Foreign Policy Goals

Somewhere I recall, perhaps fallaciously, reading Russia described as being "Mexico with nukes."

(All apologies to Mexico.)

The main point apparently was that if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, it's international significance would shrink accordingly to the purely regional powers, like Mexico.

As I observe what passes for foreign policy these days in Washington, I can't help but suspect that the over-arching strategic goal seems to be of reducing America's international significance to being something that could be summed up thusly:

Russia with precisions-guided munitions.

re: "Drug Cartels Have No Fear Of CBP"

The blogger-formerly-known-as-Federal-Agent-86 at Federale ("That Is The Sound Of Inevitability") examined a vulnerability in our border security.

Money quote(s):

"A top Mexican drug cartel leader was recently busted by the Port Isabel Police Department, a small town, population 5,000, agency on the Texas gulf coast near the party town of South Padre Island.

Rafael Vela, who is also the nephew of a former cartel leader, apparently entered the United States by the simple expedient of using someone else's passport."

That happens.

What should also happen is that if the passport holder has a current U.S. visa, there should be a biometric record (photographic and fingerprint) on electronic file from the time of their visa interview.

"CBP uses US VISIT, the biometric system for aliens who apply for visas, apply to enter the United States and who are arrested by DHS. Except that CBP, because of pressure from the Mexican government, illegal alien advocates, border merchants,Texas politicians, and drug cartels, does not use US VISIT at land Ports-of-Entry, e.g. land border entries. If US VISIT had been in use at the port where Vela entered, he would not have been arrested by an overworked small town police department, but by CBP itself. But CBP is not interested in doing its job of stopping drug dealers and terrorists, it is more interested in fostering cross-border commerce and enabling the Regime's Administrative Amnesty"

US VISIT works. But you have to actually be using it for it to work.

10/26

re: "Death By Cultural Misunderstanding"

MikeM at the former-Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") put the recent D.C. restaurant assassination plot by Iran into larger context.

Money quote(s):

"What we now know is that the Iranian used-car salesman from Texas who was apparently the prime broker in the plot was actually trying to arrange not only the murder by explosives of the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington DC restaurant, but attacks on American and Israeli embassies possible in simultaneous strikes. Not only was this used-car dealer traveling between Texas, Mexico and Iran, but was prepared to deliver $1.5 million dollars to the DEA informant posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel. It is not known with certainty, but it seems we may have intercepted this plot for no reason other than that the Iranians blundered—by pure chance—into one of our assets rather than the Mexican killers he sought. If so, this is truly one of the most remarkable cases of serendipity on record." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Let's just get it out in the open that CAA is very much against the use of explosives in Washington DC restaurants.

"In its 30-year history of attacking the West, the Quds Force went out of its way never to be caught with a smoking gun in hand. It always used well-vetted proxies, invariably Muslim believers devoted to Khomeini’s revolution. And when the operation was particularly sensitive, they gave the job to Lebanon’s militant Shi’ite Hizballah, organization the Iranians themselves had founded and which has an unsurpassed record in political murder. Hizballah has cells all over the world, including in the United States. But the point of it all was that if caught — and they were, more than once — Iran still enjoyed plausible deniability, a commodity in this business worth its weight in gold. So, if this plot was genuine, why didn’t the Iranians use tried and tested Hizballah networks and keep Iranian nationals, much less unknown Mexican narcos, out of it?" " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A couple of possibilities, just to throw them out there, occur to me. The first, obviously (given how the writer leads you by the hand) is the possibility that this plot was meant to be blown. Which would take you to the next question: why?

Another possibility is that the plot was being arranged by some other, less professional, player in the sandbox of Iranian assassination operations.

"(T)he Revolutionary Guards have somehow gone rogue and are conducting, dangerous, provocative operations on their own, outside of the knowledge and control of the Iranian leadership. Another possibility is that the democratic Iranian opposition is trying to frame the Mullacracy in an attempt to bring the United States into a direct conflict that might unseat the hardliners, allowing democracy to flourish."

