« Carnival of the Trackbacks LI | Main | Just how does a bathtub corner, anyway? »

Open doors, closed futures

OK, I am officially annoyed at the Bomb Squad. I had a lengthy piece worked up that touched upon the handing over of the management of six United States ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, and I see Starling has already done it for me. So instead of repeating Starling's excellent work, I'll simply send you there for the first part of this piece.

The second is also pre-written. Last week, I discussed the increase in violent incidents along the Mexican border, with smugglers (of drugs, people, and other forms of contraband) using military equipment, weapons, uniforms, and possibly even soldiers to aid their entry into the United States.

The common thread here is a simple one: who shall determine who and what enters the United States, and how seriously should we take that concern?

I say yes. There's an old saying (I think, originally, put forth by Pat Buchanan) that says something like "a nation that cannot secure its own borders will not long be a nation." It is the fundamental definition of what comprises a nation -- a defined geographic area where a government and laws hold sway -- that is being threatened here. No government has the right to abdicate this most basic responsibility. And that is what is being allowed to happen here, both in the six ports being bartered away and the sheer apathy over the open sieve that is our southern border -- is the surrender of the sovereignty of the United States, and all the rights, privileges, responsibilities, and freedoms that are part and parcel thereof.

The United States is a unique institution in the world's history. And I deeply resent the threat actions such as this pose to our continued existence.

Comments (12)

God help me when I find tha... (Below threshold)

God help me when I find that I agree with Pat Buchanan on something. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. The DoD and DoJ ought to stop this purchase today. Although I am an immigrant and sympathize with illegal immigrants trying to provide for their families, every nation has the right to control it's borders. Even the illegals would admit to that point, particularly regarding their own nations borders.

The border does have to be ... (Below threshold)
ryan anderson:

The border does have to be controlled. Illegal immigration has to be eliminated. The flow of people needs to be regulated, and the process of legal immigration needs some expediancy. The incentive to come here by illegal means HAS to be lessened. But people do not need to be denigrated in the process. There are some basic human right, I think, and we can't forget that in the process.

Americans who are all pissed off about this have to have some serious conversations with the other Americans who are a part of the problem.

Along with that, consumers might have to start paying attention to the businesses they support, instead of buying anything and everything with no regard for how it was produced (or who produced it).

Workers who do come here have to be treated fairly for multiple reasons. They need to be paid fair wages, and need to be protected under our labor laws. That makes things better for them, and also upholds the labor market for American workers, who are continually undercut by this process.

Pat Buchanan is an idiot, however, and I would hesitate to use him as a rational source on this matter. The guy is an outright racist who argues that the Latin American culture is a huge threat to our WASP American culture. He's paranoid. It scares me that people voted for that guy, ever. But I suppose he's speaking for his constituents.

I dont think that promulgating fear of immigrants gets us anywhere; it just obscures the problems that need to be dealt with.

Borders arent being enforced, and neither are laws. Why is that? Many Americans businesses (like growers in Florida) use illegal workers. Many Americans buy from such businesses--the process continues. It's easier to attack the immigrants and act like they're the source of the problem than it is to realize that the situation is more complex.

You can either address the results (the immigrants, border crime, etc.), or the causes (American business interests, consumers, the desire for cheap labor, etc.).

We probably need to be addressing both the causes and the results. That would make sense. But we definitely need to do something other than scapegoating immigrants.

If you're going to be getting all pissed off at immigrants, you sure as hell better not be buying the products of any companies that employ them. Either that, or you can realize that they are a part of our cultural and economic systems, and that we have to do something to legalize and regulate the flow of workers to eliminate illegal immigration.

Note to reactionaries: I do not support illegal immigration.

Jay:About the firs... (Below threshold)
ryan a:


About the first part of the article, in which you referred to what Starling wrote: Did you read it yourself? Because your argument doesnt really seem to mesh too well with what Starling wrote.

Your point is all about defending sovereignty and securing borders, and Starling wrote things like:

What both groups should recognize is that this hardly the time to be decreasing economic ties with any of the few friends we have in the region and putting at risk the prospect of further political and economic cooperation at time when it is most needed.

A major flaw in your argument, Jay, is the fact that the company was already owned by foreign interests before being sold to the UAE.

I have a feeling that you are more concerned with WHO is going to manage those ports, mainly because they are so-called "arabs." Am I right?

Well, go read what Starling wrote, the article that you called "excellent work," and see if that assuages your fears a little.

OK, I am officiall... (Below threshold)
OK, I am officially annoyed at the Bomb Squad.

Sure, you're annoyed, but did you have to go and break it? Right now I see nothing beyond the text of the first posting over there (not even the footer that allows you to comment on the posting).

Immigration should be lawfu... (Below threshold)

Immigration should be lawful. But people thus should not suffer. Process should be more precise. At people it is a lot of problems on the native land. Their desire to live well clearly. Sometimes such desire is very great. Being afraid of delays and charges, people break the law. Lawyers from apart

One thing the President of ... (Below threshold)

One thing the President of Mexico is right about is that Americans would rather be on welfare than do the hard, dirty work such as picking crops in Florida. Next time you eat think about that. We need more stringent time limits on welfare.

As for foreign ownership of companies that run ports, the problem is not foreign ownership per se, but which foreigners are the owners.

As to foreign "ownership... (Below threshold)
Art Hippler:

As to foreign "ownership" of ports, that may be a bit of a red herring. it's not so much an ownership issue as it is a management issue. American firms don't seem to want that business. There are as many safeguards over an UAE owned operation as a British one (the Brits were the previous owners). The Mexican border issue is a far more substantive one and is one we wought fo face more directly.
The best test is this. The Dems are against the port deal. That means there is nothing inherently dangerous about it. The Dems are for sieve like borders in the hope of gaining both legitimate and illegitimate votes from Mexicans out of it.
Nuff said?

WARNING, WILL ROBINSON!! BU... (Below threshold)


Q: "Who shall determine...?... (Below threshold)

Q: "Who shall determine...?"
A: "I say yes."

Say what? I think something got lost in the editing here.

Had our government the 'nad... (Below threshold)

Had our government the 'nads' to do what is needed, they'd put some special ops units at the most likely places, then capture or kill the invaders. Then they'd wait for the obligatory idiotic outcry from the Dems, the MSM, the Mexican Gubmint, and the UN.

Then, had our government the 'nads', mind you, the Prez would tell them all to, "Stuff it, you ignorant bastar**s! Nobody invades this Nation while I am the Prez. Don't like it? Tough!

The USA is gonna Cowboy Up from this day forward!"

But, that's only if the government had the 'nads'.

Ronald Reagan actually said... (Below threshold)

Ronald Reagan actually said that originally, not Pat Buchanan.

Stop all $$ aid to Mexico. ... (Below threshold)

Stop all $$ aid to Mexico. Give them 30 days to clean up their act and secure the border on their side. Then use whatever means necessary to stop the illegal inflo. On second thought, the US government has been bought and paid for by many multi-jurisdictional agents. Nevermind.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy