.

        2. Yeah, people like you. You’re worthless, and have no skills. The ideal democrat.

          1. You [...] have no skills.

            That's not true. Nobody can gargle a Great Dane's balls while tongue bathing its asshole like Artie.

            Whether he's still worthless at that point depends on if you have a Great Dane, I suppose.

            1. Tony. Ugh t hire him. I wonder if he has enough welfare money to afford that?

              1. “Tony might hire him…”

      3. The boards responsibility is a fiduciary one dummy.

      4. Funny how you don't have a problem with the Saudi billionaire's large ownership stake.

      5. Parag Agrawal is still in charge, you fag. And he still doesn't know how indoor plumbing works.

    2. Anyone else getting Gamestop vibes from all the trillion dollar investment firms and big tech Private Companies scrambling to save Twitter from Elon Musk?

      1. I used to put money in Vanguard due to low fees on index funds. But now that they are actively going against a benefit to my funds by refusing a 25% increase to the 10% of Twitter stock they own i moved the money to a different index funds with the same fees but less politics.

      2. Look who they are...that explains it. NYC leftie bolshie types who get free money from the Fed and screw honest hard working real Americans. Gotta love they are partnering with Saudi and their bloody regime.

    3. My understanding is that it doesn't kick in until he has 15% of holdings. He needs to team up with a few others to work around it.

      1. I don't understand this, how can they stop someone from buying stock on the exchange, and how can they stop someone from selling?

        1. They can't. They create new stock to devalue the shares that are outstanding. If they double the amount of shares outstanding, the percent that he owns is cut in half. It can stop a hostile takeover, but it can wreck the company in the process and piss off all the other shareholders. I think it's a breach of fiduciary duty and should be illegal.

          It's kind of like how the government issuing new currency devalues the dollar.

          1. Oh. Ok. Wow. I read that, and was very confused, because I was sure that just devaluing current share value like that must be illegal. But, uh, I guess not? Seems weird that not disclosing that you bought a bunch of stock would be illegal but the board cutting the value of existing shares in half wouldn't be, but, well, that's out legal system. Worth everything somebody paid for it to them, I presume.

          2. It opens them up to lawsuits from other shareholders by devaluing their share value.

            I know this has been done in the past, but has a lawsuit ever been done when an offer higher than current stock price exists?

          3. I presume they're also capable of making the stock and "selling" it to themselves without it going on the market where Musk could just, y'know, buy that too?

            1. Their rule says created stock is ineligible to anyone woth a greater than 15% stake. Not sure how they can legally do that.

              1. Like... ever? It could somehow never be recombined later? That seems drastic.

          4. Someone doesn't understand private equity ownership on an open, but regulated market (also known as the stock market).

            The new shares created are offered to all existing shareholders at a discount priced to offer a slight monetary benefit to the buyer, at a slight cost to the company. The discount cuts off once a shareholder gains ownership of 15% of the company's stock.

            Elon currently own about 9% of all Twitter stock, so gets the discount just like everyone else until he exceeds 15%. The rest acts about like you say, as the other 85% of shareholders take the free money offered, diluting value of total shares but compensating everyone except those owning more than 15% of all shares.

            It's not uncommon, it's been adjudicated and found legal, it doesn't piss off most shareholders, and it can be argued that the elected Board of Directors would be in breach of fiduciary responsibilities if they allowed a hostile takeover by someone with little interest in the company's profitable existence.

            You should pay me for this you know.

            1. No I shouldn't. The fact that you think laws and rulings can't be overturned given new facts proves i shouldn't. Lol.

              Did you read that on Kos to become an expert?

              1. Not an expert. But deep expertise wasn't needed to observe that simple awareness of such basic, no-expert-needed facts was missing from this long, whinging comments string, which was making it mosquito-drone irritating.

                So, expert, please clarify for me what part of my short comment you interpreted as "...laws and rulings can't be overturned given new facts."

                That statement is best classified as an obvious profundity: common, non-specialized knowledge everyone involved already knows and, if relevant, already took into account. But you're compelled to blurt it out because you think it's some unique insight no one else knows, and somehow could not manage to grasp without your help. (I used to have a city council member with that habit. He lasted only one term.)