The "democratic Iranian opposition"? Hmm, who could that be?

Seriously, the Iranian opposition most qualified (as in experienced) in covert operations isn't all that democratic a bunch.

And the actual Iranian democrats, stipulating that they survived their almost revolution a couple years ago, might very well be sufficiently un-versed in this sort of thing, in other words they might-could be just about this amateurish. It's an interesting thought to consider.

"I am endlessly fascinated to discover that most Americans seem unable to truly understand that the peoples of other nations are so utterly different than Americans, so actually alien in the truest sense of the word."

What did the guy in Full Metal Jacket say? Ah yes:

"because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out"

"Americans tend to think of religion only within the American framework of separation of church and state and tolerance for the faiths of others. Americans may think adherents of some faiths to be a bit odd--holy Mormon underwear, people going to church on Saturday, eating only fish on Fridays—but they are generally accepting of that, and the fact that Americans are free to change religions and churches as often as they change their socks. Many Americans take their faith seriously, but the idea of killing in its name is—alien, as alien as the idea of being ruled by ministers, mutilating the genitals of their wives and daughters, killing their wives and daughters for violating family honor, killing friends, even family members who leave the faith, or killing anyone not of the faith for that reason alone."

This is something the pre-Founding Fathers brought with them from Europe, the psychic baggage of the Thirty Year's War, where European Christians did most of these things themselves, to one another, decade after decade. With the result that our Founding Fathers and Framers deliberately established a political framework and a civic secular culture inoculated against it.

"In a very real way, we are dealing with medieval thinking, a mindset that sees the world in black and white terms. There are the strong and the weak, the elect and infidels. There is, above all, the Dar al-Islam—the realm or land under Islamic control—and the Dar al-Harb—the realm of war or chaos, the land of the infidels where Islam is not in control. In the Dar al-Islam, Sharia—Islamic law—reigns supreme. It is a medieval code of conduct and justice administered by Imams, essentially Islamic ministers, who have absolute power over life and death. In Islam, there are no individual freedoms, not separation of church and state. The church is the state and individuals live—or die—at its whim."

Okay, while I get what Mr. McDaniels is saying, I have to lay down a few observations and reservations.

First, the myth of monolithic Islam. Not that there isn't considerable common ground between the various threads of Islam, even those that quite often occupy themselves with trying to kill one another, when it comes to opposing, attacking, invading, defeating, or otherwise troubling the infidel West.

Islam is even less monolithic than Communism was, and for many of the same reasons.

This is not to downplay or dispute that the things Mr. McDaniels describes here; they're true enough in plenty enough places.

But, for instance, the "Imams" mentioned are a feature of Shi'a Islam, not one of the more numerous Sunni muslims.

"Winston Churchill observed that individual Muslims may have "splendid qualities," and indeed, most Muslims wish only to live in peace with their neighbors. However, it must be clearly understood that these Muslim are not, in fact, following the dictates of their faith. It is those who war against the Dar al-Harb who are being true to the letter and intent of their religion. And if there are only ten million such Muslims in the world—and there are surely that many—who are determined to follow the clear dictates of their faith to the letter, it's not hard to see the depth of our problem." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This cuts to the heart of the problem. Too much of their holy book reads like it could have come from Charles Manson, had he been born an arab. So it's part of their "operating system" and their "reality tunnel."

"In waging war, Americans generally abstain from striking the first blow, are incredibly cautious about harming non-combatants, even risking and losing American lives rather than accidently killing innocents. Americans even avoid unnecessarily destroying property. For Americans, there are specific laws regulating the conduct of soldiers. None of this is true for Muslims waging Jihad—holy war aimed at establishing a global Dar al-Islam. They kill indiscriminately, ignore the international laws of war, use innocents as human shields, and commit inhuman atrocities as common practice." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Sayin this is not precisely true takes understatement to the level of criminality.

