Who is running the asylum? (And other thoughts on immigration reform)

The folks south of the border are in serious reality denial mode:

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.

Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.
...

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.

But we will offer further details.

1. Who gave Mexico the right to tell the United States how to secure and protect its borders? No one.

2. Mexico is not known for the quality of its lawyering, perhaps the sad consequence of never having had a legal system worthy of the name. Send your best, Senor Derbez, but don't expect much.

3. If migrants move to "more perilous areas" to attempt their unlawful infiltration of our country, it is their choice to accept the consequences of that decision. Perhaps, if we make it too difficult to sneak in, people will decide not to try. That would force Mexico to deal with its own problems of societal and economic injustice.

A country that does not care about enforcing its border will one day no longer be a country, or not the same country. Any country that tries to water down the border with its neighbor, that aids and abets the unlawful entry of its citizens into a neighbor, is not acting with friendly intentions.

Is this so difficult to understand?

We need to still our bleeding hearts long enough to let our brains absorb the probable end result of another decade or so of unrestricted immigration.

While it is a political question, the proper course of action should not be the one that garners the most votes, or ensures the election of a Democratic congress or the retention of a GOP congress. The proper course of action in this instance should and must be what is best for the citizens of the United States of America, the "we the people" referred to in the preamble of the Constitution.

Any office holder, including the president, who cannot see clear to first do his duty to country and posterity no longer has the moral right to decide even the least little decision. We the People should rise up at election time and vote for the honorable men and women who put their country's survival ahead of party and political games.

We've heard and read what the president had to say Monday night. We've heard and read a great deal of the commentary on his speech.

From our perspective, President Bush did not improve the long-term outlook with his proposals. They are not even half-a-loaf. It's the same old "open borders" (New World Order?) song-and-dance we've been getting from the "elites" who believe that nationhood and nationalities are passing away. He offered half-measures (temporary use of National Guard troops, but not on the border) that are only temporary, and little if anything new or constructive on how we are to get control of the borders.

We have tried to support Dubya at every reasonable opportunity. We have given him the benefit of the doubt on a few issues where we were not sure where his sentiments really were.

But on immigration he is wrong, and his wrong-way leadership will lead disastrous policies that in turn will lead to chaos and heartbreak, perhaps even hostilities between Mexico and the U.S.

This is worse than sad. It is stunningly myopic.

Pray for our nation.