Thursday, February 05, 2009

That's Entertainment!

Like gay marriage, Bill Ayers, and the public library system, illegal immigration is a deadly threat to our democratic republic. Not only is it turning the land of Our Forefathers into a cesspool of rape-crazed lepers and bilingual chlorine labels, but there's also a very real chance that Islamofascist terrorists will decide to pay coyotes a few thousand dollars for the privilege of being forced to cross the Sonora Desert on foot, instead of striding confidently through US Customs like Mohammed Atta and his friends.

That was the pressing concern last year, anyway. This year, it's obvious that the declining market for dirt-cheap foreign workers is leading to the total collapse of Mexico itself, since that unhappy country is financed almost entirely by the money that dribbles in from underpaid maids and gardeners and lettuce pickers in the USA. Like every other conceivable development in US/Mexico relations, this means that hordes of bloodthirsty Mexicans will soon be coming to murder us in our beds. Which is why we need a border fence more than ever.

This is no time for penny-pinching, friends. At an average of $3.9 million per mile, the fence is a bargain on a par with Mexican labor. How many workers will it prevent from slashing costs for agribusiness and hotel chains? And how many terrorists will be forced to fly Air Canada, instead of staggering through a desert full of drunken Minutemen, violent gangs, and rattlesnakes?

Plenty. You have my word on that.

Which is why it's so frustrating that residents of the Rio Grande Valley are posing an obstacle to its progress.

Opponents of the fence have petitioned the Obama administration to halt construction. Environmentalists are demanding a top-level review of the route, which they say would block such rare species as the ocelot from critical habitat. Property owners are contesting federal seizure of their land. Engineers are struggling to address flooding concerns.
Well, what would you prefer: A bit of flooding now and then, or some wild-eyed bandito hacking at your throat with a machete, like a Posada woodcut come to life? And what would you rather have: Fewer ocelots, or more meth-addled narcoterrorists?

If you can't answer these simple questions correctly, why should your opinion matter to anyone? Think about it.

Even if you're fool enough to believe that the fence is a bad idea, or an unworkable one, there's the all-important matter of national pride. Right now, as we speak, the evildoers are refusing to take our fence seriously:
The smugglers build ramps to drive over fencing, dig tunnels under it, or use blow torches to slice through. They cut down metal posts used as vehicle barriers and replace them with dummy posts, made from cardboard.
As I've said many times, the solution to this problem is not to embrace La Reconquista, but to protect the fence with another, bigger fence that will be made inaccessible by a fenced-off restricted area patrolled by drones and monitored by the best surveillance gadgetry money can buy. If necessary, we can add a moat filled with Candiru.

And let's not have any talk of reducing our redundant population of border patrol agents.
As part of a new effort to justify its seemingly ubiquitous presence in remote areas like Ft. Hancock, the Border Patrol is increasingly asserting that it is protecting border communities against criminal aliens....And as the number of border crossers drop, the Border Patrol is increasingly patrolling areas far from the border but still within the 100-mile band north and south of the Mexican and Canadian borders.
That involves plenty of driving, of course:
[T]here are currently three vehicles for every two agents, and one vehicle for each supervisor. One of the reasons that the Border Patrol needs so many vehicles, explained Officer Cordero, is that even if agents aren’t driving they have the engines idling while they are on watch, which, he noted, is really hard on the Border Patrol’s vehicle fleet.
It's pretty hard on the atmosphere and the taxpayers, too. But would you rather have fewer idling cars and less harassment of legal residents, or more anti-white bloodbaths like the ones that would almost certainly be occurring weekly if these vehicles weren't idling on some desert byway, day in and day out?

Besides, money shouldn't be an issue when we can put on edifying spectacles like this forced march through Phoenix:
Sheriff Arpaio closed down the city streets so that everyone could witness their public humiliation as they walked in chain gangs from a "hard" jail to the infamous Tent City, where they will be forced to endure unsafe conditions including summer months with temperatures of upwards of 120 degrees.
If advertisers can underwrite the Joe Arpaio show, why shouldn't they chip in for his enforcement efforts, too, from salaries to weapons to detention tents? (Food for prisoners is already covered, I'm happy to say.)

Better yet, why shouldn't we let each network have its own border patrol, and let honest competition for market share keep our borders safer, our detention camps for children slightly less brutal, and our public humiliation of the poor more entertaining?

Hell, we could even teach these predatory foreign monsters to dance.

Some might argue that all this could have a degrading effect on the body politic, but I'm convinced that, to quote Camara Laye, we will "take pleasure in it only to the extent that it satisfies our sense of justice."

(Photo via La Frontera.)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Best post ever!