There is a well-develeped and defined set of rules, laws if you will, governing the waging of war by and within Islam. It is not the same, has not the same basis, neither has it evolved with either the same considerations nor in the same directions as was we in our Western conceit have done with our "international laws of war." From a Western perspective, much of what it condones or even requires amounts to war crimes themselves.

"In the pursuit of Jihad, Islam encourages and allows Muslims to lie to infidels. However, it requires Muslims to give infidels a chance to convert to Islam. If they do not, they may be slaughtered at will. When Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens America and Israel and suggests conversion to Islam, he is not doing this because he has a sincere religious concern for the souls of Americans and Israelis, but because he is adhering to Islamic rules for war.

Americans make the mistake of hearing what they think is yet another preacher trying to convert them and think ignoring them will have no consequences just as it does in America. They fail to realize that when they don't immediately convert to Islam, the safeties have just been released on Muslim weapons." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This has considerable historical basis and is part of the Islamic laws of warfare. Infidels must first be allowed to submit peacefully to Islam; if they decline, then harsher measures may lawfully follow.

"Jihadists recognize no international laws, no "international norms," no treaties, no diplomatic protocols. There is only the struggle to conquer the world, and apart from the Islamic rules for waging war, they observe no restraints, even killing other Muslims, which the Koran forbids." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

See my above. Jihadists do recognize international laws and "norms."

They just don't happen to be the same ones recognized by the West.

"One of the most dangerous misconceptions Americans have is confusing the political realities of America with those of other nations, particularly Islamic nations. "We can't attack Iran," our State Department says. "It's only the leaders of Iran that are bad. The people love us. There are many factions. There are moderates. Why, the leaders of Iran may not even know what is being done in their name!" Idiocy.

Doubtless many Japanese in 1941 had no desire for war. Many Germans were likewise peaceful people, but nations are responsible for actions done in their name, using their resources--$1.5 million and more in this case--pursuing their stated national goals. All of these factors are clearly present in the thankfully foiled plot." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

It wasn't the first Iranian act which could constitute casus belli for the U.S., and it surely won't be the last.

The thing is, acts of war are in the eye of the beholder.

"Islamic nations, particularly rogue states like Iran—unquestionably the foremost terrorist nation on the planet—do not brook internal opposition. There is no democracy, no debate, no effective political opposition. Iron-fisted rule extends from the top down. And while it is true that millions of young Iranians think well of the United States and would welcome having the heel of the Islamic boot lifted from their collective necks, this is a tactical, not a strategic concern.

It is not as though we are contemplating turning all of Iran, or even its major populations centers, into a sheet of glowing, radioactive glass. Alone in the world we possess the military means to strike with amazing precision, severely limiting collateral damage. Our assets could, with a few days of overwhelming strikes, severely damage, even obliterate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and wage war."

&

"But Iran would be angry with us! Iran would strike out at us! Iran has been doing just that since 1979. Not only have its agents been caught on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have captured its munitions, specifically designed and manufactured to kill American soldiers. There is no doubt that Iran is arming and training our enemies, enemies that have killed Americans and the citizens of our allies. Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been actively pursuing that war on multiple fronts.

Yet, Iran has exercised some restraint. Its leaders understand that in a conventional military conflict with the United States, it wouldn't last a week. But they also understand that we are tied down in two conflicts. It works with China, North Korea, Syria, any nation opposed to America, to keep us occupied, to limit our ability and willingness to respond."

It is well to remember that Iranians, even "crazy" (by our standards) Iranian mullahs are Persians.

Persia is one of the oldest continuing civilizations in the world, certainly one of the oldest which was (and remains) the dominant culture within a multiethnic empire.

Islam is a major cultural overlay upon Persian culture, but it is only the top, latest layer.

Persians were civilized when most Westerners ancestors were, to put it plainly, not yet civilized. Politics, including international power politics, is something they were waging against not just the Romans, but the Greeks before them.

"Would Iran conduct an attack against Americans that would cause hundreds, even thousands of deaths? Of course it would. Iran has been killing hundreds, even thousands of Americans for years. But iran has never done anything so brazen before! You mean like seizing hundreds of American diplomats hostage and keeping them for more than a year? You mean like killing hundreds of Americans through proxies and by providing purpose-built weapons to them? But this hasn't been Iran's modus operandi—their method of operation—in the past!

