Napolitano: crime is declining along the border
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was speechifying in El Paso, TX across the border from Juarez, arguably the most violent city in North America. From the LA Times;
“Let’s stick with the facts,” Napolitano said. “We need to be up front and clear about what’s really happening along our borders.”
Even as the drug war has escalated just south of the border, crime rates in Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat, said Napolitano, citing the addition of personnel and technology in the region.
That is probably little comfort to the family of Nancy Davis who was murdered 70 miles from the US after helping to build churches in Mexico for 38 years. Her husband who survived the attack describes his wife’s death;
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
Is she experiencing “a willing suspension of disbelief?”
El Paso is experiencing a cold snap that may be forcing criminals indoors. So, if she took her facts from the past couple of days, she’s 100% accurate.
Napolitano said crime rates are flat in towns on the AZ side of the border. The unfortunate Ms. Davis was killed 70 miles south of the border. So I guess you are technically correct Jonn, that fact is probably little comfort to Ms. Davis’ family. But you’re making a spurious connection there in an attempt to take a cheap shot at Janet. You’re much more interesting when you’re writing about substantive issues instead of stretching the truth to make some kind of point. If you want to post a video, post it and let it stand on its own merits, but don’t go thru logical contortions to take a pretty lame cheap shot.
“[H]ave remained essentially flat.” Define “essentially” Joe. Have the stats from Texas, New Mexico, and California likewise remained “essentially” flat?
Director Napolitano’s divorce from truth happened long ago. She’s quibbeling, which is lying, by using mealy-mouthed words such as “essentially” and confining it to one state.
Then there’s credit she is taking for Arizona – while at the same time she is party to lawsuits and other actions against the state for doing what the Federales won’t do.
A cheap shot is calling her a coyote date.
Joe; I guess death threats against the chief of police of an Arizona town on the border with Mexico could be considered non-violent; right? How about the deputies killed in the mule corridor up to Tuscon? A rancher killed when he went to give water to illegals on his land, only to find out there were mule enforcers amongst the illegals that decided to kill him for his good samaritan effort? Sounds pretty mild to me. Of course, I will ignore the warning signs about possible violence that the government put up telling Americans to stay out of the area because of illegals and the drug mules up to 70 miles inside our border.
Since we live 13 miles north of the mexican border between McAllen and Brownsville I kind of know whats happening down here Joe. The business owners in Mexico along the border are moving their businesses north into Texas for more protection. I know of two local business people here in south Texas who have been kidnapped here and taken back into Mexico in the last 6 months and held for ransome. Some of our employees who have family in Mexico advised us not to go even a quarter mile into Mexico because of the violence along the border. Drug crimes and home invasions have exploded in the last few years. Needless to say most of us here are well armed and trained to use our weapons if need be. I no longer by ammo in case amounts, it is now in thousand counts. Joe I suggest you bone up on your facts and quit drinking the kool aid.
OK, now you’re talking about a very important, but different issue than someone being killed 70 miles inside of Mexico. That’s a subject for serious debate, so why cheapen it with the partisan lead in? Just start a post on that subject, instead of resorting to the cheap shot style of journalism. By the way, I’d LOVE to hear your solution to the problem Jonn.
#4 – DaveO A cheap shot is calling her a coyote date. Surely you meant to say “coyote ugly” sir? *cackle*
Hey Joe? Run on down to Ol Mehico….scope things out for us and file your report. While you are at it, re-define Big Sis’s “flat” theory. But don’t be squealing HELP. We can’t come to your rescue.
Joe, I have a solution. But you won’t like it. Instead of viewing this as a police matter, view it as a strictly insurgent fight. Law and order have clearly begun to break down. I would advise sending an SF Group (one of the NG ones 19th or 20th) to go down and advise. And then CLOSE the Border. Like a FOB with three layers of defense. Then get to the Hispanic population here and make sure they’re getting legal or getting the boot.
She just doesnt have s an inkling to what is h happening down there. The narco cartels have very strict policies on exporting violence across the border. A rise in trafficking related crime would trigger an overwhelming response on our part, effectively shutting down their ability to move their product through our ports off entry through which about seventy percent of their product moves. Even through the continuing violence, there has been a tacit agreement to keep the violence south of the n border. Violators of thispolicy are quickly and permanently disciplined.
Chocolate rations going up to 25 grams this week? Awesome!
“By the way, I’d LOVE to hear your solution to the problem Jonn.”
Joe, we should dust off the ‘ol 1916 Pancho Villa mission (the first real world mission performed by the National Guard, BTW) and deploy the National Guard in force, armed and with authority to capture border jumpers and SHOOT armed cartel scum who resist capture.
On another note, roughly a division’s worth of Mexican Army desert every year, often with weapons, guess how many of them join glee clubs like Los Zetas?
OK, agreed, we desperately need to secure the border. The body count down there is worse than Afghanistan. How many national Guard would it take to really secure it? Do we have enough men? Would they be allowed across the border in “hot pursuit”? Would legalizing drugs bring down the violence?
Joe,
The studies have already been done, but were tossed out as politically tainted. Numbers of Guardsmen under 1000 were discussed.
It’s not numbers, it’s capabilities.
Mounted and dismounted (take it easy Cav dudes, I know – Death Before Dismount).
Detainee care: sleeping, medical, food, storage for contraband (drugs, weapons), protecting them, and transporting them back to Mexico.
Legal, PAO, IO: the worst thing about going black is everyone on the Left thinks a coup d’etat is imminent.
Soldier care: sleeping, medical, food, storage, fuel – all that good ole sustainment and force protection stuff, including some nasty surprises for those cartels mortaring our side.
Then comes cost.
We’re cutting DOD’s budget, which I argue is a good thing, so resources will be tight and choices made.
There is also the cost of ‘whoops.’ Some kid, out plinking with his rifle, gets killed by a sniper. Some pregnant mother gives birth in the camp – she is deported, but junior citizen is sent to an orphanage. Old man has an incurable disease and dies in the camp. One of the Mexicans is from Tehran and holy crap is carring stuff sending the geiger counter off the charts.
How much political capital will our government expend to maintain the program long enough to ensure success? So far, we know neither the Democrats, nor their Country Club Republicans want our border secure.
So it’s not about numbers of people – it’s about how do we want to operate to ensure stopping most of the flow of traffic. This comes at a cost most taxpayers, and definitely politicos are unwilling to pay at this time.
Let’s hit this from a different angle, Joe. Give me one good reason why our government should secure or close the southern border more than it already is. (Beware, because this IS a trick question.)