                Nearly everything I described was enabled/placed under regulation by laws and regulations and, given new facts, can be overturned by new, superseding laws and regulations. So? That's relevant only if you have new facts applying to this situation, that you believe will result in overturned laws and regulations in a time period such that it will affect this particular hostile takeover attempt.

                That would be useful, and the basis of a logical reply to my comment which, if you noticed, contained new (to this group), relevant (to the issue), verifiable facts. Useful is good. So, Got Facts?

            2. The rest acts about like you say, as the other 85% of shareholders take the free money offered, diluting value of total shares but compensating everyone except those owning more than 15% of all shares.

              Those other shareholders still have to part with cold, hard cash to buy the new shares at a discount, and Twitter ends up with a pile of cash that serves no business purpose and is malinvested. This diminishes the value of all shares, so all investors end up worse off.

              1. Moreover, as indicated, it only averts the hostile takeover if you squint really hard.

                As I'm sure Purple Martin, blurter of facts, will inform us, the poison pill always works out for the best and never lives up to its namesake. If they really thought Elon were trying to buy Twitter to run it into the ground, they're saving him the money and trouble. Even if it works, Twitter isn't going to come out any better or healthier than it is/was. It's certainly not going to be easier for Argawal to continue to do shit like making posting people's images without their permission profitable to the business or investors.

    4. The Swamp can't allow Elon (and the rest of us) to see just how much they control Twitter. The control of information is literally priceless to them.

      1. I think it is more about if the curtain is pulled back on what a money loser Twitter really is the stock will tank and then no one will want it. Seriously how do they make money...advertising where they have stiff competition from FB and Google and YouTube. If the percentage of zombie accounts became known I can see advertisers dropping them like a hot potato.

        1. This equates to the same thing if they are getting heavily subsidized by the US government.

        2. "I think it is more about if the curtain is pulled back on what a money loser Twitter really is the stock will tank and then no one will want it"

          If that were the case, they'd just sell to Musk.
          Then it's his problem, and they've made out like bandits.
          This is where people who have complete faith in modern companies being motivated primarily by the market, like Ken Schultz (RIP), are proven wrong.
          Twitter is just the tip of the ice berg.
          They maxed out their capitalization abilities, and the share price is just 18 cents higher than its IPO. Their sell point for shares was just recommended at $30. Must is offering almost double that.
          Twitter has no path toward significantly increasing profits/valuation.
          If the Powers that Twitter were acting according to theoretical market rules to maximize profitability, they'd jump at Musk's offer. But they're willing to destroy the company rather than sell to him, with nothing to gain apparently. This isn't a situation where they're gambling on holding out because they believe in the possibility of a bigger payoff down the road, they're risking the company's existence out of spite in a desperate attempt to maintain the low profit status quo.

          So if money isn't their motivation... what is, and who are the real decision makers?

          1. Except the accusation is that people don't care about Twitter to make money. They want to use Twitter to control the flow of information, effecting a monopoly on the American news cycle.

            Please consider how Trump is not allowed a Twitter account, but Khomeni is. Literal terrorists are allowed while Republican politicians are routinely blocked.

      2. If the democrats didn’t have control of the media and social media platforms they would lose almost every national contest, and many more state contests. This is why taking control from them must be accomplished through any means necessary.

    5. The consensus seems to be that Musk's offered, "first and final" price didn't capture the company's value, and it's not clear how Musk would intend to finance the purchase. Never mind whether it was an offer being made in good faith.

  5. "in the name of stopping the illegal transportation of drugs and migrants"

    Americans what their party drugs and cheap labor, I say let them eat cake!

    1. I say let them eat cake!

      What if they're gay illegals?

      1. Then they can eat coke!

  6. Were there any issues with trucks with US made goods crossing into Mexico? Or yeah..there aren't a whole lot of those. As long as the DC elites can play the deficit spending game by monetizing the debt, we will continue to be deindustrialized.

    On Ms. Fiona and her one trick poney..sorry but nation states need borders to ensure the flood of folks who will vote for anyone who gives them "stuff" don't destroy our liberal values which in the end is more important than "democracy"

    I'm all for legal immigration but not an invasion. Look at the vast numbers of Eastern European/Russian socialists/bolsheviks we allowed in from 1880 to 1920..they pretty much started the authoritarianism which over time has led to "wokism" in the media, academia, govt, and wall street/big tech. Now we get post colonials who have daddy issues with some European country who took over their lands hundreds of years ago and can't want to extract revenge against Americans and our Bill of Rights (like the CEO of TWitter). Anyone here illegally needs to be deported. All for expanded work visas but not this.