Even if that were true—and it isn't--it is now." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Nothing about this plot crosses any bright new lines for Iran. Assassinations of diplomats? Check. Operating in the U.S.? Check.

So check your preconceptions.

"Americans must now be careful in interpreting the clear words and actions of one of our most deadly and determined enemies. They say: "we will kill you all," over and over again. If we don't take them at their clear words, if we don't understand their mindset, millions of Americans and Israelis could die of a cultural misunderstanding."

10/16

re: "How serious is the threat from Mexico?"

The Phibian at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values
supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural
diversity.") noted an assignment of significance.

Money quote(s):

"You can often judge the importance a nation sees things something in the world by who they send to keep an eye on it."

Mexico City got a new American defense attaché.

"Three time All-American wrestler, Navy SEAL, and married to an astronaut with whom he has had four children."

Interesting background. Wonder if someone in D.C.'s been reading their W.E.B. Griffin.

12/13

re: "A Death in Texas"

DiploMad at The DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") shed some light on the Leal execution and the issue of consular notification/access.

Money quote(s):

"Just reading that last night the State of Texas put to death "Mexican" national Humberto Leal Garcia for the 1994 rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl. This execution took place despite efforts by the White House, the Government of Mexico, the UN, the OAS, a host of NGOs, and others to halt the execution because Leal had not been notified at the time of his arrest that he had the right to consult the Mexican consulate. He reportedly died yelling, "Viva Mexico!"

I agree that the execution of Leal last night is an outrage. He should have been executed about fifteen years ago.

In the course of my career I have had to deal with stories such as the Leal case. Almost always they involve somebody here illegally who commits a heinous crime, and is not even particularly aware that he has the right to contact his consul. In many cases, the Leal case seems to be one, the criminal is not even aware that he is the national of another country, as he has been in the US for many, many years."

On the one hand, you have arrestees who are unaware of (or actively concealing) their (illegal) alien status from law enforcement officers.

On the other hand you have law enforcement officers who are actively investigating a rape/murder case and who (justifiably) might view an inquiry into a suspect's nationality and/or immigration status to be either/both an investigative dead-end or a waste of limited manpower.

"The access to the consul issue only arises late in the process when slick appeals attorneys, looking for anything to save a murdering scum client, discover the matter of the consular access. This is a bogus issue. Some Texas sheriff does not have the obligation to advise a detainee that he has the right to his nation's consul. That is something for which the detainee needs to ask: IF he asks, then the police have the obligation to pass along the request to the appropriate embassy or consulate. There is no evidence that Leal asked, and, of course, none that Texas law enforcement denied his request to see a Mexican official. Should the police notify the German, Irish, or Italian Embassy every time somebody with a German, Irish, or Italian name is arrested? Should they automatically assume that anybody arrested who "looks" Mexican is a Mexican? Anybody with a Jewish name should have the Israeli Embassy notified? Can you see the law suits over racial profiling? Lawyers would get rich (er)!"

In our border states, where the otherwise (deliberately) misleading "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!" slogan actually might have some validity, dialing up the local Mexican consulate every time someone who might have Mexican nationality is a non-starter. As industrious as the Mexican consular officials of my own acquaintance have been, there's a lot more Texas (and Arizona, and New Mexico, and California) cops than there are of them.

(7/8)

re: "Supreme Court Denies Stay for Mexican Convict In Texas"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") covered some consular notification news.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. Supreme Court tonight denied a stay of execution for that Mexican citizen who had been sitting on death row in Texas for 16 years. The court's vote was 5-4 (the usual suspects) and the majority opinion is full of strong statements"

SCOTUS, like consular officers, deals with the laws as they're written, not as they'd like them to be written. Except, of course, when they don't. But consular officers have considerably less, er, interpretive discretion.

