Mutiny On The High Sí (Or Why Republicans Deserve To Lose)

The Anti-Wall Street Journal injects another performance enhancing anabolic editorial into its thigh in their Olympic quest for the record distance in borderjumping with an increasingly tepid (and self-defeating) racebait against those of us who support a physical barrier between us and the barrio:

But on Sept. 14 House Republicans passed a bill to construct a 700-mile, double-layered fence along the Mexican border while also approving a study on building a similar wall-like structure along the Canadian border. Price tag for the Mexican portion: $7 billion.

$7 Billion? That’s almost real money. Seeing as how illegals soak up an estimated $22 Billion or more in services every year, this one time cost would pay for itself...if it stops just one illegal.

Where else is this logic sound? The Drug War for one. Federal, local, and state officials spend upwards of $72 Billion a year to fight this unwinnable “war” but the Journal doesn’t deem that 10 times as expensive annual extravagance at the expense of our civil liberties as being worthy to rail against on their opinion page.

We are paying the government 10 times more a year to tap our phones, monitor our e-mails, confiscate our money and property (without a trial), no-knock raids on your neighbors, and building more prisons to criminalize millions of our own citizens and our Border Benedict Arnolds have the nerve to complain about $7 Billion to keep out illegals.

A “drug problem” that would not even be possible were it not for the same market forces that magnetically draw our Mexican interlopers to El Norte. You want to fight the drug war, well, illegal aliens are the footsoldiers buzzing in their own Berlin Airlift of coke, pills, and pot.

What we have here is panicked Republicans engaging in pre-election theatrics as they seek to remind voters that they’re tough on the illegal immigration problem they’ve done nothing to actually solve.
[…]
Steve King of Iowa suggested in front of the C-SPAN cameras that at the top of this new fence “we electrify this wire with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it.” Then he added: “We do this with livestock all the time.” Equating people with cattle: There’s an inclusive political message for you.

Who needs illegal aliens in agriculture when the Wall Street Journal has rebuffed it’s own maxim – Doing jobs Americans don’t want to do. When the WSJ still has enough Protestant Work Ethic left to send a correspondent out into the hinterlands of the editorial page and get his hands dirty setting up his own Strawman and knocking him down.

But they go on with their Screw the American Poor and Middle Class Manifesto:

Nor is a “sealed border” desirable, even if it could be achieved. More than nine of 10 of the three million net new jobs created from 2000-05 have been filled by immigrants, according to Census Bureau data. With many regions of the country now suffering from a shortage of workers, not even Pat Buchanan could argue with a straight face that immigrants are stealing jobs from Americans. The fence itself will probably have to be built by immigrants.

If 9 out of 10 of the three million new jobs created under Bush’s watch have been filled by illegal immigrants then Americans are being adversely affected by stagnated wages as a result of having to compete against workers who don’t have to have taxes, Medicare, FICA or health insurance taken out when they are hired. Not counting the billions in social services illegals soak up every year.

The Wall Street Journal has shown that it is more than willing to throw Southern and Western Republicans under the bus driven by a NAFTA-approved Mexican 18-wheeler. Several months ago, a concerted effort was made by their usual blogospheric cheerleaders to lambast supporters of legal immigration as racists based on some loose push polling. And the slur sounds so much better when it echoes. In other words, Harriet Miers all over again. It would seem that none have learned anything since then.

They are a month and a half away from having the favor returned on them. If you receive the WSJ by mail, write “No hablo inglés” on it and return it to the sender. They’ll either get the message or start subcontracting more illegals to write copy realizing the changing demographics of the marketplace. Being the smart guys that they are.

8 comments on “Mutiny On The High Sí (Or Why Republicans Deserve To Lose)

  1. Bravo! Finally someone other than myself (and I am a staunch conservative – not Republican) who is not afraid to tell it like it is. No wonder all of us at NoisyRoom.net love Six Meat Buffet. At least you have a brain and a spine – which seem to be in VERY short order in the US right now. Build a fence or wall and put the military on it and stop the invasion and conquest of America from Mexico. America is at war with it’s neighbor and it isn’t even news in the media…

  2. Pingback: NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Mutiny On The High Sí (Or Why Republicans Deserve To Lose)

  3. We’re going to be in a bigger one if Obrador is allowed to set up a shadow government against Calderon. It will turn into mayhem and we will have a little Chavezista ranting and raving in our backyard. Turning up the radio at night. Throwing cerveza bottles over the fence.

    You’ve got me all wrong Terresa! I’m here to kiss ass with the establishment like a good Bushbot. My hobbies include, submission, masochism and hewing the Republican party line if that’s not getting a little too repetitive. I love puppies…er, well, coyotes anyway. And long walks on the border by flashlight.

    And one day. Just maybe. Some of those checks from the bought and sold Reconquista Right will trickle down on me. Bump us all up in the Ecosystem. If they can trickle on everybody all at once, we might mistake it as a rising tide lifting all life rafts.

    Have James Taranto take me out for taquitos and Cuervo shots until I’m a born-again borderjumper.

  4. Couldn’t agree more on Chavez – someone needs to drop a bomb in his lap. Wouldn’t quit your day job waiting for those checks – you know that commercial where the mom and daughter scream at each other how much they love each other (when usually it is to fight instead)? Well, I still think you are the best – deal with it… No amount of tequila would make me a borderjumper (although it would be a close call as it is my favorite drink – but principles are principles dammit…) 😈

  5. I agree with the tenor of your commentary, Smatix, but this assertion confuses me: “this one time cost would pay for itself… if it stops just one illegal.”

    Surely the $7 billion wouldn’t be recouped by stopping “just one” illegal alien? If (let’s say) 10 million illegals are currently costing (let’s say) $30 billion per year, that means each one costs $3,000 annually, on average. So, if one crosses into the USA and stays for 100 years, he costs us $300,000. Using these figures, the $7-billion border fence would break even after stopping about 23,000 illegals.

    Othere than that, I agree with your sentiments.

  6. I’d left out a quote that would probably be a decent frame of reference from where I was coming from. This was originally going to be a post about the Bush administration’s using YouTube to get out the message of the ONDCP until I saw that WSJ yesterday morning.

    Spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Rafael Lemaitre said, “If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success.

    That should just be rhetoric, but in the ONDCP’s case – it’s not. They can flush money down the toilet all day long and it will never effect their budget at all. If use goes up, they need more money! If use goes down, the program’s working – we need more money!

    It wasn’t a literal comparison as much as a rhetorical one.

  7. Pingback: Traction Control » Blog Archive » Headline Summaries: Border Security

Comments are closed.