    1. Yes. Mexico has tariffs on goods from the US under the trade agreement.

  7. And yet, he was successful.

    1. "UPDATE: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott repealed the enhanced inspection measure on Friday evening after signing a security agreement with the governor of the Mexican state of Tamaulipas."

      1. Pretty fuckin' effective "performance" then.

  8. Meanwhile, the news stations who were reporting on how this was going to increase the price of strawberries, completely ignored how the Biden Administration completely fucked over our domestic growers in Florida.

  9. Yeah because the federal government isn't doing its job of defending us from an invasion.

    1. ^THIS EXACTLY +100000000000

    2. Yes, there is little scarier than the thought of an invasion by poor, half-starved brown skinned people who speak Spanish.

      1. And that’s all that are coming. I swear.

      2. It is when they’re pouring in at the rate they currently are, and when there are already tens of millions of them already here. Funny how you have end,EV’s sympathy for them yet nothing but hatred towards our military personnel.

        You really are filth.

      3. Yes, there is little scarier than the thought of an invasion by poor, half-starved brown skinned people who speak Spanish.

        Given that each of those people imposes tens of thousands of dollars in costs on US tax payers, yes, that is quite scary.

        The US should welcome immigrants who speak English, understand US culture, and have skills that allow them to make an above-average income.

        1. "The US should welcome immigrants who speak English, understand US culture, and have skills that allow them to make an above-average income."

          Welcome to the real world. You've obviously got a lot to learn about it.

          1. I understand the real world just fine: America is turning into a shithole due to Democrats and stupid, snarky people like you. I've seen it before.

            I'm simply pointing out what the US should do.

      4. I see plenty of fatties in line.

  10. it was a tactic to gain leverage over the mexican governors. and guess what? it worked. basically abbot is doing brandon's job because he is too senile and demented to do it.

  11. Interesting to see that the truckers blockade moved to the southern border. Guess the lessons learned from the Candian truckers blockades did not go unnoticed.

  12. Was it misguided though? Seems like more thorough inspections would actually achieve the goal of improving border security. It's just that the cause in stalled commerce was too high.

  13. Why is everyone complaining about the redundancy of these requirements? Government is known, and by now expected, to add superfluous levels of redundancy and duplication of efforts.

    1. "Why is everyone complaining about the redundancy of these requirements? "

      Don't they needless cost truckers in productivity and money? Isn't that reason enough?

  14. As of Thursday, Abbott had signed agreements with the governors of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila, relaxing the enhanced inspections taking place at their borders in exchange for the Mexican officials promising to do more to combat illegal immigration. Stringent inspections will continue at the border Texas shares with Tamaulipas.

    What would that look like? No longer standing, pressed against the wall while immigrants from central and south America pass through their territory as they head for the U.S. of A?

  15. Where's The Cavalry?
    In many a movie set in the Old West, settlers under siege shouted with joy at the sight of the United States Cavalry arriving to save them.

    “Here comes the Cavalry. Hooray!”

    Where is the U. S. Cavalry today? Clearly, not defending Americans from the siege emanating through our southern border as millions of illegal aliens, few of whom are Euro-Caucasians, invade these United States with the blessing and aid of our federal government.

    Meanwhile, our feckless State-based governments that oppose this massive, unopposed invasion seek help from the same people who are engineering it — the federal government. Only to politicians would doing so make sense. After much delay, Texas alone is taking some non-violent measures at great cost to American industry to slow the invasion. Too little. Too late. So, now what to do?

    vigilance committee n.: a volunteer committee of citizens organized to suppress and punish crime summarily as when law appears inadequate. -Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

    Is invading by the millions this country a crime, armed or unarmed? Yes.

    Is the law not only proving inadequate countering with this crime but actually aiding and abetting it? Yes.

    So, where are the vigilantes? Like the Cavalry, nowhere to be found.

    https://www.nationonfire.com/vigilantes/ .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.