"Nothing in the record shows that Leal ever asked for consular access, or even told the police that he was a Mexican citizen (he had lived in the U.S. - illegally - since he was two years old and represented himself as a U.S. citizen). And in any case, he made his incriminating admissions to the police before they arrested him, and therefore before they had any obligation to inform him of his right to consular assistance.

Even if Leal had had the benefit of Mexican consular access before his trial, that would not have changed the fact that he had incriminated himself, nor change any of the other evidence against him. The lack of consular access, then, was not relevant to his conviction and death sentence." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The facts as cited above make me wonder how/why this case ever made it to the SCOTUS. Who/what was pushing it upwards through the court system and to what end?

"The matter of reciprocity or Mexican retaliation against U.S. citizens is a real concern, but it is much less important than the interest Texas has in carrying out its state laws and punishing murder. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that when adherence to a treaty such as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is contrary to a state statute, the President cannot override the statute unilaterally, but legislation is required. And as the Supreme Court noted tonight, Congress has not provided that legislation. The Vienna Convention, therefore, has no bearing on the case of Humberto Leal, and Texas was completely free to execute him."

Federalism rears its ugly head. Again. Federal laws don't trump state laws unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. So Congress has such power, but must definitely and discretely exercise it in each instance of legislation.

Good to know.

As for reciprocity, the suggestion of official Mexican retaliation against U.S. citizens is a real concern, but pre-supposes that the Mexican government actually does, or will continue to in the future, have some control over events and activities within its borders.

re: "Betting the Farm"

Mark Steyn at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") described what an invasion and occupation looks like.

Money quote(s):

"First, you get some oddly determined visitors and attendant burglaries. Then, the intimidation gets ratcheted up. Your farmhands get beaten. The local authorities take down the details and do nothing. Then you or your wife and kids get beaten, or shot. You sell your land for a fraction of what you would have got a few years earlier. And, if you don’t, you get driven off it anyway. Or killed.

White Rhodesians were the planet’s favorite pariahs for a long time, so nobody cares what happens to them. But it’s strange to see the same scenario starting to play out in the Golden State – and in parts of Arizona, too. Where next? Texas? Border immigration on the scale of the south-west is not about people moving but about borders moving. Less enlightened regions of the world understand this as they understand the sun rising in the morning, but it all seems too complicated for Californian sophisticates." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

You've heard (or read) perhaps the La Raza slogan that goes something like "I didn't cross the border, the border crossed me."

When enough actual border crossers have entered the U.S., our effective borders will shift, as has already begun.

"It certainly seems a safe bet that these trends will not diminish over the course of the next decade in an ever more debt-ridden state ruled by kleptocrat commissars far from the sharp end of their policy consequences. When widespread impoverishment meets demographic transformation, you’re not going to want to be standing anywhere near"

re: "The Golden Days Are Over"

Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye looks at economic, immigration, and trade policies.

Money quote(s):

"I think that trade and immigration policies must conform to actual needs and realities rather than some ideological view. The reality is that we have millions of unemployed unskilled or semi-skilled people here in the U. S. already and wages for unskilled and semi-skilled workers have been stagnant or falling for decades, a sure sign of flagging demand. Our immigration policy wih respect to Mexico should reflect that reality; sadly, it does not."

The current (our second annual) "recovery summer" is driving this point home to the point where even Congress may catch on to what everyone who isn't Mexican (and petitioning for their under-educated and unskilled relatives) already knows: unlimited (which is the result of lax enforcement) immigration of under-skilled workers does nothing but pull the rug out from under our own (U.S. citizen) labor pool.

"China poses a unique challenge for American economic policy. I trace many of our economic woes to three events, all involving China: China’s 1979 abandoning of its official policy of autarky, China’s pegging of the yuan to the dollar in 1993, and the admission of China to the WTO in 2001. I think that these actions eroded manufacturing jobs in the U. S., increased our imports from China to the detriment of American-made goods, and drove money into housing construction with the results that we see around us today. Our trade policy with respect to China should reflect the unique challenges that China presents; it does not."

