And the U.S. border states will be caught in the middle, a war zone.

I do agree the borders HAVE to be tightened and enforced. Whether that will cause the flood of refuges that Mark describes is debatable.

A powder keg just waitin' for a spark...

Still want to be a desert rat?

You bet your boots, Bob. I figure the Mexicans will want urban life, not the wildlands of the desert...

Well, no one wanted to build a condo on Omaha Beach either.

Ha. Good point.

I agree with Cowtown Pattie. I don't believe that militarizing the border would create a flood of refugees. Judging by Mark's post, Mexicans are used to poverty and hardship. Once they realize that they're not going to be able to cross, they'll accept their lot.

Mark's proposal of foreign handouts on a national level wouldn't work. It hasn't worked with certain ethnic groups already in America, even when they have full and even preferential access to all of this country's benefits.

I believe a large part of the immigration problem is caused by our own elected officials (in both parties). They seem to have a globalist vision for America and, naturally, sealing our borders is counterproductive to that end.

Deb's right. Trouble is definitely on its way.

Mark's historical analysis was almost, but not quite, thorough ... one glaring exemption from his list of Mexican leaders was Juarez ...

In fact, with all his talk of Mexico's home-grown corruption and failure of government, he ignores altogether the time when European armies landed in Mexico and began carving out chunks of the country to settle economic debts and realize imperial aspirations ...

That being said, I still found his post to be a good read, and his ideas worth considering. And his views of how things are done there corresponded with what I've experienced during mission trips to Mexico's border states, and on longer trips into the country's heartland.

Once they realize that they're not going to be able to cross, they'll accept their lot.

Two wild cards to consider, though: the hardened criminals (drug smugglers and Mexican fugitives) and families/friends on THIS side of the border who want to get their folks across.

Mark's proposal of foreign handouts on a national level wouldn't work.

I agree. The only possible hope would be to couple it with a serious threat regarding the consequences of not addressing the issues, and we as a nation aren't prepared to make or follow through on such threats. (I'm not advocating that we should...just making an observation.)

I believe a large part of the immigration problem is caused by our own elected officials (in both parties).

Yep.

In fact, with all his talk of Mexico's home-grown corruption and failure of government, he ignores altogether the time when European armies landed in Mexico...

Yeah, although in the cosmic scope of things, these root causes don't help us solve the problem.

Having spent very little time in Mexico, I was fascinated by Mark's candid description of a "culture of corruption," which runs so counter to my way of thinking as to make it seem like something from another planet. I believe that many Americans (starting with me) are completely naive about such things, and not just with respect to Mexico.

The possibility (likelihood?) of importing that culture and infecting our own is one of the most frightening aspects of the illegal immigration problem.

Eric,

Of course, we have our own homegrown brand of corruption in government, but the Mexican version is one taco shy an anarchy plate.

What about the Islamic question Mark proposes? Do you think a Mexican catholic would convert to Islam? I guess that answer depends on how empty your kids' stomachs are.

I do blame a lot of Mexico's ills on the Catholic church. Talk about abuse of power...

Eric, my point wasn't meant to address anything on the cosmic scope. Rather, I was pointing out that, in presenting the historical context for his recommendations, Mark offered his readers a very detailed timeline that illustrated the futility of Mexico solving its own problems ... but that timeline neglected a (I think) significant exception to his rule.

CP, I failed to address Mark's observation about Islam taking a foothold in Mexico. I think that deserves a separate post.

Jeff, I understand what you mean. I don't know why Mark failed to include that piece of history, other than it didn't support his premise...which is never helps one's credibility, although it may not hurt it either, in this case. It might have actually served as a good example of "the exception proving the rule." Thanks for filling in the gap.