Not being an economist, I'm unable to discern the linkage between the three Chinese developments cited and increased U.S. housing construction. Anyone care to spell this out for me?

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") presents the downside of immigration reform attempts.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A little bit of remorse would go a long way in this regard, rather than ahistorical claims that they didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed them.

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") speaks frankly (as only he can) about illegal immigration and amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship. You know, we have plenty of overly-entitled, native-born people I would love to deport, so we don’t need more from out of country." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

re: "Congressman: Classify Mexican Drug Cartels As Terrorist Groups"

Niccolo Machiavelli at Big Peace reports on a serious suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his designation would allow the United States to limit cartels’ financial, property and travel interests, and to impose harsher punishment on anyone who provides material support to cartels."

This is not a step to be taken lightly. But it sharply highlights the limitations of our more conventional, "soft power" mechanisms, which don't seem to have improved matters much. Lots of consequences for diplomacy, for business, for travelers, for border states.

"Rep. McCaul, a former federal prosecutor, introduced the legislation on the eve of his hearing examining the United States’ role in the Mexico’s fight against the cartels.

Since 2006 the cartels have killed nearly 35,000 people in Mexico. Over the past year they have killed three individuals (including two U.S. citizens) connected to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, a gubernatorial candidate in the state of Tamaulipas, 12 sitting mayors and one U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent.

According to a press release issued by McCaul’s office, Mexican drug cartels “operate in the same manner as al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hezbollah, each sharing a desire and using similar tactics to gain political and economic influence. They actively affect political, judicial and law enforcement in Mexico. They employ the same tactics as other organizations designated as FTOs – kidnappings, political assassinations, attacks on civilian and military targets, taking over cities and even putting up checkpoints in order to control territory and institutions. Torture, beheadings, dismemberment and mutilation are common tactics that they use to intimidate civilians and government officials."

When all else fails, apply the "if it quacks like a duck" test.

re: "On Fungible Resource and Saying Goodbye to the Foreign Service"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") marks the departure of one of our own.

Follow the link to find out why.

_____

You should probably read this too.

AP - Mexico investigating US teen's death as homicide

From my archive of press clippings:

AP

Mexico investigating US teen's death as homicide

By MARK WALSH (AP) – 20 hours ago

MONTERREY, Mexico — The body of a Texas high school student reported missing by her mother has been found in Mexico and police are investigating her death as a homicide, authorities said Wednesday.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Elisabeth Mandala, 18, and two Mexican men were found dead Saturday in a crashed pickup truck near Mina, a town in the northeastern state of Nuevo Leon.

Autopsies revealed that all three died from severe blows to the head and body, according to a spokeswoman from the Nuevo Leon state Attorney General's Office.

Investigators believe the accident was staged, she said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with agency policy."

&

"The two men killed were taxi driver Luis Angel Estrella Mondragon, 44, and merchant Dante Ruiz Siller, 38. The spokeswoman said the two were friends from Cuauhtitlan, near Mexico City, but police did not know why they were in Monterrey with Mandala.

A representative of the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey reclaimed Mandala's body with authorization from her father, the spokeswoman said."

_____
Associated Press Writer Diana Heidgerd in Houston contributed to this report.

KIAH-TV - Fort Bend County Teen Found Dead in Mexico

From my archive of press clippings:

KIAH-TV

Fort Bend County Teen Found Dead in Mexico

KIAH Staff Report KIAH

7:46 PM CDT, May 4, 2010

A Fort Bend county teen was killed while traveling in Mexico. A Mexican newspaper said the body of 18-year-old Elisabeth Mandala was found with the bodies of two men inside a pickup truck on a highway in Mina, Nuevo Leon, a small town outside of Monterrey on Saturday morning.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

" It looked like a horrific crash, but after taking a closer look, Mexican authorities said the scene was staged and the teen and two men were beaten to death."

&

"Mandala's mother reported her daughter missing on May 1. According to HPD, Mandala's mother told them her daughter was possibly headed to Mexico with an unknown person and had mentioned wanting to be a coyote. She also told police she'd recently learned her daughter was an exotic dancer."

CN - Commentary: The Obama Administration should challenge Arizona's discriminatory law against Hispanics

From my archive of press clippings:

Caribbean Netnews.Com

Commentary: The Obama Administration should challenge Arizona's discriminatory law against Hispanics

Published on Saturday, May 1, 2010

By Wellington C Ramos


Recently, the Republican Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer signed a law that will give law enforcement authorities in the state of Arizona the authority to stop any person and ask them for their identification and, if they are suspected to be in the country illegally, be detained, apprehended and brought into custody then be deported back to their country. The Governor and her Republican Party in the United States have consistently opposed any federal legislation to reform immigration in the United States which has about twenty million illegal aliens living in this country for years, faith in limbo while pending their documentation.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"They claim that the reason for this law is because the federal government has failed in stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border between Mexico and the United States from coming into the United States."

Well, it doesn't seem to me that the problem Arizona faces is an influx of boat people, after all.

"This action on their part is in violation of Article-14 of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, which states that all American citizens should be treated equally despite their race, color, creed or religion.

This State Law could also be deemed in violation of the Supremacy Clause, which states that States can make no laws that are contrary to the laws passed by the US Congress."

And yet the Arizona immigration law only makes illegal under state law what is already illegal under federal law. Curious.

"I am appealing to the President to instruct his Attorney General William Holder to file a suit against the State of Arizona in the United States Supreme Court to challenge this law. Under the US Constitution, immigration is not a function of the states prescribed in Article-X for them to be engaged in but rather for the Federal Government."

The U.S. Constitution only has seven articles. Count them yourself. I did. There is a Section 10 in Art. I, which deals with the powers reserved to the states rather than Congress, but there's no mention of immigration.

The Tenth Amendment, on the other hand, seems to argue the other way than Prof. Ramos intends:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"In the US Constitution, the role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws of the land. In the past, the court has interpreted the laws unfavorably to the citizens of the country."

Prof. Ramos follows this statement with the example of Plessy v. Ferguson. Personally, I think he could have found a lot more recent examples, but they wouldn't have tended to buttress his argument.

&

"I have faith, trust and confidence in this President that he will act quickly to void this law."

Since this is a state law, not one which crosses his desk in the Oval Office and is thus subject to presidential veto, this will not be a simple thing for the president to accomplish by himself.

_____
Born in Dangriga Town, the cultural capital of Belize, Wellington Ramos has BAs in Political Science and History from Hunter College, NY, and an MA in Urban Studies from Long Island University. He is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science and History

HC - Investor visas for Mexicans shortened. Change to only one year comes as a big surprise.

From my archive of press clippings:

Houston Chronicle

Investor visas for Mexicans shortened

Change to only one year comes as a big surprise


By DAVID HENDRICKS

SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS

April 8, 2010, 9:41PM


See a list of U.S. visas' validity terms for Mexicans: www.travel.state.gov/visa


The State Department has quietly changed its policy on many of its visas for Mexicans, reducing the amount of time those visas are valid from the three to five years that had been common to one year.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The changes would apply mostly to visas for Mexicans who own, or want to own, businesses and houses here and who do not intend to immigrate."

"Mexicans in the United States on E-1 and E-2 visas, which require putting their investment money at risk in U.S. businesses, will have to prove each year that their businesses are viable, said immigration lawyer John Meyer, partner in the Houston-based FosterQuan firm that operates a San Antonio office.

The change applies both to Mexicans seeking to come to the U.S. and to Mexicans already in the U.S. and seeking visa renewals."

&

"The State Department said the policy was changed to conform to the reciprocity agreement it has with Mexico. For years, Mexico's work visas for U.S. citizens were good for one year.

When Mexico recently decided to raise its visa fees for U.S. citizens, the U.S. State Department decided to remove the multi-year option from the visas it gives to Mexicans, a spokesman said."



dhendricks@express-news.net

re: "Pissed!"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") was pissed. And so was I.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hile we value all American life, and indeed, all human life, we are talking about people who are in a place at the service of the Nation. It is the ultimate sacrifice of service, not an unfortunate tragedy befalling a tourist or a duel national. More Americans besides Victoria DeLong were killed in Haiti, but she died in the service of our country."

&

"What the hell is the New York Times thinking putting a picture of the two dead Americans online?!"

re: "FBI: Ciudad Juarez Attackers Might Have Been "Confused" "

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") continues to be dubious about motives and targeting.

Money quote(s):

"The FBI speculates the attackers might have been looking for two other white vehicles that were leaving another kid's party in Juarez that same Saturday afternoon. And, therefore, our employees weren't targeted due to their employment and this wasn't an attack on U.S. government interests.

That's an awfully big stretch of speculation that reaches a comforting conclusion."

"(W)hy wouldn't the narcos be willing to strike directly at U.S. interest targets, especially soft ones? Aren't the narcos facing an "existential threat" from the U.S.-supported Mexican federal government's narcotics control campaign, as is stated on page 14 of the State Department's 2010 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report that was released to Congress two weeks ago?"

"The Mexican drug cartels are fighting for their survival at this point."

&

"What would they have to lose?"

SDS - Mexico’s passport rule in effect tomorrow. Visitors staying less than 72 hours will be exempt.

From my archive of press clippings:

Sign on San Diego

Mexico’s passport rule in effect tomorrow

Visitors staying less than 72 hours will be exempt

By Sandra Dibble, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

Online: For more information about Mexico’s rules for people entering the country, go to uniontrib.com/passport

TIJUANA — A new Mexican federal regulation requiring U.S. and Canadian visitors to present passports when entering Mexico goes into effect tomorrow, but the majority of travelers to Baja California won’t be affected.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Exempt from the new rule are visitors to border regions who remain in the country for less than 72 hours, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute. In addition, cruise ship passengers who briefly disembark in Ensenada will not be required to present a passport."

"When announced earlier this month by Mexico’s federal government, the regulations stipulated that all U.S. and Canadian citizens entering Mexico by air, land and sea must carry passports. The measure was quickly modified to exempt border zones after protests by tourism officials and business groups in Baja California and other northern border states."

&

"Most U.S. citizens who cross into Mexico already carry passports because of U.S. travel regulations requiring the documents when they re-enter the United States."

TM - Mexican army remains silent after Nuevo Progreso attack

From my archive of press clippings:

The Monitor

Mexican army remains silent after Nuevo Progreso attack

December 08, 2009 7:50 AM

Jared Taylor and Sean Gaffney

The Monitor

NUEVO PROGRESO — Mexican authorities refused to release details Monday of the deadly weekend shooting that sent hundreds of American tourists scurrying for cover as at least two people were gunned down.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"No U.S. casualties have been reported in the Saturday afternoon gun battle that erupted at the end of a city-organized celebration to welcome Winter Texans back to this popular tourist spot. While two people were reportedly killed, it is unclear whether rumors of higher death tolls are unfounded or if any bystanders were harmed in the volley of gunfire.

U.S. authorities offered few details of their own, saying Mexican officials have not been forthcoming with them either."

"Mexican army reportedly battled with gunmen less than an hour after hundreds of Winter Texans — retirees from the U.S. and Canada who winter in the Rio Grande Valley — danced, ate, drank and gambled during the city’s annual “Welcome Back Winter Texans Fiesta.” Most lingered after the festivities ended about 1 p.m. that day."

&

"Law enforcement in the U.S. set up posts on the American side of the international bridge, which was shuttered to southbound traffic for several hours after the shooting. Streams of Winter Texans fled northbound back to the U.S. in the early evening after the chaos that gripped the city died down."

____
Monitor staff writer Martha L. Hernandez contributed to this report.
____
Sean Gaffney covers business and general assignments for The Monitor. Jared Taylor covers law enforcement and general assignments for The Monitor. You can reach them at (956) 683-4000.